Subject: BLIGHT BY LAW (from a writer with a blighted mind)
Date: 2/28/2005 2:23:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
This article is late to the argument being made (we made this two years
ago), but also misses the point. (it's also mostly about Hudson Yards,
which is arguably a moot point).
It's not the zoning, but the threat of re-zoning, since 1993 (when Cuomo
first proposed a stadium), that has frozen development on the WS. People
will invest in low-density neighborhoods if given a REASONABLE market and
CERTAINTY, which is why we have so many service-related businesses there
now. What has prevailed on the WS is UNCERTAINTY. No one will build or
enter into long-term leases not knowing the future of the area's zoning.
Hence, many properties are frozen.
While the article argues the WS and other locations are badly zoned, this
writer (as she so often is and given the Manhattan Institute pedigree) is
misinformed. Most zoning exists from the 1961 Zoning Resolution (which in
turn came from the 1916 efforts) and reflected for the most part existing
uses. While the WS had more industrial uses in 1961 than it does today, it
still does have many industrial properties (Fedex and parking lots fall
into this category and despite those who inherit Christine Latengano
disease, they do serve an important purpose in the health of the city).
What she describes as a renaissance of development is more accurately seen
as neighborhood destabilization and displacement of existing residents and
businesses.
====================================
BLIGHT BY LAW
NY Post
By JULIA VITULLO-MARTIN
February 28, 2005 -- ONE important fact has been overlooked in all the
brouhaha over the West Side stadium: The area is now a wasteland because
the city government has long mandated that it be so and we don't need a
stadium to change that. And Manhattan's far West Side is far from the only
part of town to suffer from government-mandated blight.
New Yorkers tend to think of the city as an exceptionally dense place,
where every parcel of land is developed to its highest and best use, with
no property left over for new houses or apartment buildings. In fact, New
York is full of vacant land, including highly desirable property on the
waterfront.
The problem: This land is zoned improperly or held off the market
altogether by government entities like the Port Authority or the city's
Department of Sanitation. That's the main reason why, even when New York as
a whole is booming, most of our waterfront is derelict or grossly underused.
The Bloomberg administration, which has paid more attention to the
waterfront than any administration in memory, believes the Jets stadium it
wishes to build over the MTA rail yards is the best way of reviving
Manhattan's West Side. But the sprawling rail yards are a blight because
the city's zoning restricts the property to low-scale manufacturing an
economic use that doesn't actually exist in New York.
If New Yorkers learn nothing else from this mess they should learn this:
City government withholds or confers value on property through its zoning.
The city's basic zoning measure is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) the total
floor area that will be allowed on a lot, divided by the lot size. The MTA
property is zoned to an extremely low FAR of 2, which allows a building of
20,000 square feet of floor area on a zoning lot of 10,000 square feet. The
Jets plan calls for an extraordinarily high FAR of 12.
To put these figures in perspective: The main boulevards of the West Side,
like 86th Street and Broadway, are basically zoned to a FAR of 10, which
allows for towers and high density.
No developer is going to bid for property with a FAR of 2 because it has
no value. The value of the MTA property lies entirely in the presumption
that the city will rezone it. If the city refuses which it can indeed do
the property will have no development value. (The state could also step
in via its Empire State Development Corp. and rezone the property over the
city's objection though it says it would not do that.)
You can see the problem faced by MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow. As a
developer, he knows all about market value but which market value should
he be demanding for his agency? Market value at a FAR of 2 or a FAR of 12?
But here's the more important part: It's not just the Hudson Yards.
Look around. Any time you see a swath of derelict property near a good
neighborhood (which these days is most of New York), you can pretty well
figure that nine times of 10 it's badly zoned.
Every borough has a neighborhood held down by zoning: Red Hook in Brooklyn;
Sherman Creek in Northern Manhattan; Dutch Kills in Long Island City,
Queens; the North Shore of Staten Island; most of the Bronx waterfront.
Worse, often the mis-zoning goes hand-in-hand with government use thus
Brooklyn's waterfront is simultaneously held down by its manufacturing
zoning and by the dominant ownership of the Port Authority, which simply
stockpiles property and lets it languish.
After all, government agencies don't pay carrying costs and aren't
constrained by any lack of income, so they can persist in the mis-use of
property that should be highly valued. This is why government can
cavalierly make location decisions without regard to market value.
Take the Bloomberg administration's decision to site a huge waste-transfer
station on the Hudson River at 59th Street. If it were valuing this
property correctly, it wouldn't dream of putting a garbage dump on prime
property, up river from the cruise ship piers it intends to renovate and
smack dab in the middle of the West Side renaissance.
Nor would the Port Authority maintain the dilapidated Pier 40, which it
uses for parking, just north of Battery Park City. No one would call
parking a proper waterfront use.
In other words, government land-use policy often promotes twin evils:
First, holding down the value of property by maintaining the wrong zoning
and second, siting undesirable government uses in or adjacent to those same
wrongly zoned properties, holding values down further.
The Bloomberg administration knows this, and has proposed the most
extensive rezoning since the disastrous Wagner administration rezoning of
1961, which extended manufacturing zoning inland from the waterfront.
But for every neighborhood that City Hall proposes to rezone, an adjacent
neighborhood stalls. The city is rightly rezoning the waterfront North of
the Brooklyn Bridge. But it's also leaving neighborhoods like Red Hook,
below the bridge, trapped by industrial zoning.
The dead hand of industrial zoning prevents residential development,
despite historically high demand, and forces would-be developers into the
city's convoluted, expensive and time-consuming appeals process through the
Board of Standards and Appeals. Even properties that are successfully
appealed like the residential conversion of an old warehouse at 160 Imlay
Street on the Red Hook waterfront can then be halted by litigation.
Last week's Olympics Committee visitors surely asked themselves: How can
New York's waterfront be such a mess? Our Olympic competitors, London and
Paris, have gorgeous waterfronts. But theirs aren't held down by our
peculiar combination of non-residential zoning and egregious government uses.
Julia Vitullo-Martin is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
NATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY
Click here: National Do Not Call Registry
https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx
National Do Not Call Registry
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THENATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY
-->The National Do Not Call Registry gives you a choice about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home. Most telemarketers should not call your number once it has been on the registry for 31 days. If they do, you can file a complaint at this Website. You can register your home or mobile phone for free. Your registration will be effective for five years.
Attention sellers and telemarketers: Go to https://telemarketing.donotcall.gov/ to subscribe to the National Do Not Call Registry.If you are an exempt organization, and you wish to scrub your call lists, you may subscribe, but are not required to do so.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Affordability: Walter South
Affordability
Walter South
The Problem:
The New York Times[1] reported on April 15, 2004 that apartments in Manhattan had risen to an average price of $998,905 in the first quarter of the year. The report by Douglas Elliman said that the median price for the period was $625,000.
In Manhattan in 1998 household median income for all households according to Housing in New York City 1999, Report Summary[2] was $40,000.
Normal rule of thumb in real estate is that a buyer can afford a house at 2.5 times their annual income. An income of $40,000 means a buyer can afford a unit which costs $100,000.
It would seem that this would indicate that there's an affordability gap between income and housing prices, particularly in Manhattan.
The New York Times[3] reported in August 2002 that according to the National Association of Realtors the median price nationally for a single-family home had risen to $163,000. A month later the New York Times reported that nationally the median household income had fallen in 2001 to $42, 228.[4]
Therefore, to purchase the median priced house of $163,000, the purchaser would need an income of $65,440. This is of course an income well above national median.
The poverty rate in this country in 2001 ran between 16.5% in central cities, and 14.2% outside of the metropolitan areas.[5] In general poverty rates run around 15%. If only 15% of the population lives in poverty and the vast majority of the population cannot afford median-priced housing, why do we define the national housing problem as a low income housing problem? The national housing problem is actually the need for the vast majority to find affordable housing.
Actually the problem is not quite so simple. If looked at carefully it becomes apparent that it is not just a problem of cost.
The New York Times[6] on April 12, 2004, reported that Angela Dean, a Labor Investigator for New York State Department of Labor, arose at 3:30 in the morning. She had to make a 5:15 bus for her job in the City. Her commute was at least three hours (in good traffic) from her home in Mount Pocono in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The Times reported that 17,000 other workers were making the trip daily with her. She is among 44,000 people who have bought $150,000 single-family homes in the Poconos. Incidentally the Times estimated that while most builders in the home-building industry make between $7,500 and $15,000 profit on a $150,000 home, some Pocono builders were making as much as $62,000 on each sale.
In addition to her mortgage payments which would run about $14,400 a year (or $1,200 a month), Mrs. Dean and other Pocono home owners would have real estate taxes of about $3,000 a year, heating expenses of about $3,600 a year, and homeownership association fees of $500 a year. These expenses would total $21,500 a year, or almost $1,800 monthly. This is before the added expenses of their bus commute and car.
Assuming that anyone paying 35% of their annual income for housing is paying more than they can afford, this would indicate that the minimum income needed for these housing expenses would be $60,000 a year. The Times did not indicate what Mrs. Dean’s income was but she seemed to be at least near to the limit. Many of her neighbors had the same problem.
In the last decade foreclosure proceedings have been brought in Monroe County against 5,700 homes, or more than one in five of all mortgaged homes in the county.[7]
The Affordability Problem is also a problem of accessibility. Affordability without accessibility is not a solution.
Perhaps there's a third factor which is implicit in the problem of affordability, in addition to cost and accessibility.
The New York Times[8] reported on November 17, 2002 that Richard and Christine Antoneck had just bought a house in Fort Salonga (western Suffolk County) at a bargain price of $799,000. This was a bargain because the seller had been asking $819,000. Property taxes on house were $10,000 yearly (or $834 a month). Mortgage payments would be between $ 57,000 and $60,000 yearly. In addition, the article said the house needed work. To these amounts would have to be added utilities, heating and other suburban surcharges for amenities. There would have to be two cars, fertilizer, weed killer, snow blower, and yard service, plants from the garden center, hot tub, out door grill, and firewood for the fireplaces. Total expenses could easily be $80,000. This would require a minimum income of $235,000. Mrs. Antoneck is a school teacher in Floral Park. Obviously she could cover the $35,000 part but her husband would still need to earn at least $200,000.
It's easy to blame rising housing prices on the lack of affordability. But it is a harder to appreciate that suburban living also has higher hidden costs associated with lower density and excessive consumption. Lower density means higher taxes to pay for schools, fire, utilities, roads, and police departments. It also means higher up keep on the house itself, and higher transportation cost, and more furnishings and appliances. Housing prices are only a part of the real housing expenses in our increasingly suburban life. The hidden costs of urban sprawl must be factored into real housing costs, and these are cost borne by the general public not the owner.
In conclusion the affordability problem is a cost problem, an accessibility problem, and an excessive consumption problem.
The Housing Experts Ponderous:
Affordability problem isn’t a new problem for Housers. It has been addressed extensively. For example David Schwartz in A New Housing Policy for America[9] stated that even in 1987 (17 years ago) the percentage of families able to buy houses had fallen
every year of the past decade in every region.
He attributed the affordability problem to the lack of a federal housing policy, and to unprecedented curtailments in federal funding. Schwartz offers a number of suggestions to deal with a problem of affordability. He proposes various programs such as programs for special target groups i.e.: young families, seniors, low and moderate income families, and single parent households. He sets forth several ideas such as tax reforms, down payment assistance programs, interest subsidy programs, rehab financing, state bond programs, trust funds, taxation changes, reduced regulatory actions, employer housing assistance, reverse mortgages, and tax recapture programs.
What Schwartz wants is better grease. He wants to help by a providing more subsidies and hence less friction. He wants to keep the machinery in the existing factory working better. Schwartz wants to better facilitate what some believe is our national housing policy. Schwartz fails to understand that in reality our actual but unstated national housing policy is, a decent home for every decent American. Schwartz basically wants to expand the definition of the word decent.
An another example is David Varady, Wolfgang Preiser, and Francis Russell in New Directions in Urban Public Housing.[10] They call for better design, mixed income housing, greater opportunities in suburban housing, mainstreaming, and ending over regulations. Some of these ideas may be good but they do not address the basic issues. They want better oil for the present system rather than better grease.
Gwendolyn Wright in Building the Dream, A Social History of Housing in America[11] has a better perspective on the problem. She feels that the current housing programs and the problem of affordability will not be solved by new financing schemes, or by new prototypes.
These programs are of course necessary, but with the high cost of land, the high cost of financing, the waste of energy, the stigma of low income housing, the desire for profits, and piecemeal action in particular by government, these programs are not going to solve the housing problems in this country. Wright feels basically that where Americans live and how Americans live need to be redefined.
Fundamentally the real changes in housing's future will involve new ways to buy and sell, and new uses for the housing that already exists. Tomorrow's changes in urban housing will be in renovation and recycling. Wright looks for changes in the social and political structure. Wright sees the need for structural change.
The Parameters of a Solution:
How then could an affordable housing program work? A workable affordable program should include the following elements:
(1) It would have to be a mainstream program.
It would require a program directed towards the median income households. As Peter Marcuse[12] has suggested as long as the housing problem is viewed as something affecting the bottom 15%, or even the bottom 33% percent of our society, the majority of our society is not going to be interested in solving the problem. Only by mainstreaming housing and only by addressing the housing problems of a majority of Americans will the problem be dealt with decisively. Any program that fails to serve a broad spectrum of the public will face elimination on either ideological or economic grounds.
This would indicate that the target for any program needs to be the median. A by-product of the program could address the needs of other income levels but only to the extent of their proportions in general in society. Since the poverty rate in this country generally runs around 15% any mainstream housing program should only address the low income housing problem in about the same percentage
(2) A workable program would basically have to be non-governmental program.
If one is to accept the myth of the benevolent state and/or the myth of the meddling state then a workable program could function only outside of direct government control.[13] Most of the programs which are advocated by Housers call for government programs. But, when one looks at the history of these programs the essence of the beast is apparent. Most of these programs require either government contractual oversight or annual funding from various sources of the government. Each year these programs and their funding are chipped away. This has been the case with Public Housing, Mitchell-Lama, Section 221d3, and Section 8. Even England's Local Authority programs have been reduced by privatization schemes.[14]
(3) The program should be an ownership program not a rental program.
Cities are only as strong as their neighborhoods. Ownership creates a commitment, and it provides stability, and it makes for stronger community. People take pride and responsibility in their homes as owners. Owners often become more active in their community because they have more at stake. Nationally around 68.1% of homes are owner occupied.[15] In upper Manhattan only 11% of the units are owner occupied.[16] Home ownership needs to be increased in our urban areas.
(4) The program should emphasizes urban and multifamily living.
Individual family, single home ownership certainly has its place in our society, and certainly there are some people who would opt only for this form of ownership. But, the byproducts of fee simple ownership have adversely affected our society. Sprawl, excessive energy consumption, wasteful consumerism, auto dependency, and environmental expense, and are additional costs which society pays. Most of these costs are not borne by the individual fee simple owner.
Multifamily units are less expensive to build, operate, and maintain. Multifamily buildings can help increase density, can provide better amenities and can deliver social services more economically.
(5) The program should bring about a structural shift in economics and politics
A successful program cannot merely adjust or accept the status quo. Most of the Housers today suggest programs that enable the present system to work but with heavier grease. The majority of these programs call for front end subsidies, such as lower down payments, or interest subsidies, or other gifts from the state such as no resale limits. But basically what these experts suggest is that every player gets profit and or appreciation and then they can opt out. Most of these schemes are basically state socialism for the current players. Even Rent Control rewards the players more than the needy. Nothing really changes in the system.
A Partial Solution:
(A)The basic instrument of a workable program would be a Land Trust.
The purpose of the Trust would be to acquire land and to bank sites. Trusts would operate on a regional basis not on a city, county or state basis, and would operate as a 501c3 non-profit corporation. Land Trusts are currently being used in several cities in this country. For example Boston, Jersey City, San Francisco, Miami, and Maryland all have Land Trusts. The Land Trust would be funded in a similar fashion as the National Highway Trust Fund.
Many of the past and current housing programs have permitted site ownership to reside in the private sector. For example Mitchell-Lama, Section 236, and Section 8 have all squandered their resources by losing site control. Once the initial funding for many of these programs expires, the program permits the sponsors to opt out. The exception has been Public Housing. But Public Housing made two basic mistakes. One, they built housing for the tenant of last resort, and two, many of their sites were junk sites from the beginning.
The purposes of the Land Trust are to develop a land bank, to remove appreciated land values from housing costs, and in the future, if prudent, to capture land appreciation. By removing the value of land from the equation of affordability, the Land Trust could create a structural shift in housing.
If organized as a 501c3 non-profit corporation and operating in the private sector, site acquisitions could be tax free or tax-deductible. The Trust could acquire any site. The Trust could buy sites on the open market, or could receive sites from governmental sources, or even from estates or as gifts.
At the beginning the Trust would have to rely on gifts or grants for operational costs and for land acquisition, but as it matured it would seek a dedicated source of funding, probably from a minimum tax on real estate profits. For example, Pike County, Pennsylvania (ironically the County next to Monroe in the Pocono’s) has Act 137 which collects a tax every time a deed or mortgage is recorded.[17] These funds go for senior, or low, or moderate income housing. The argument could be made that all profits from housing from all sources should be taxed at low rates to provide for shelter needs and affordability for the majority of Americans. Funding for the Land Trust should be similar to the National Highway Trust Fund which collects a tax on every sale of gas but retains the funds for “highway” work.
The Trust Fund would have additional functions. It would, in addition to land banking, provide consulting and development services along with seed money for new projects; it would help obtain mortgages or other needed financing; it would provide construction management services during construction and management; and it would provide management until its projects have become stable. The Trust would receive fees from their lessees for their services. Within five to six years the Trust should be self sufficient as to their operational costs.
(B)The Land Trust would exercise site control by lease.
Schwartz in his book A New Housing Policy for America[18] does cite another possible solution to the affordability problem. He argues that mutual or co-op housing programs offer affordability solutions. These housing associations have shareholders who own stock in the nonprofit corporation which owns their building. Their management and admission policies are governed by a Board of Directors elected from among the Shareholders. The building itself can be mortgaged and capital improvements can be done by an act of the Board and without individual shareholder consent. Shareholders can, in addition, borrow against their shares to buy into the building.
Shareholders are given leases to their individual units. Schwartz points out that in Germany, in Sweden, and in Denmark such programs have worked for over 100 years. In the Scandinavian countries co-ops developed over 25% of all of their housing after World War II. In New York City co-ops have been a widespread form of ownership.
Therefore, after the Trust acquires a site it would lease the site to local co-ops at a nominal cost. In essence theTrust lease removes land cost from what the shareholder buys and what the co-op owns. The lease would establish restrictions on the use of the sites. The lease restrictions would provide that:
(1) 60 % of all units would be sold at two times the annual area median income. (This would mean, for example, that in New York City the median would be that for Manhattan and not for the neighborhood. Therefore, in Manhattan units would sell at $80,000 (or twice $40,000). This would put median income housing in all neighborhoods. Income verification would only occur upon purchase. Buyers would be welcome to stay no matter how much income they made in the future.
(2) 10% of the units would be sold for twice the annual incomes at 80% of median ($64,000 in the example) and that 10% of the units be sold at 50% of median $40,000).[19]
(3) 10% of the units would sell for 200% of median ($160,000) and 10% would sell at just below market ($300,000). (These ratios could be flexible by as much as 15% either way. They need not be fixed and are for purpose of illustration.)
(4) Resale’s would also be controlled by the Trust Lease. Resales would be limited to twice the area median for each income group at time of resale. The seller would get his purchase price returned, and the co-op would get the difference for their long term capital improvement fund.
Many co-ops and mutual housing groups have rejected such a severe resale policy.
But, in this proposal the purchase price does not include land costs. The unit has been subsidized upon purchase by the Trust. And, the purpose is to provide affordability on a continual basis. Ebenezer Howard understood the problem of retaining affordability. He published, in 1838, his book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform.[20] In his book one of his conclusions was that appreciation should be retained and captured by the owners of the Garden City, the tenants. Howard argued that the people in their collective capacity should own the land, and that they should secure the increment in value for themselves. In short, appreciation was to be collective. The same argument in this case has to be applied to the improvements on the land.
This is not what happens in most co-ops today. In most co-ops when a shareholder buys his stock in the building, the stock depreciates and appreciates at the same time. This is because the building naturally deteriorates from usage and through obsolescence; hence the stock actually depreciates in actual value. But the market value of the stock generally appreciates because of the limits of supply and no lack of demand. When the shareholder sells his stock, its value has been diluted but the sales price has gained. The shareholder has in essence eaten depreciation and is walking away with appreciation. Suppose the rules were changed at the beginning. The buyer would be offered a new deal. He is able to buy a better house, with better construction, and more amenities, but because the buyer saves money when he buys, he gives up appreciation when he sells.
It could be argued that by restricting resale prices to the shareholder’s initial investment, that upgrading or property improvement would be discouraged. It could be argued, for example, that no owner would remodel his kitchen or bath because his cost would never be recovered. But this problem is easily solved.
Improvements can be added to the purchase price for any new buyer. But, all capital improvements would be depreciated on a straight line 15 year basis. For example it might cost $40,000 for a new kitchen. After 10 years the seller wants to sell his leased unit. At this point he can sell his unit with the 10 year old kitchen for $13,335 over his investment, based upon 15 year straight line depreciation. The buyer pays $13,000 more when he buys but his depreciation continues on the same basis.
It can be argued that buyers don't want to forego appreciation, no matter how reasonable. And this can be true for many buyers. A buyer, who has sufficient income, or family money, always can go to the private market. But for many buyers this may not be realistic choice. Newlyweds, low wage earners, senior citizen, starter home buyers, and even other people could believe that they can invest better in other opportunities may opt to buy into such a program and seek reasonably priced accommodations.
(C)The Trust would seek to influence land use patterns by acquiring or building multi-family and mixed use buildings.
The Trust would seek small multifamily buildings. These buildings would range in size from 80-160 units. The Trust would not want to overwhelm their neighborhoods and would seek to have scattered sites. The sites could either be urban or suburban. In either case public transportation would be a prime consideration. (For example train station sites in the suburbs).
Individual single family, fee simple, homeownership certainly has a place in our society, but there are at least two advantages to multifamily buildings. These buildings cost less per unit to build and operate, and they reduce the negative effects of sprawl, energy consumption, and consumerism. Thirdly, these buildings can offer better amenities at less cost to the buyer. These buildings can compete more successfully with the private sector. Offering better housing based on cost alone will not be enough. These units have to compete in terms of amenities also.
Catherine Bauer[21] was an advisor for the first public housing efforts in the early 30’s.In her work she realized that economical housing was not enough. She became involved with the American Federation of Hosiery Workers and she helped plan and develop the Mackley Houses in Philadelphia.
As result of her vision, the Mackey Houses had recreation and service facilities such as rooftop playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pool's, libraries, laundries, and numerous meeting rooms. In today's market, in addition to such upgrades as above grade finishes, other amenities would have to be offered. Mackley Houses offer good advice for attracting buyers in Trust Housing.
Typical buildings with the Trust should also be mixed use buildings. For example in Manhattan, Trust buildings could include day-care or elder-care centers on the first floor, in addition to shopping on the avenue. Retail spaces could be available for beauty shops, drugstores, newspaper stands, grocery stores, and even restaurants. These arrangements could create multiple use buildings, and at the same time provide for additional income to the offset maintenance expenses.
(D) The Trust would create a structural shift in housing.
The Trust would acquire permanent sites for housing. Unlike most all other government programs, except Public Housing, the Trust would land bank. Once bought the sites would be removed from appreciation. And once acquired the Trust could offer professional development and management.
The Trust would build affordable housing for all incomes, but the program would be mainstreamed.
Basically the Trust would be non-governmental. It would seek a dedicated income source from housing and real estate profits but it would not necessarily be subject to annual appropriations once established.
The Trust would remove appreciation from resales thus maintaining affordability.
The Trust would refocus density. By offering better price, and better amenities it offers a better choice for buyers. For many it could be a reasonable alternative to suburban housing.
In Summary:
It's difficult to find anyone who doesn't favor affordable housing. Traditionally the hardest hit for affordability has been the poor, the elderly and first-time home buyer. But today the median income households and even upper income households are being priced out of market. Schools cannot find teachers, employers can find employees, and even ski areas such as Vail[22] can't find seasonal workers. Basically it's a subject that has universal appeal, but also it is also true that no one wants affordable housing in their community because of the stigma of Public Housing and government programs. Today, even Senior Housing under Section 202 is finding resistance in many communities; it is only being accepted reluctantly in many towns.
Over the past ten years the character of American families has been changing dramatically. For example, far less than one in five families today are traditional families.[23] Much of our housing stock was built for the older traditional families. Our housing stock and financing systems are not changing enough to meet this new type of demand. Our present housing is too expensive; it's too large, and too suburban.
Tinkering with existing programs and making minor adjustments to major policy failures is no longer going to work.
Case Study:
Talk is always cheap. Feasibility is reality. Is it possible to build, and to maintain, a mixed income, mixed use affordable multifamily building in today’s market?
To test this we will look at a case study in Manhattan. The site is on the East side of Broadway between 138th and 139th Streets. At present it can be described as a soft site. The site is purchased by the Trust and leased to a coop. It is an old theater building now leased for a McDonald’s and for a Starbuck’s.
A new building of eleven stories is proposed. On Broadway the McDonald’s and Starbuck’s will remain and a new Chase Bank Branch and Cleaners will be provided for. On the second floor there will be a new day-care center, an out-reach program and lounge for Senior’s (with free a free lunch program) and professional office space for a health clinic. These services would be on a lease basis but the lease cost could be balanced to income and need. Programs in these spaces would be paid for by the sub-tenant. Also on the 2nd floor would be a management office, and a two bedroom unit for the super.
On floors 3-10 would be twelve two bedroom units with two baths each. On the top floor would be four penthouse units, a common roof garden and community meeting rooms. As a mixed unit building 60% of the units would be sold at twice the median income for Manhattan, 20% would be sold at twice below the median, and 20% at twice above the median below the median income. A median income family in Manhattan earns $40.000 annually.[24] To simplify this case study all u two bedrooms are 800 square feet in size. The building costs $125 per square foot[25] to build. Hence at 800 square feet, times $125 per square foot the building will cost $100,000 per unit. The total development cost is $10,000,000 for the residential spaces. (Land costs are not included. It is assumed these will be offset by costs for building public spaces and amenities. Commercial space costs will be paid for by commercial leases.)
Total building cost of will be$10,000,000 and shareholder contributions from stock purchases will be $9,620,000 (see chart attached).[26] The initial deficit in funding would be $380,000. There is $5,815 available monthly from operating income (assuming that each shareholder is paying 30% of their income (or less) for their monthly mortgage payment and monthly maintenance) which could be used to cover an underlying mortgage. This amount would support (@6%/ 30y) a mortgage of $1,000,000 debt. But only $380,000 is needed. A mortgage in the amount of only $2,300 monthly is needed. Therefore the building could put into long term capital reserves $3,515 monthly or $42,180 annually.
Individual monthly housing expenses would include a prorated share of monthly building operation expenses (maintenance) and individual mortgage costs. No shareholder should exceed 30% of the gross of their monthly income for these expenses. Operating Expenses[27] is assumed to be $500 per month per unit. Each class of shareholder pays down 10% (also it could be 5%) of the purchase price and assumes a mortgage for the balance. The shareholders will pay 30% of their income for housing. Therefore after the mortgage monthly payment is paid the remainder of the shareholders 30% is applied to the maintenance of $500.
The Board of the co-op does shareholder selection. It establishes it own rules and regulations subject to the Trust lease, and it handles evictions for non-payment of maintenance and rules violations.
Conclusion:
This case study illustrates that with land cost removed and with income mixing, it is possible to build and operate affordable housing. Once land cost are removed, the study also shows income distribution could begin at public housing levels or lower and go up to levels below present market. Feasibility could possibly be attained if the income limits were stretched in both directions.
Our case studies do not address housing for all people. The New York Times [28] of September 20, 2002 shows that an individual is considered poor with income of $9,039. The case study begins with income to $16,000. It could be assumed that many low income housing households will still need special-needs housing which will provide social services as well as housing.
In short not all housing needs would be satisfied by this model. But it could meet the needs of many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The New York Times, April 15, 2004
[2] Housing New York City, 1999: Report Summary p9.
[3] The New York Times, August 2002
[4] The New York Times, September 2002
[5] The New York Times, September 25, 2002
[6] The New York Times, April 12, 2004
[7] The New York Times, April 11, 2004
[8] The New York Times, November 17, 2002
[9] David Schwartz A New Housing Policy for America, Temple University Press 1988
[10] Varady & etc.New Directions in Urban Public Housing, Rutgers, 1998
[11] Gwendolyn Wright Building the Dream, MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983
[12] Varady & etc New Directions in Urban Public Housing, Rutgers 1998 “Mainstreaming Public Housing” by Peter Marcuse pp23-39
[13] Peter Marcuse Housing Policy and the Myth of the Benevolent State , Social Policy, January/February 1978
[14] The New Towns: Their Problems and Future. A House of Commons Report of Committee ,HC 603-1,17 July 2002 p.12.
[15] The New York Times, November 4, 2002
[16] A 197-a Plan for Manhattan Community Board 9 , Unpublished 2004
[17] The River Reporter, April 22-28 2004
[18] Schwartz , Ibid
[19] Housing New York City,1999:Report Summary p9
[20] Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p.65,p.142
[21]Gwendolyn Wright Building the Dream, MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983 pp223-225.
[22] Vail Daily December 7,2002
[23] Schwartz , Ibid ,pp.297-82
[24] Housing New York City,1999:Report Summary p9
[25] C.Virginia Fields, A Time to Build ,Report of the Manhattan Borough President’s Task Force on Housing, 2000. This report indicates that New York City developers estimate that it costs between $118-$135 per square foot to build multifamily buildings in the City. Therefore at 800sf for a two bedroom unit, and costing $125 psf, a typical unit would cost $100,000.
Other articles indicate housing costs for market housing is much higher. A new rental at 57th Street and 11th Avenue is projected to cost $275,000 per unit. This would be $175,000 a unit above Field’s projections. But, how much of this cost is due to land and profits are hard to determine. The New York Times November 17, 2002.
[26] See Chart attached
[27] The Council of New York Co-operatives and Condominiums Comparative Study of 2000 Operating Costs on pages 14-15 show that total median operating costs for 182 Co-ops on the Upper West side was $2,723 per room annually. Of this amount $537 was for debt service. This would indicate that operating expenses were $2,723-$537/12 or $186.16 per room per month for the median unit. A two bedroom unit in New York City would be: two bedrooms, living room, one bath, and the kitchen for a total of four rooms (Bath and kitchen are ½ of a room each). This would mean that the average carrying charge would be $728.64 per unit.
The Housing New York City 1999 Report Summary says on page 31 that the gross median rent excluding utilities and fuel, was $684 monthly. What is not clear if this figure includes underlying mortgage payments made by the building owner. For the median monthly gross rent, which included utilities and fuel, the report cites $700. Most tenants do not pay for fuel and pay for their own utilities. The report also says on page 33 that the median contract rent of unregulated units was $750 per month for co-ops, and $860 for condos. But again how much is underlying mortgage and how much is actual operating expense?
Unpublished PHI (552 Riverside Drive) Budget Projections #620 Budget for 2002 project expenses at $446,805 for 67du’s or $555.74 per month per unit. Of this amount $96,000 is for a new mortgage of $1,250.000. Removing mortgage payment from the budget gives a total operating expense of $350,805 annually. And dividing by 67du’s gives a monthly operating expense per unit of $436.36. This figure is probably low when compared to the City in general. Based therefore on the above figures and the author’s experience a figure of $500 month per unit will be used. It is known that $437 works in a well run building. At $500 per unit it should work for these projections.
[28] The New York Times, September 25, 2002 p.19. National Median Household Income is $42,228 for a family of four. Families are considered poor at the following levels: For four at $18,104; for three at $14,128; for two at $11,569; for one at $9,039. Within these parameters 11.7% of the population is considered poor. At the same time the average income for the top 5% is $260,464,
Walter South
The Problem:
The New York Times[1] reported on April 15, 2004 that apartments in Manhattan had risen to an average price of $998,905 in the first quarter of the year. The report by Douglas Elliman said that the median price for the period was $625,000.
In Manhattan in 1998 household median income for all households according to Housing in New York City 1999, Report Summary[2] was $40,000.
Normal rule of thumb in real estate is that a buyer can afford a house at 2.5 times their annual income. An income of $40,000 means a buyer can afford a unit which costs $100,000.
It would seem that this would indicate that there's an affordability gap between income and housing prices, particularly in Manhattan.
The New York Times[3] reported in August 2002 that according to the National Association of Realtors the median price nationally for a single-family home had risen to $163,000. A month later the New York Times reported that nationally the median household income had fallen in 2001 to $42, 228.[4]
Therefore, to purchase the median priced house of $163,000, the purchaser would need an income of $65,440. This is of course an income well above national median.
The poverty rate in this country in 2001 ran between 16.5% in central cities, and 14.2% outside of the metropolitan areas.[5] In general poverty rates run around 15%. If only 15% of the population lives in poverty and the vast majority of the population cannot afford median-priced housing, why do we define the national housing problem as a low income housing problem? The national housing problem is actually the need for the vast majority to find affordable housing.
Actually the problem is not quite so simple. If looked at carefully it becomes apparent that it is not just a problem of cost.
The New York Times[6] on April 12, 2004, reported that Angela Dean, a Labor Investigator for New York State Department of Labor, arose at 3:30 in the morning. She had to make a 5:15 bus for her job in the City. Her commute was at least three hours (in good traffic) from her home in Mount Pocono in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The Times reported that 17,000 other workers were making the trip daily with her. She is among 44,000 people who have bought $150,000 single-family homes in the Poconos. Incidentally the Times estimated that while most builders in the home-building industry make between $7,500 and $15,000 profit on a $150,000 home, some Pocono builders were making as much as $62,000 on each sale.
In addition to her mortgage payments which would run about $14,400 a year (or $1,200 a month), Mrs. Dean and other Pocono home owners would have real estate taxes of about $3,000 a year, heating expenses of about $3,600 a year, and homeownership association fees of $500 a year. These expenses would total $21,500 a year, or almost $1,800 monthly. This is before the added expenses of their bus commute and car.
Assuming that anyone paying 35% of their annual income for housing is paying more than they can afford, this would indicate that the minimum income needed for these housing expenses would be $60,000 a year. The Times did not indicate what Mrs. Dean’s income was but she seemed to be at least near to the limit. Many of her neighbors had the same problem.
In the last decade foreclosure proceedings have been brought in Monroe County against 5,700 homes, or more than one in five of all mortgaged homes in the county.[7]
The Affordability Problem is also a problem of accessibility. Affordability without accessibility is not a solution.
Perhaps there's a third factor which is implicit in the problem of affordability, in addition to cost and accessibility.
The New York Times[8] reported on November 17, 2002 that Richard and Christine Antoneck had just bought a house in Fort Salonga (western Suffolk County) at a bargain price of $799,000. This was a bargain because the seller had been asking $819,000. Property taxes on house were $10,000 yearly (or $834 a month). Mortgage payments would be between $ 57,000 and $60,000 yearly. In addition, the article said the house needed work. To these amounts would have to be added utilities, heating and other suburban surcharges for amenities. There would have to be two cars, fertilizer, weed killer, snow blower, and yard service, plants from the garden center, hot tub, out door grill, and firewood for the fireplaces. Total expenses could easily be $80,000. This would require a minimum income of $235,000. Mrs. Antoneck is a school teacher in Floral Park. Obviously she could cover the $35,000 part but her husband would still need to earn at least $200,000.
It's easy to blame rising housing prices on the lack of affordability. But it is a harder to appreciate that suburban living also has higher hidden costs associated with lower density and excessive consumption. Lower density means higher taxes to pay for schools, fire, utilities, roads, and police departments. It also means higher up keep on the house itself, and higher transportation cost, and more furnishings and appliances. Housing prices are only a part of the real housing expenses in our increasingly suburban life. The hidden costs of urban sprawl must be factored into real housing costs, and these are cost borne by the general public not the owner.
In conclusion the affordability problem is a cost problem, an accessibility problem, and an excessive consumption problem.
The Housing Experts Ponderous:
Affordability problem isn’t a new problem for Housers. It has been addressed extensively. For example David Schwartz in A New Housing Policy for America[9] stated that even in 1987 (17 years ago) the percentage of families able to buy houses had fallen
every year of the past decade in every region.
He attributed the affordability problem to the lack of a federal housing policy, and to unprecedented curtailments in federal funding. Schwartz offers a number of suggestions to deal with a problem of affordability. He proposes various programs such as programs for special target groups i.e.: young families, seniors, low and moderate income families, and single parent households. He sets forth several ideas such as tax reforms, down payment assistance programs, interest subsidy programs, rehab financing, state bond programs, trust funds, taxation changes, reduced regulatory actions, employer housing assistance, reverse mortgages, and tax recapture programs.
What Schwartz wants is better grease. He wants to help by a providing more subsidies and hence less friction. He wants to keep the machinery in the existing factory working better. Schwartz wants to better facilitate what some believe is our national housing policy. Schwartz fails to understand that in reality our actual but unstated national housing policy is, a decent home for every decent American. Schwartz basically wants to expand the definition of the word decent.
An another example is David Varady, Wolfgang Preiser, and Francis Russell in New Directions in Urban Public Housing.[10] They call for better design, mixed income housing, greater opportunities in suburban housing, mainstreaming, and ending over regulations. Some of these ideas may be good but they do not address the basic issues. They want better oil for the present system rather than better grease.
Gwendolyn Wright in Building the Dream, A Social History of Housing in America[11] has a better perspective on the problem. She feels that the current housing programs and the problem of affordability will not be solved by new financing schemes, or by new prototypes.
These programs are of course necessary, but with the high cost of land, the high cost of financing, the waste of energy, the stigma of low income housing, the desire for profits, and piecemeal action in particular by government, these programs are not going to solve the housing problems in this country. Wright feels basically that where Americans live and how Americans live need to be redefined.
Fundamentally the real changes in housing's future will involve new ways to buy and sell, and new uses for the housing that already exists. Tomorrow's changes in urban housing will be in renovation and recycling. Wright looks for changes in the social and political structure. Wright sees the need for structural change.
The Parameters of a Solution:
How then could an affordable housing program work? A workable affordable program should include the following elements:
(1) It would have to be a mainstream program.
It would require a program directed towards the median income households. As Peter Marcuse[12] has suggested as long as the housing problem is viewed as something affecting the bottom 15%, or even the bottom 33% percent of our society, the majority of our society is not going to be interested in solving the problem. Only by mainstreaming housing and only by addressing the housing problems of a majority of Americans will the problem be dealt with decisively. Any program that fails to serve a broad spectrum of the public will face elimination on either ideological or economic grounds.
This would indicate that the target for any program needs to be the median. A by-product of the program could address the needs of other income levels but only to the extent of their proportions in general in society. Since the poverty rate in this country generally runs around 15% any mainstream housing program should only address the low income housing problem in about the same percentage
(2) A workable program would basically have to be non-governmental program.
If one is to accept the myth of the benevolent state and/or the myth of the meddling state then a workable program could function only outside of direct government control.[13] Most of the programs which are advocated by Housers call for government programs. But, when one looks at the history of these programs the essence of the beast is apparent. Most of these programs require either government contractual oversight or annual funding from various sources of the government. Each year these programs and their funding are chipped away. This has been the case with Public Housing, Mitchell-Lama, Section 221d3, and Section 8. Even England's Local Authority programs have been reduced by privatization schemes.[14]
(3) The program should be an ownership program not a rental program.
Cities are only as strong as their neighborhoods. Ownership creates a commitment, and it provides stability, and it makes for stronger community. People take pride and responsibility in their homes as owners. Owners often become more active in their community because they have more at stake. Nationally around 68.1% of homes are owner occupied.[15] In upper Manhattan only 11% of the units are owner occupied.[16] Home ownership needs to be increased in our urban areas.
(4) The program should emphasizes urban and multifamily living.
Individual family, single home ownership certainly has its place in our society, and certainly there are some people who would opt only for this form of ownership. But, the byproducts of fee simple ownership have adversely affected our society. Sprawl, excessive energy consumption, wasteful consumerism, auto dependency, and environmental expense, and are additional costs which society pays. Most of these costs are not borne by the individual fee simple owner.
Multifamily units are less expensive to build, operate, and maintain. Multifamily buildings can help increase density, can provide better amenities and can deliver social services more economically.
(5) The program should bring about a structural shift in economics and politics
A successful program cannot merely adjust or accept the status quo. Most of the Housers today suggest programs that enable the present system to work but with heavier grease. The majority of these programs call for front end subsidies, such as lower down payments, or interest subsidies, or other gifts from the state such as no resale limits. But basically what these experts suggest is that every player gets profit and or appreciation and then they can opt out. Most of these schemes are basically state socialism for the current players. Even Rent Control rewards the players more than the needy. Nothing really changes in the system.
A Partial Solution:
(A)The basic instrument of a workable program would be a Land Trust.
The purpose of the Trust would be to acquire land and to bank sites. Trusts would operate on a regional basis not on a city, county or state basis, and would operate as a 501c3 non-profit corporation. Land Trusts are currently being used in several cities in this country. For example Boston, Jersey City, San Francisco, Miami, and Maryland all have Land Trusts. The Land Trust would be funded in a similar fashion as the National Highway Trust Fund.
Many of the past and current housing programs have permitted site ownership to reside in the private sector. For example Mitchell-Lama, Section 236, and Section 8 have all squandered their resources by losing site control. Once the initial funding for many of these programs expires, the program permits the sponsors to opt out. The exception has been Public Housing. But Public Housing made two basic mistakes. One, they built housing for the tenant of last resort, and two, many of their sites were junk sites from the beginning.
The purposes of the Land Trust are to develop a land bank, to remove appreciated land values from housing costs, and in the future, if prudent, to capture land appreciation. By removing the value of land from the equation of affordability, the Land Trust could create a structural shift in housing.
If organized as a 501c3 non-profit corporation and operating in the private sector, site acquisitions could be tax free or tax-deductible. The Trust could acquire any site. The Trust could buy sites on the open market, or could receive sites from governmental sources, or even from estates or as gifts.
At the beginning the Trust would have to rely on gifts or grants for operational costs and for land acquisition, but as it matured it would seek a dedicated source of funding, probably from a minimum tax on real estate profits. For example, Pike County, Pennsylvania (ironically the County next to Monroe in the Pocono’s) has Act 137 which collects a tax every time a deed or mortgage is recorded.[17] These funds go for senior, or low, or moderate income housing. The argument could be made that all profits from housing from all sources should be taxed at low rates to provide for shelter needs and affordability for the majority of Americans. Funding for the Land Trust should be similar to the National Highway Trust Fund which collects a tax on every sale of gas but retains the funds for “highway” work.
The Trust Fund would have additional functions. It would, in addition to land banking, provide consulting and development services along with seed money for new projects; it would help obtain mortgages or other needed financing; it would provide construction management services during construction and management; and it would provide management until its projects have become stable. The Trust would receive fees from their lessees for their services. Within five to six years the Trust should be self sufficient as to their operational costs.
(B)The Land Trust would exercise site control by lease.
Schwartz in his book A New Housing Policy for America[18] does cite another possible solution to the affordability problem. He argues that mutual or co-op housing programs offer affordability solutions. These housing associations have shareholders who own stock in the nonprofit corporation which owns their building. Their management and admission policies are governed by a Board of Directors elected from among the Shareholders. The building itself can be mortgaged and capital improvements can be done by an act of the Board and without individual shareholder consent. Shareholders can, in addition, borrow against their shares to buy into the building.
Shareholders are given leases to their individual units. Schwartz points out that in Germany, in Sweden, and in Denmark such programs have worked for over 100 years. In the Scandinavian countries co-ops developed over 25% of all of their housing after World War II. In New York City co-ops have been a widespread form of ownership.
Therefore, after the Trust acquires a site it would lease the site to local co-ops at a nominal cost. In essence theTrust lease removes land cost from what the shareholder buys and what the co-op owns. The lease would establish restrictions on the use of the sites. The lease restrictions would provide that:
(1) 60 % of all units would be sold at two times the annual area median income. (This would mean, for example, that in New York City the median would be that for Manhattan and not for the neighborhood. Therefore, in Manhattan units would sell at $80,000 (or twice $40,000). This would put median income housing in all neighborhoods. Income verification would only occur upon purchase. Buyers would be welcome to stay no matter how much income they made in the future.
(2) 10% of the units would be sold for twice the annual incomes at 80% of median ($64,000 in the example) and that 10% of the units be sold at 50% of median $40,000).[19]
(3) 10% of the units would sell for 200% of median ($160,000) and 10% would sell at just below market ($300,000). (These ratios could be flexible by as much as 15% either way. They need not be fixed and are for purpose of illustration.)
(4) Resale’s would also be controlled by the Trust Lease. Resales would be limited to twice the area median for each income group at time of resale. The seller would get his purchase price returned, and the co-op would get the difference for their long term capital improvement fund.
Many co-ops and mutual housing groups have rejected such a severe resale policy.
But, in this proposal the purchase price does not include land costs. The unit has been subsidized upon purchase by the Trust. And, the purpose is to provide affordability on a continual basis. Ebenezer Howard understood the problem of retaining affordability. He published, in 1838, his book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform.[20] In his book one of his conclusions was that appreciation should be retained and captured by the owners of the Garden City, the tenants. Howard argued that the people in their collective capacity should own the land, and that they should secure the increment in value for themselves. In short, appreciation was to be collective. The same argument in this case has to be applied to the improvements on the land.
This is not what happens in most co-ops today. In most co-ops when a shareholder buys his stock in the building, the stock depreciates and appreciates at the same time. This is because the building naturally deteriorates from usage and through obsolescence; hence the stock actually depreciates in actual value. But the market value of the stock generally appreciates because of the limits of supply and no lack of demand. When the shareholder sells his stock, its value has been diluted but the sales price has gained. The shareholder has in essence eaten depreciation and is walking away with appreciation. Suppose the rules were changed at the beginning. The buyer would be offered a new deal. He is able to buy a better house, with better construction, and more amenities, but because the buyer saves money when he buys, he gives up appreciation when he sells.
It could be argued that by restricting resale prices to the shareholder’s initial investment, that upgrading or property improvement would be discouraged. It could be argued, for example, that no owner would remodel his kitchen or bath because his cost would never be recovered. But this problem is easily solved.
Improvements can be added to the purchase price for any new buyer. But, all capital improvements would be depreciated on a straight line 15 year basis. For example it might cost $40,000 for a new kitchen. After 10 years the seller wants to sell his leased unit. At this point he can sell his unit with the 10 year old kitchen for $13,335 over his investment, based upon 15 year straight line depreciation. The buyer pays $13,000 more when he buys but his depreciation continues on the same basis.
It can be argued that buyers don't want to forego appreciation, no matter how reasonable. And this can be true for many buyers. A buyer, who has sufficient income, or family money, always can go to the private market. But for many buyers this may not be realistic choice. Newlyweds, low wage earners, senior citizen, starter home buyers, and even other people could believe that they can invest better in other opportunities may opt to buy into such a program and seek reasonably priced accommodations.
(C)The Trust would seek to influence land use patterns by acquiring or building multi-family and mixed use buildings.
The Trust would seek small multifamily buildings. These buildings would range in size from 80-160 units. The Trust would not want to overwhelm their neighborhoods and would seek to have scattered sites. The sites could either be urban or suburban. In either case public transportation would be a prime consideration. (For example train station sites in the suburbs).
Individual single family, fee simple, homeownership certainly has a place in our society, but there are at least two advantages to multifamily buildings. These buildings cost less per unit to build and operate, and they reduce the negative effects of sprawl, energy consumption, and consumerism. Thirdly, these buildings can offer better amenities at less cost to the buyer. These buildings can compete more successfully with the private sector. Offering better housing based on cost alone will not be enough. These units have to compete in terms of amenities also.
Catherine Bauer[21] was an advisor for the first public housing efforts in the early 30’s.In her work she realized that economical housing was not enough. She became involved with the American Federation of Hosiery Workers and she helped plan and develop the Mackley Houses in Philadelphia.
As result of her vision, the Mackey Houses had recreation and service facilities such as rooftop playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pool's, libraries, laundries, and numerous meeting rooms. In today's market, in addition to such upgrades as above grade finishes, other amenities would have to be offered. Mackley Houses offer good advice for attracting buyers in Trust Housing.
Typical buildings with the Trust should also be mixed use buildings. For example in Manhattan, Trust buildings could include day-care or elder-care centers on the first floor, in addition to shopping on the avenue. Retail spaces could be available for beauty shops, drugstores, newspaper stands, grocery stores, and even restaurants. These arrangements could create multiple use buildings, and at the same time provide for additional income to the offset maintenance expenses.
(D) The Trust would create a structural shift in housing.
The Trust would acquire permanent sites for housing. Unlike most all other government programs, except Public Housing, the Trust would land bank. Once bought the sites would be removed from appreciation. And once acquired the Trust could offer professional development and management.
The Trust would build affordable housing for all incomes, but the program would be mainstreamed.
Basically the Trust would be non-governmental. It would seek a dedicated income source from housing and real estate profits but it would not necessarily be subject to annual appropriations once established.
The Trust would remove appreciation from resales thus maintaining affordability.
The Trust would refocus density. By offering better price, and better amenities it offers a better choice for buyers. For many it could be a reasonable alternative to suburban housing.
In Summary:
It's difficult to find anyone who doesn't favor affordable housing. Traditionally the hardest hit for affordability has been the poor, the elderly and first-time home buyer. But today the median income households and even upper income households are being priced out of market. Schools cannot find teachers, employers can find employees, and even ski areas such as Vail[22] can't find seasonal workers. Basically it's a subject that has universal appeal, but also it is also true that no one wants affordable housing in their community because of the stigma of Public Housing and government programs. Today, even Senior Housing under Section 202 is finding resistance in many communities; it is only being accepted reluctantly in many towns.
Over the past ten years the character of American families has been changing dramatically. For example, far less than one in five families today are traditional families.[23] Much of our housing stock was built for the older traditional families. Our housing stock and financing systems are not changing enough to meet this new type of demand. Our present housing is too expensive; it's too large, and too suburban.
Tinkering with existing programs and making minor adjustments to major policy failures is no longer going to work.
Case Study:
Talk is always cheap. Feasibility is reality. Is it possible to build, and to maintain, a mixed income, mixed use affordable multifamily building in today’s market?
To test this we will look at a case study in Manhattan. The site is on the East side of Broadway between 138th and 139th Streets. At present it can be described as a soft site. The site is purchased by the Trust and leased to a coop. It is an old theater building now leased for a McDonald’s and for a Starbuck’s.
A new building of eleven stories is proposed. On Broadway the McDonald’s and Starbuck’s will remain and a new Chase Bank Branch and Cleaners will be provided for. On the second floor there will be a new day-care center, an out-reach program and lounge for Senior’s (with free a free lunch program) and professional office space for a health clinic. These services would be on a lease basis but the lease cost could be balanced to income and need. Programs in these spaces would be paid for by the sub-tenant. Also on the 2nd floor would be a management office, and a two bedroom unit for the super.
On floors 3-10 would be twelve two bedroom units with two baths each. On the top floor would be four penthouse units, a common roof garden and community meeting rooms. As a mixed unit building 60% of the units would be sold at twice the median income for Manhattan, 20% would be sold at twice below the median, and 20% at twice above the median below the median income. A median income family in Manhattan earns $40.000 annually.[24] To simplify this case study all u two bedrooms are 800 square feet in size. The building costs $125 per square foot[25] to build. Hence at 800 square feet, times $125 per square foot the building will cost $100,000 per unit. The total development cost is $10,000,000 for the residential spaces. (Land costs are not included. It is assumed these will be offset by costs for building public spaces and amenities. Commercial space costs will be paid for by commercial leases.)
Total building cost of will be$10,000,000 and shareholder contributions from stock purchases will be $9,620,000 (see chart attached).[26] The initial deficit in funding would be $380,000. There is $5,815 available monthly from operating income (assuming that each shareholder is paying 30% of their income (or less) for their monthly mortgage payment and monthly maintenance) which could be used to cover an underlying mortgage. This amount would support (@6%/ 30y) a mortgage of $1,000,000 debt. But only $380,000 is needed. A mortgage in the amount of only $2,300 monthly is needed. Therefore the building could put into long term capital reserves $3,515 monthly or $42,180 annually.
Individual monthly housing expenses would include a prorated share of monthly building operation expenses (maintenance) and individual mortgage costs. No shareholder should exceed 30% of the gross of their monthly income for these expenses. Operating Expenses[27] is assumed to be $500 per month per unit. Each class of shareholder pays down 10% (also it could be 5%) of the purchase price and assumes a mortgage for the balance. The shareholders will pay 30% of their income for housing. Therefore after the mortgage monthly payment is paid the remainder of the shareholders 30% is applied to the maintenance of $500.
The Board of the co-op does shareholder selection. It establishes it own rules and regulations subject to the Trust lease, and it handles evictions for non-payment of maintenance and rules violations.
Conclusion:
This case study illustrates that with land cost removed and with income mixing, it is possible to build and operate affordable housing. Once land cost are removed, the study also shows income distribution could begin at public housing levels or lower and go up to levels below present market. Feasibility could possibly be attained if the income limits were stretched in both directions.
Our case studies do not address housing for all people. The New York Times [28] of September 20, 2002 shows that an individual is considered poor with income of $9,039. The case study begins with income to $16,000. It could be assumed that many low income housing households will still need special-needs housing which will provide social services as well as housing.
In short not all housing needs would be satisfied by this model. But it could meet the needs of many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The New York Times, April 15, 2004
[2] Housing New York City, 1999: Report Summary p9.
[3] The New York Times, August 2002
[4] The New York Times, September 2002
[5] The New York Times, September 25, 2002
[6] The New York Times, April 12, 2004
[7] The New York Times, April 11, 2004
[8] The New York Times, November 17, 2002
[9] David Schwartz A New Housing Policy for America, Temple University Press 1988
[10] Varady & etc.New Directions in Urban Public Housing, Rutgers, 1998
[11] Gwendolyn Wright Building the Dream, MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983
[12] Varady & etc New Directions in Urban Public Housing, Rutgers 1998 “Mainstreaming Public Housing” by Peter Marcuse pp23-39
[13] Peter Marcuse Housing Policy and the Myth of the Benevolent State , Social Policy, January/February 1978
[14] The New Towns: Their Problems and Future. A House of Commons Report of Committee ,HC 603-1,17 July 2002 p.12.
[15] The New York Times, November 4, 2002
[16] A 197-a Plan for Manhattan Community Board 9 , Unpublished 2004
[17] The River Reporter, April 22-28 2004
[18] Schwartz , Ibid
[19] Housing New York City,1999:Report Summary p9
[20] Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p.65,p.142
[21]Gwendolyn Wright Building the Dream, MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983 pp223-225.
[22] Vail Daily December 7,2002
[23] Schwartz , Ibid ,pp.297-82
[24] Housing New York City,1999:Report Summary p9
[25] C.Virginia Fields, A Time to Build ,Report of the Manhattan Borough President’s Task Force on Housing, 2000. This report indicates that New York City developers estimate that it costs between $118-$135 per square foot to build multifamily buildings in the City. Therefore at 800sf for a two bedroom unit, and costing $125 psf, a typical unit would cost $100,000.
Other articles indicate housing costs for market housing is much higher. A new rental at 57th Street and 11th Avenue is projected to cost $275,000 per unit. This would be $175,000 a unit above Field’s projections. But, how much of this cost is due to land and profits are hard to determine. The New York Times November 17, 2002.
[26] See Chart attached
[27] The Council of New York Co-operatives and Condominiums Comparative Study of 2000 Operating Costs on pages 14-15 show that total median operating costs for 182 Co-ops on the Upper West side was $2,723 per room annually. Of this amount $537 was for debt service. This would indicate that operating expenses were $2,723-$537/12 or $186.16 per room per month for the median unit. A two bedroom unit in New York City would be: two bedrooms, living room, one bath, and the kitchen for a total of four rooms (Bath and kitchen are ½ of a room each). This would mean that the average carrying charge would be $728.64 per unit.
The Housing New York City 1999 Report Summary says on page 31 that the gross median rent excluding utilities and fuel, was $684 monthly. What is not clear if this figure includes underlying mortgage payments made by the building owner. For the median monthly gross rent, which included utilities and fuel, the report cites $700. Most tenants do not pay for fuel and pay for their own utilities. The report also says on page 33 that the median contract rent of unregulated units was $750 per month for co-ops, and $860 for condos. But again how much is underlying mortgage and how much is actual operating expense?
Unpublished PHI (552 Riverside Drive) Budget Projections #620 Budget for 2002 project expenses at $446,805 for 67du’s or $555.74 per month per unit. Of this amount $96,000 is for a new mortgage of $1,250.000. Removing mortgage payment from the budget gives a total operating expense of $350,805 annually. And dividing by 67du’s gives a monthly operating expense per unit of $436.36. This figure is probably low when compared to the City in general. Based therefore on the above figures and the author’s experience a figure of $500 month per unit will be used. It is known that $437 works in a well run building. At $500 per unit it should work for these projections.
[28] The New York Times, September 25, 2002 p.19. National Median Household Income is $42,228 for a family of four. Families are considered poor at the following levels: For four at $18,104; for three at $14,128; for two at $11,569; for one at $9,039. Within these parameters 11.7% of the population is considered poor. At the same time the average income for the top 5% is $260,464,
"Cleaning the Croton Watershed: will best science prevail?"
Subject: Fwd: [RW list] FW: March 9th enviro forum on Croton @ NY Medical College
Date: 2/25/2005 10:53:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: HDFCCenter
Forwarded Message:
Subj: [RW list] FW: March 9th enviro forum on Croton @ NY Medical College
Date: 2/25/2005 10:16:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MYaggi@law.pace.edu
To: MarianR451@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
<<>>
<>
From: Cathleen Breen
For directions: call 914-594-4804 during business hours
"Cleaning the Croton Watershed:
will best science prevail?"
Featured Speakers: Westchester County Legislators
Michael Kaplowitz and Ursula LaMotte
Wednesday March 9, 7 p.m.
School of Public Health Building , room 104
The Learning Center
New York Medical College
Valhalla, N.Y. 10595
Light refreshments will be available
Ursula LaMotte represents the towns of Bedford , Pound Ridge, Lewisboro,
North Salem , half of Somers and the Village of Mt. Kisco. LaMotte
previously served on the Westchester County Planning Board. Her efforts
as a Bedford Town Councilwoman led to the passage of landmark
groundwater protection legislation, which was the first of its kind for
any town in New York State . She also helped found the Pound Ridge
Recycling Program and has served on the Pound Ridge Conservation Board.
Michael B. Kaplowitz of Somers represents the 4th District, which
includes New Castle and parts of the Towns of Somers and Yorktown .
Legislator Kaplowitz served as Chairman of the Board's Environment
Committee for four years and in recognition to his active commitment to
open space and the ecosystem, he then became Chairman of the Environment & Health Committee. Kaplowitz is the legislative leader in the fight against Indian Point and for the study on sewage diversion/upgrade.
--
Cathleen Breen
Watershed Protection Coordinator
New York Public Interest Research Group Fund (NYPIRG)
9 Murray Street
New York, N.Y. 10007-2272
ph:212-349-6460
fax: 212-349-1366
www.nypirg.org
--
<>
__________________________________
Messages for the mailing list should be sent to watershed@riverkeeper.org
To unsubscribe, email listserv@riverkeeper.org with the single-line message leave watershed@riverkeeper.org
Date: 2/25/2005 10:53:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: HDFCCenter
Forwarded Message:
Subj: [RW list] FW: March 9th enviro forum on Croton @ NY Medical College
Date: 2/25/2005 10:16:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MYaggi@law.pace.edu
To: MarianR451@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
<<>>
<
From: Cathleen Breen
For directions: call 914-594-4804 during business hours
"Cleaning the Croton Watershed:
will best science prevail?"
Featured Speakers: Westchester County Legislators
Michael Kaplowitz and Ursula LaMotte
Wednesday March 9, 7 p.m.
School of Public Health Building , room 104
The Learning Center
New York Medical College
Valhalla, N.Y. 10595
Light refreshments will be available
Ursula LaMotte represents the towns of Bedford , Pound Ridge, Lewisboro,
North Salem , half of Somers and the Village of Mt. Kisco. LaMotte
previously served on the Westchester County Planning Board. Her efforts
as a Bedford Town Councilwoman led to the passage of landmark
groundwater protection legislation, which was the first of its kind for
any town in New York State . She also helped found the Pound Ridge
Recycling Program and has served on the Pound Ridge Conservation Board.
Michael B. Kaplowitz of Somers represents the 4th District, which
includes New Castle and parts of the Towns of Somers and Yorktown .
Legislator Kaplowitz served as Chairman of the Board's Environment
Committee for four years and in recognition to his active commitment to
open space and the ecosystem, he then became Chairman of the Environment & Health Committee. Kaplowitz is the legislative leader in the fight against Indian Point and for the study on sewage diversion/upgrade.
--
Cathleen Breen
Watershed Protection Coordinator
New York Public Interest Research Group Fund (NYPIRG)
9 Murray Street
New York, N.Y. 10007-2272
ph:212-349-6460
fax: 212-349-1366
www.nypirg.org
--
<
__________________________________
Messages for the mailing list should be sent to watershed@riverkeeper.org
To unsubscribe, email listserv@riverkeeper.org with the single-line message leave watershed@riverkeeper.org
IOC Snubs NYC 2012 Bid Opponents
Subject: Press Release: IOC Snubs NYC 2012 Bid Opponents
Date: 2/24/2005 5:03:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
PRESS RELEASE
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE SNUBS NYC BID PROTESTERS;
Denies request to meet with BID opponents; meets with supporters instead.
For immediate release, February 24, 2005
for more information, contact:
John Fisher: 212-581-9022 email kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Phil DePaolo: 347-200-2353 email pdepaolo@nyc.rr.com
Patti Hagan: 718-219-2137 no email
Maria Garcia: 212-242-8155 email chelseamaria@earthlink.net
NEW YORK -- The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the New York City Olympic Bid Committee (NYC2012) yesterday snubbed New York City community groups and activists opposed to New York’s Bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Instead, the IOC met with groups that generally supported the Bid, but found problems with specific aspects of the plan.
Yesterday, NYC2012 Executive Director Jay Kriegel falsely claimed Bid opponents had been invited to a meeting, but declined.
In response to the IOC’s refusal to meet with opponents, a letter of protest is being sent to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland objecting to the manner in which the IOC and NYC2012 have failed to consider community concerns. Neither NYC2012 nor the IOC has reached out to opponents in over four years. It is widely believed by NYC residents and politicians that the NYC Bid, along with plans for several contentious venues, are being rammed down the throats of New Yorkers.
John Fisher of the Clinton Special District Coalition stated, “While we are cognizant of the IOC’s busy schedule while they are in New York City, we made the request several weeks ago and it is our neighborhoods and communities that the IOC and NYC2012 hope to bulldoze. Perhaps they should meet with us rather than Meryl Streep.” Other community groups making the meeting request included Prospect Heights Action Coalition and People’s Firehouse in Brooklyn and Chelsea Owners and Tenants in Chelsea.
On February 9th, representatives from the community organizations requested a meeting with the IOC after Evaluation Commission Chair Ms. Nawal El Moutawakel stated in Madrid on February 7th they would be willing to meet with Bid opponents.
A follow-up letter to the IOC dated February 18, stated,
“During the Commission's busy schedule, while you will be treated to lavish -- but entirely orchestrated -- receptions, we would like to express to you the concerns of some real New Yorkers. We are from neighborhoods that are likely to experience real displacement if the NYC 2012 bid occurs as proposed. We represent legitimate, ongoing civic organizations. We are not associated with Cablevision or Madison Square Garden. Unfortunately, the press has erroneously characterized NYC’s contentious bid as a duel between Mayor Bloomberg and the owners of Madison Square Garden. Please do not make the mistake of assuming the problems are so limited. They go much deeper and wider.”
After three letters to IOC Headquarters in Lausanne, the IOC forwarded our request to NYC2012 where it was clarified that we hoped to bring representatives from six organizations to a meeting, but that it could be pared down to four individuals.
The request was not made in conjunction with the groups that did meet. It was not until the Tuesday night phone call that NYC2012 made any mention of other groups that requested their own meetings.
The IOC and NYC2012 refused our delegation a meeting, saying that only one person from only one of the community groups could attend, thereby telling the other community groups to ‘take a hike’ and dismissing their concerns. After the meeting with the pro-Bid groups, it was discovered they were allowed more people and more time.
Unlike the other groups that did meet, our position is against the NYC Bid. It is not unreasonable to expect that the person sitting next to you on the same side of the table should have essentially the same position.
Just as the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is rigging the open-bidding on the West Side railyards, so too did the IOC and NYC2012 rig this so-called meeting. By claiming to have met with opponents (but in reality having met with groups apparently supporting the bid), the IOC cannot lay claim that they have met with, listened to, and ultimately dismissed, the opposition.
The distinction is not mere semantics. We requested that the IOC meet with us. They did not invite us to a meeting, town-hall style or otherwise, they were setting up anyway, which is what NYC2012’s Jay Kriegel tried to claim on Wednesday.
While the IOC may be inured to community opposition wherever it lands, community groups are raising the issues that perhaps it is the IOC’s failure to come to grips with its own social responsibility to not exacerbate or create new social problems that emboldens such local protests. Whether in New York, London, Beijing (with over 300,000 displaced so far in anticipation of the 2008 summer games), community, civic and other groups are insisting that the IOC not be a stalking horse for bad development or bad policies.
* A wider coalition of forty-two community groups are fighting the proposed Olympic/Jets stadium, but were not part of the meeting request to the IOC.
-30-
Date: 2/24/2005 5:03:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
PRESS RELEASE
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE SNUBS NYC BID PROTESTERS;
Denies request to meet with BID opponents; meets with supporters instead.
For immediate release, February 24, 2005
for more information, contact:
John Fisher: 212-581-9022 email kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Phil DePaolo: 347-200-2353 email pdepaolo@nyc.rr.com
Patti Hagan: 718-219-2137 no email
Maria Garcia: 212-242-8155 email chelseamaria@earthlink.net
NEW YORK -- The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the New York City Olympic Bid Committee (NYC2012) yesterday snubbed New York City community groups and activists opposed to New York’s Bid for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Instead, the IOC met with groups that generally supported the Bid, but found problems with specific aspects of the plan.
Yesterday, NYC2012 Executive Director Jay Kriegel falsely claimed Bid opponents had been invited to a meeting, but declined.
In response to the IOC’s refusal to meet with opponents, a letter of protest is being sent to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland objecting to the manner in which the IOC and NYC2012 have failed to consider community concerns. Neither NYC2012 nor the IOC has reached out to opponents in over four years. It is widely believed by NYC residents and politicians that the NYC Bid, along with plans for several contentious venues, are being rammed down the throats of New Yorkers.
John Fisher of the Clinton Special District Coalition stated, “While we are cognizant of the IOC’s busy schedule while they are in New York City, we made the request several weeks ago and it is our neighborhoods and communities that the IOC and NYC2012 hope to bulldoze. Perhaps they should meet with us rather than Meryl Streep.” Other community groups making the meeting request included Prospect Heights Action Coalition and People’s Firehouse in Brooklyn and Chelsea Owners and Tenants in Chelsea.
On February 9th, representatives from the community organizations requested a meeting with the IOC after Evaluation Commission Chair Ms. Nawal El Moutawakel stated in Madrid on February 7th they would be willing to meet with Bid opponents.
A follow-up letter to the IOC dated February 18, stated,
“During the Commission's busy schedule, while you will be treated to lavish -- but entirely orchestrated -- receptions, we would like to express to you the concerns of some real New Yorkers. We are from neighborhoods that are likely to experience real displacement if the NYC 2012 bid occurs as proposed. We represent legitimate, ongoing civic organizations. We are not associated with Cablevision or Madison Square Garden. Unfortunately, the press has erroneously characterized NYC’s contentious bid as a duel between Mayor Bloomberg and the owners of Madison Square Garden. Please do not make the mistake of assuming the problems are so limited. They go much deeper and wider.”
After three letters to IOC Headquarters in Lausanne, the IOC forwarded our request to NYC2012 where it was clarified that we hoped to bring representatives from six organizations to a meeting, but that it could be pared down to four individuals.
The request was not made in conjunction with the groups that did meet. It was not until the Tuesday night phone call that NYC2012 made any mention of other groups that requested their own meetings.
The IOC and NYC2012 refused our delegation a meeting, saying that only one person from only one of the community groups could attend, thereby telling the other community groups to ‘take a hike’ and dismissing their concerns. After the meeting with the pro-Bid groups, it was discovered they were allowed more people and more time.
Unlike the other groups that did meet, our position is against the NYC Bid. It is not unreasonable to expect that the person sitting next to you on the same side of the table should have essentially the same position.
Just as the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is rigging the open-bidding on the West Side railyards, so too did the IOC and NYC2012 rig this so-called meeting. By claiming to have met with opponents (but in reality having met with groups apparently supporting the bid), the IOC cannot lay claim that they have met with, listened to, and ultimately dismissed, the opposition.
The distinction is not mere semantics. We requested that the IOC meet with us. They did not invite us to a meeting, town-hall style or otherwise, they were setting up anyway, which is what NYC2012’s Jay Kriegel tried to claim on Wednesday.
While the IOC may be inured to community opposition wherever it lands, community groups are raising the issues that perhaps it is the IOC’s failure to come to grips with its own social responsibility to not exacerbate or create new social problems that emboldens such local protests. Whether in New York, London, Beijing (with over 300,000 displaced so far in anticipation of the 2008 summer games), community, civic and other groups are insisting that the IOC not be a stalking horse for bad development or bad policies.
* A wider coalition of forty-two community groups are fighting the proposed Olympic/Jets stadium, but were not part of the meeting request to the IOC.
-30-
New York Council Calendar for the week of 02/28/2005 to 03/04/2005:
Subject: RE:Council Calendar
Date: 2/25/2005 4:11:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: webmaster@council.nyc.ny.us
To: Reysmont@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
New York Council Calendar for the week of 02/28/2005 to 03/04/2005:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, February 28, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 9:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Student Assessment
COMMITTEE: Zoning & Franchises, Chairperson(s):Tony Avella
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup Relations, Chairperson(s):Domenic M. Recchia, Jr.
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Higher Education, Chairperson(s):Charles Barron
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - An Overview of Financial Aid at CUNY: The Impact of Upcoming Changes to Pell, Tap and Other Financial Aid Vehicles
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Joint Meeting. Technology in Government; , Chairperson(s):Gale A. Brewer, Tony Avella
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Franchising of City-Owned Poletops for Wireless Communications
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Economic Development, Chairperson(s):James Sanders, Jr.
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Environmental Protection, Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 567 - By Council Members Gennaro and Yassky - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to developing a comprehensive program for the remediation and reuse of brownfields.
Int No. 582 - By Council Members Yassky and Gennaro - A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to tax lien foreclosure by action in rem for properties where the redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of contamination.
Res. 795 - By Council Members Gennaro, Baez, Barron, DeBlasio, Dilan, Foster, Gonzalez, Koppell, Martinez, McMahon, Palma, Reyna, Avella, Brewer, Clarke, Comrie, Fidler, Gentile, Gerson, James, Katz, Liu, Nelson, Quinn, Sanders Jr., Vann and Weprin - Resolution - calling upon the Governor and New York State Legislature to execute the Memorandum of Understanding required for the implementation of the landmark 2003 New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program and distribution of funding through the Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program.
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Miguel Martinez
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Women's Issues, Chairperson(s):Tracy L. Boyland
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Child Support Enforcement
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Standards & Ethics, Chairperson(s):Helen Sears
TIME: 3:00 PM LOCATION: Conference Room - 250 Broadway, 18th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Tuesday, March 01, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 445 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders Jr., Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to appeals for approval of applications and plans.
Int. 446 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the appeals of rejections of an application for a certificate of occupancy.
Int. 447 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Stewart, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders and Yassky - A Local Law - to amend the New York City charter, in relation to the promulgation of Department of Buildings Legal, Administrative, Operational and Technical Policy and Procedure Notices.
Int. 448 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to revenues and expenditures of the department of buildings for plan examinations and applications for certificates of occupancy.
Int. 449 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Palma, Seabrook, Stewart, Baez, Gerson, Martinez, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Avella, Sanders and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to education of homeowners.
Int. 450 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to certificates of occupancy.
Int. 451 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to filing for certificates of occupancy.
COMMITTEE: Sanitation & Solid Waste Management, Chairperson(s):Michael E. McMahon
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Solid Waste Managment Plan - Part 4- Administration Response to Questions Concerning the Solid Waste Managment Plan
COMMITTEE: Transportation, Chairperson(s):John C. Liu
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Int. 250 - By Council Members Comrie, Liu, Addabbo, Avella, Baez, Barron, Brewer, Felder, Fidler, Foster, Gennaro, Gerson, Gioia, Nelson, Perkins, Provenzano, Reyna, Rivera, Sanders, Sears, Vann, Weprin, Yassky, Quinn, Gentile, Monserrate, DeBlasio, Clarke, Gonzalez, Jackson, James, Jennings, Martinez, McMahon, Recchia and Reed - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to truck routing sheets and maps depicting legal truck routes.
Int. 306 - By Council Members Yassky, Addabbo, Clarke, Comrie, Dilan, Felder, Nelson, Quinn, Reyna, Jackson, Gerson, Avella, Gentile, Liu and Stewart - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to designating a larger percentage of NYPD traffic enforcement personnel to the enforcement of the Department of Transportation’s designated truck routes.
Res. 796 - By Council Members Liu, Fidler, Dilan, Reyna, Addabbo Jr., Avella, Barron, Clarke, Comrie, Foster, Gennaro, Gentile, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Jennings, Martinez, McMahon, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia Jr., Vann, Weprin and Oddo - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Legislature to amend the public authorities law to provide for a minimum staffing level of one conductor and one operator on trains operated on safety-sensitive lines in the New York City transit system.
COMMITTEE: Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Waterfronts; Small Business; Sanitation & Solid Waste Management , Chairperson(s):David Yassky, Michael E. McMahon, Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The Enforcement of Illegal Dumping into New York City's Waterways
Int. 500 - By Council Members Yassky, Addabbo, Avella, Boyland, Brewer, Comrie, Dilan, Fidler, Gentile, James, Koppell, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Recchia, Rivera, Seabrook, Stewart, Vallone, Weprin, Jackson, Gonzalez, Gerson, Gallagher and Lanza - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to increasing fines for violations of the law for illegal dumping along Waterfront property into New York City waterways.
Int. 581 - By Council Members Yassky, Brewer and Nelson - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to creating a plan to combat illegal dumping into the waterways of New York City.
COMMITTEE: Standards & Ethics, Chairperson(s):Helen Sears
TIME: 3:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Gifted and Talented Programs
Int. 493 - By Council Members Fidler, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Recchia, Nelson, Reyna, Comrie, Gerson, McMahon, Katz, Stewart, Gonzalez, Koppell, Gentile, Addabbo, Avella, Barron, Brewer, Dilan, Felder, Gennaro, James, Liu, Martinez, Palma, Reed, Rivera, Sanders, Seabrook, Sears, Vallone, Vann, Weprin, Yassky, Clarke, Jackson, Baez, Boyland, DeBlasio, Gallagher, Lanza, Oddo and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to ensuring a minimum level of gifted and talented programs in public schools.
COMMITTEE: Immigration, Chairperson(s):Kendall Stewart
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
Click here for Intro 423-A document
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Small Business, Chairperson(s):Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Organizational Meeting
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Health; Civil Service & Labor; Consumer Affairs , Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn, Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., Philip Reed
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Wages and Working Conditions of New York City's Restaurant Employees
COMMITTEE: Environmental Protection, Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Fire & Criminal Justice Services, Chairperson(s):Yvette D. Clarke
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - FDNY Diversity
Int. 533 - By Council Members Clarke, Addabbo, Avella, Barron, Fidler, Foster, Gerson, Jackson, James, Jennings, Liu, Lopez, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia, Sanders, Seabrook, Stewart, Weprin, Koppell and Gennaro - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to comprehensive tracking of firefighting response times.
Int. 540 - By Council Members Gerson, Avella, Brewer, Clarke, Fidler, Jackson, James, Jennings, Lopez, Quinn, Stewart, Weprin, Koppell and Gennaro - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to comprehensive tracking of emergency medical service response times.
*************************************************************
DATE: Thursday, March 03, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Finance, Chairperson(s):David I. Weprin
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
10:00 a.m. - Office of Management and Budget
- Capital Budget
- Expense Budget
- Revenue Budget
11:45 p.m. - Contract Budget (joint with the Contracts Committee)
12:15 p.m. - Department of Finance
1:15 p.m. - Department of Design and Construction
2:15 p.m. - Comptroller
2:45 p.m. - Independent Budget Office
3:00 p.m. - Public
COMMITTEE: Oversight and Investigations, Chairperson(s):Eric N. Gioia
TIME: 12:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
12:00 p.m. - Department of Investigation
12:45 p.m. - Public
COMMITTEE: Aging, Chairperson(s):Maria Baez
TIME: 1:30 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
1:30 p.m. - Department For The Aging
2:30 p.m. - Public
*************************************************************
DATE: Friday, March 04, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Finance; Education , Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz, David I. Weprin
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
10:00 a.m. - Department of Education and School Construction Authority
12:00 p.m. - Public
*Selected Commitees are not listed.
This is an automated mailer, so please confirm these dates by checking the Hearings and Meetings Calendar on our website, for the schedule may change at the last minute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Webmaster of the New York City Council
Date: 2/25/2005 4:11:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: webmaster@council.nyc.ny.us
To: Reysmont@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
New York Council Calendar for the week of 02/28/2005 to 03/04/2005:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, February 28, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 9:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Student Assessment
COMMITTEE: Zoning & Franchises, Chairperson(s):Tony Avella
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup Relations, Chairperson(s):Domenic M. Recchia, Jr.
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Higher Education, Chairperson(s):Charles Barron
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - An Overview of Financial Aid at CUNY: The Impact of Upcoming Changes to Pell, Tap and Other Financial Aid Vehicles
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Joint Meeting. Technology in Government; , Chairperson(s):Gale A. Brewer, Tony Avella
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Franchising of City-Owned Poletops for Wireless Communications
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Economic Development, Chairperson(s):James Sanders, Jr.
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Environmental Protection, Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 567 - By Council Members Gennaro and Yassky - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to developing a comprehensive program for the remediation and reuse of brownfields.
Int No. 582 - By Council Members Yassky and Gennaro - A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to tax lien foreclosure by action in rem for properties where the redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of contamination.
Res. 795 - By Council Members Gennaro, Baez, Barron, DeBlasio, Dilan, Foster, Gonzalez, Koppell, Martinez, McMahon, Palma, Reyna, Avella, Brewer, Clarke, Comrie, Fidler, Gentile, Gerson, James, Katz, Liu, Nelson, Quinn, Sanders Jr., Vann and Weprin - Resolution - calling upon the Governor and New York State Legislature to execute the Memorandum of Understanding required for the implementation of the landmark 2003 New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program and distribution of funding through the Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program.
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Miguel Martinez
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Women's Issues, Chairperson(s):Tracy L. Boyland
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Child Support Enforcement
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Standards & Ethics, Chairperson(s):Helen Sears
TIME: 3:00 PM LOCATION: Conference Room - 250 Broadway, 18th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Tuesday, March 01, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 445 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders Jr., Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to appeals for approval of applications and plans.
Int. 446 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the appeals of rejections of an application for a certificate of occupancy.
Int. 447 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, James, Liu, Palma, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Stewart, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Gentile, Sanders and Yassky - A Local Law - to amend the New York City charter, in relation to the promulgation of Department of Buildings Legal, Administrative, Operational and Technical Policy and Procedure Notices.
Int. 448 - By Council Members Weprin, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Katz, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to revenues and expenditures of the department of buildings for plan examinations and applications for certificates of occupancy.
Int. 449 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Palma, Seabrook, Stewart, Baez, Gerson, Martinez, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Avella, Sanders and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to education of homeowners.
Int. 450 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to certificates of occupancy.
Int. 451 - By Council Members Weprin, Katz, Gennaro, Rivera, Gentile, James, Liu, Stewart, Baez, Seabrook, Gerson, Reyna, Foster, Jackson, Boyland, Gioia, Sanders, Yassky and Dilan - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to filing for certificates of occupancy.
COMMITTEE: Sanitation & Solid Waste Management, Chairperson(s):Michael E. McMahon
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Solid Waste Managment Plan - Part 4- Administration Response to Questions Concerning the Solid Waste Managment Plan
COMMITTEE: Transportation, Chairperson(s):John C. Liu
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Int. 250 - By Council Members Comrie, Liu, Addabbo, Avella, Baez, Barron, Brewer, Felder, Fidler, Foster, Gennaro, Gerson, Gioia, Nelson, Perkins, Provenzano, Reyna, Rivera, Sanders, Sears, Vann, Weprin, Yassky, Quinn, Gentile, Monserrate, DeBlasio, Clarke, Gonzalez, Jackson, James, Jennings, Martinez, McMahon, Recchia and Reed - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to truck routing sheets and maps depicting legal truck routes.
Int. 306 - By Council Members Yassky, Addabbo, Clarke, Comrie, Dilan, Felder, Nelson, Quinn, Reyna, Jackson, Gerson, Avella, Gentile, Liu and Stewart - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to designating a larger percentage of NYPD traffic enforcement personnel to the enforcement of the Department of Transportation’s designated truck routes.
Res. 796 - By Council Members Liu, Fidler, Dilan, Reyna, Addabbo Jr., Avella, Barron, Clarke, Comrie, Foster, Gennaro, Gentile, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Jennings, Martinez, McMahon, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia Jr., Vann, Weprin and Oddo - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Legislature to amend the public authorities law to provide for a minimum staffing level of one conductor and one operator on trains operated on safety-sensitive lines in the New York City transit system.
COMMITTEE: Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Waterfronts; Small Business; Sanitation & Solid Waste Management , Chairperson(s):David Yassky, Michael E. McMahon, Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The Enforcement of Illegal Dumping into New York City's Waterways
Int. 500 - By Council Members Yassky, Addabbo, Avella, Boyland, Brewer, Comrie, Dilan, Fidler, Gentile, James, Koppell, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Recchia, Rivera, Seabrook, Stewart, Vallone, Weprin, Jackson, Gonzalez, Gerson, Gallagher and Lanza - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to increasing fines for violations of the law for illegal dumping along Waterfront property into New York City waterways.
Int. 581 - By Council Members Yassky, Brewer and Nelson - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to creating a plan to combat illegal dumping into the waterways of New York City.
COMMITTEE: Standards & Ethics, Chairperson(s):Helen Sears
TIME: 3:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, February 23, 2005, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Gifted and Talented Programs
Int. 493 - By Council Members Fidler, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Recchia, Nelson, Reyna, Comrie, Gerson, McMahon, Katz, Stewart, Gonzalez, Koppell, Gentile, Addabbo, Avella, Barron, Brewer, Dilan, Felder, Gennaro, James, Liu, Martinez, Palma, Reed, Rivera, Sanders, Seabrook, Sears, Vallone, Vann, Weprin, Yassky, Clarke, Jackson, Baez, Boyland, DeBlasio, Gallagher, Lanza, Oddo and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to ensuring a minimum level of gifted and talented programs in public schools.
COMMITTEE: Immigration, Chairperson(s):Kendall Stewart
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
Click here for Intro 423-A document
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Small Business, Chairperson(s):Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Organizational Meeting
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Health; Civil Service & Labor; Consumer Affairs , Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn, Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., Philip Reed
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Wages and Working Conditions of New York City's Restaurant Employees
COMMITTEE: Environmental Protection, Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: Fire & Criminal Justice Services, Chairperson(s):Yvette D. Clarke
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - FDNY Diversity
Int. 533 - By Council Members Clarke, Addabbo, Avella, Barron, Fidler, Foster, Gerson, Jackson, James, Jennings, Liu, Lopez, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia, Sanders, Seabrook, Stewart, Weprin, Koppell and Gennaro - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to comprehensive tracking of firefighting response times.
Int. 540 - By Council Members Gerson, Avella, Brewer, Clarke, Fidler, Jackson, James, Jennings, Lopez, Quinn, Stewart, Weprin, Koppell and Gennaro - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to comprehensive tracking of emergency medical service response times.
*************************************************************
DATE: Thursday, March 03, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Finance, Chairperson(s):David I. Weprin
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
10:00 a.m. - Office of Management and Budget
- Capital Budget
- Expense Budget
- Revenue Budget
11:45 p.m. - Contract Budget (joint with the Contracts Committee)
12:15 p.m. - Department of Finance
1:15 p.m. - Department of Design and Construction
2:15 p.m. - Comptroller
2:45 p.m. - Independent Budget Office
3:00 p.m. - Public
COMMITTEE: Oversight and Investigations, Chairperson(s):Eric N. Gioia
TIME: 12:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
12:00 p.m. - Department of Investigation
12:45 p.m. - Public
COMMITTEE: Aging, Chairperson(s):Maria Baez
TIME: 1:30 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
1:30 p.m. - Department For The Aging
2:30 p.m. - Public
*************************************************************
DATE: Friday, March 04, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Finance; Education , Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz, David I. Weprin
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
New York City Council Fiscal Year 2006 Preliminary Budget, Mayor's FY '05 Preliminary Management Report and Agency Oversight Hearings
10:00 a.m. - Department of Education and School Construction Authority
12:00 p.m. - Public
*Selected Commitees are not listed.
This is an automated mailer, so please confirm these dates by checking the Hearings and Meetings Calendar on our website, for the schedule may change at the last minute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Webmaster of the New York City Council
Thursday, February 24, 2005
NRCERB Comments re: Title V Permit- from L. Ann Rocker
CB9M Distribution: FYI
Click here: Bureau of Stationary Sources : Draft Title V Permits
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/22/2005 9:56:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
BCC: Reysmont
NRCERB Comments re: Title V Permit- from L. Ann Rocker
NYSDEC and NYCDEP’s NRWCP Title V Permit
NYSDEC Special Conditions
Item 1-1.1
1. We find this statement satisfactory.
2. This statement must be totally removed from the North River Title V, Permit and the following must be inserted and adhered to as follows:
The NRAQM equipment must be upgraded, renewed, replaced, and the program implemented continuously by the NYCDEP in perpetuity. The Harlem Community and other patrons enjoy Riverbank State Park atop the NRWPCP, where thousands of children and adults are in daily attendance. West Harlem has the highest asthma rate in New York, and Columbia University School of Public Health just finished a study of asthma in pregnant women and found that all the fetuses are affected by air pollutants.
The safety of the health of the community must be the priority in this component of the system.
Item 1-6.1
Opacity monitors must be installed on all ten engines, both blower and pump, to monitor all emissions and especially to avoid any unmonitored engine emissions from both types of stacks. This is necessary to stop disparities of which stack emissions are venting.
Item 6-1
Termination of monitoring station #8 leaves a void in the 8 existing monitoring stations. The move of the #3 monitor inside of NR’s North Wall to the South East Wall must remain identified as #3, because the #9 monitor that was promised to West Harlem and went into DEP’s budget was never installed. Monies for the #9 monitor were promised by the NYCDEP to NRCERB and the community for recreational usage. Please take note of this important concern.
The probe height requirement for the VOC monitors at the community station #6 is good. However, that monitor has to remain on top of the existing city transportation building roof, and the height must be compatible with the stacks in the RBSP.
In references to monitoring PM 2.5, the word “particulate” should be added, and the location of the monitor should be approved by NRCERB and the RBSP.
If the NYCDEP only has only two years left on this Title V Permit, they are clearly in violation for the last three years of operation of the NRWPCP, the NRAQP, and the NRWPCP Consent Order. A very significant penalty is in order here!
Item E: (a) (4)
An addition must be included as follows: The DEP must report these emergencies in the monthly review, the monitoring and compliance certification report, and report to the West Harlem Community and Community Board 9 within 30 days.
Item 10-1 (a)
3. Records must be made available to the community for examination upon request.
Item 1-2.
Is the 6 minute per hour Federal threshold to be established because currently the air emission contaminates are emited from the stacks most of the time? Usually there are continuous emissions.
2) Yes, usually plumes are observed from the stacks in three different colors: white, brown, and orange.
Item 1-6.2 Record keeping
In addition to quality reports of monitoring to the NYSDEC, please require that the DEP send these reports to the Community Board 9 and NRCERB. Also, oil sulfur standard exceedences that occurred during the reporting quarter must be reported to the community and made available to the community immediately.
Item 1-14.2 MONITORING TYPE: INTERMITTENT TESTING
Stack testing that will be required once every 5 years in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory standards:
Copies of stack testing results must be given to the community, in addition to plume and particulate compliance certification activities.
Item 66. 1
This is good. The NYSDEC must hold the NYCDEP accountable to this standard, particularly in communities of color such as West Harlem, where a disproportionate number of city service facilities exists.
Item 1-24.2
This compliance must be carefully monitored by the NYSDEC and the community. Also, the Jerome monitors must be checked, housekeeping rules of cleanliness and maintenance procedures must be checked, and reports documented.
Item 1-27.2
Because of maintenance lapses this has been a source of odors in the past. These regulations must be carefully adhered to in order to stop the escape of odor.
Item 76.2
The handling of NRWPCP odor complaints is acceptable when followed. This procedure must be carefully monitored by the DEC and kept in place.
Item H
Items that may fall into categories pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 616 Public Access to records and section 114 (c) of the 503 (e) of the act. A list of such information entitled to “confidential treatment” should be made, explained for cause, and added to this permit before it gets out of hand.
All personnel, both NYSDEC and NYCDEP, must continue attending the NRCERB monthly forums, and make reports in order to maintain community oversight. The NYCDEP must continue to finance this level of personnel and this must be written into the Title V Permit with all aforesaid requirements.
CB9M Distribution: For those inerested on Title V and the Questions pertaining to NRCERB Comments, follow the link and directions below.
Dear George,
I just got the link from Rick Muller (see below).
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dardata/boss/afs/draft_atv_n.html
After you go to the link, scroll down the page to:
NYC-DEP NORTH RIVER WPCP 2-6202-00007/00015 (466 KB PDF file).
Download the PDF. Ann's coments start on PDF page 7 of 109.
Enjoy.
Skip Stahly
Click here: Bureau of Stationary Sources : Draft Title V Permits
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/22/2005 9:56:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
BCC: Reysmont
NRCERB Comments re: Title V Permit- from L. Ann Rocker
NYSDEC and NYCDEP’s NRWCP Title V Permit
NYSDEC Special Conditions
Item 1-1.1
1. We find this statement satisfactory.
2. This statement must be totally removed from the North River Title V, Permit and the following must be inserted and adhered to as follows:
The NRAQM equipment must be upgraded, renewed, replaced, and the program implemented continuously by the NYCDEP in perpetuity. The Harlem Community and other patrons enjoy Riverbank State Park atop the NRWPCP, where thousands of children and adults are in daily attendance. West Harlem has the highest asthma rate in New York, and Columbia University School of Public Health just finished a study of asthma in pregnant women and found that all the fetuses are affected by air pollutants.
The safety of the health of the community must be the priority in this component of the system.
Item 1-6.1
Opacity monitors must be installed on all ten engines, both blower and pump, to monitor all emissions and especially to avoid any unmonitored engine emissions from both types of stacks. This is necessary to stop disparities of which stack emissions are venting.
Item 6-1
Termination of monitoring station #8 leaves a void in the 8 existing monitoring stations. The move of the #3 monitor inside of NR’s North Wall to the South East Wall must remain identified as #3, because the #9 monitor that was promised to West Harlem and went into DEP’s budget was never installed. Monies for the #9 monitor were promised by the NYCDEP to NRCERB and the community for recreational usage. Please take note of this important concern.
The probe height requirement for the VOC monitors at the community station #6 is good. However, that monitor has to remain on top of the existing city transportation building roof, and the height must be compatible with the stacks in the RBSP.
In references to monitoring PM 2.5, the word “particulate” should be added, and the location of the monitor should be approved by NRCERB and the RBSP.
If the NYCDEP only has only two years left on this Title V Permit, they are clearly in violation for the last three years of operation of the NRWPCP, the NRAQP, and the NRWPCP Consent Order. A very significant penalty is in order here!
Item E: (a) (4)
An addition must be included as follows: The DEP must report these emergencies in the monthly review, the monitoring and compliance certification report, and report to the West Harlem Community and Community Board 9 within 30 days.
Item 10-1 (a)
3. Records must be made available to the community for examination upon request.
Item 1-2.
Is the 6 minute per hour Federal threshold to be established because currently the air emission contaminates are emited from the stacks most of the time? Usually there are continuous emissions.
2) Yes, usually plumes are observed from the stacks in three different colors: white, brown, and orange.
Item 1-6.2 Record keeping
In addition to quality reports of monitoring to the NYSDEC, please require that the DEP send these reports to the Community Board 9 and NRCERB. Also, oil sulfur standard exceedences that occurred during the reporting quarter must be reported to the community and made available to the community immediately.
Item 1-14.2 MONITORING TYPE: INTERMITTENT TESTING
Stack testing that will be required once every 5 years in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory standards:
Copies of stack testing results must be given to the community, in addition to plume and particulate compliance certification activities.
Item 66. 1
This is good. The NYSDEC must hold the NYCDEP accountable to this standard, particularly in communities of color such as West Harlem, where a disproportionate number of city service facilities exists.
Item 1-24.2
This compliance must be carefully monitored by the NYSDEC and the community. Also, the Jerome monitors must be checked, housekeeping rules of cleanliness and maintenance procedures must be checked, and reports documented.
Item 1-27.2
Because of maintenance lapses this has been a source of odors in the past. These regulations must be carefully adhered to in order to stop the escape of odor.
Item 76.2
The handling of NRWPCP odor complaints is acceptable when followed. This procedure must be carefully monitored by the DEC and kept in place.
Item H
Items that may fall into categories pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 616 Public Access to records and section 114 (c) of the 503 (e) of the act. A list of such information entitled to “confidential treatment” should be made, explained for cause, and added to this permit before it gets out of hand.
All personnel, both NYSDEC and NYCDEP, must continue attending the NRCERB monthly forums, and make reports in order to maintain community oversight. The NYCDEP must continue to finance this level of personnel and this must be written into the Title V Permit with all aforesaid requirements.
CB9M Distribution: For those inerested on Title V and the Questions pertaining to NRCERB Comments, follow the link and directions below.
Dear George,
I just got the link from Rick Muller (see below).
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dardata/boss/afs/draft_atv_n.html
After you go to the link, scroll down the page to:
NYC-DEP NORTH RIVER WPCP 2-6202-00007/00015 (466 KB PDF file).
Download the PDF. Ann's coments start on PDF page 7 of 109.
Enjoy.
Skip Stahly
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Click here: Bureau of Stationary Sources : Draft Title V Permits
CB9M Distribution: FYI
Click here: Bureau of Stationary Sources : Draft Title V Permits
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dardata/boss/afs/draft_atv_n.html
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/22/2005 9:56:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
BCC: Reysmont
NRCERB Comments re: Title V Permit
- from L. Ann Rocker
NYSDEC and NYCDEP’s NRWCP Title V Permit
NYSDEC Special Conditions
Item 1-1.1
1. We find this statement satisfactory.
2. This statement must be totally removed from the North River Title V, Permit and the following must be inserted and adhered to as follows:
The NRAQM equipment must be upgraded, renewed, replaced, and the program implemented continuously by the NYCDEP in perpetuity. The Harlem Community and other patrons enjoy Riverbank State Park atop the NRWPCP, where thousands of children and adults are in daily attendance. West Harlem has the highest asthma rate in New York, and Columbia University School of Public Health just finished a study of asthma in pregnant women and found that all the fetuses are affected by air pollutants.
The safety of the health of the community must be the priority in this component of the system.
Item 1-6.1
Opacity monitors must be installed on all ten engines, both blower and pump, to monitor all emissions and especially to avoid any unmonitored engine emissions from both types of stacks. This is necessary to stop disparities of which stack emissions are venting.
Item 6-1
Termination of monitoring station #8 leaves a void in the 8 existing monitoring stations. The move of the #3 monitor inside of NR’s North Wall to the South East Wall must remain identified as #3, because the #9 monitor that was promised to West Harlem and went into DEP’s budget was never installed. Monies for the #9 monitor were promised by the NYCDEP to NRCERB and the community for recreational usage. Please take note of this important concern.
The probe height requirement for the VOC monitors at the community station #6 is good. However, that monitor has to remain on top of the existing city transportation building roof, and the height must be compatible with the stacks in the RBSP.
In references to monitoring PM 2.5, the word “particulate” should be added, and the location of the monitor should be approved by NRCERB and the RBSP.
If the NYCDEP only has only two years left on this Title V Permit, they are clearly in violation for the last three years of operation of the NRWPCP, the NRAQP, and the NRWPCP Consent Order. A very significant penalty is in order here!
Item E: (a) (4)
An addition must be included as follows: The DEP must report these emergencies in the monthly review, the monitoring and compliance certification report, and report to the West Harlem Community and Community Board 9 within 30 days.
Item 10-1 (a)
3. Records must be made available to the community for examination upon request.
Item 1-2.
Is the 6 minute per hour Federal threshold to be established because currently the air emission contaminates are emited from the stacks most of the time? Usually there are continuous emissions.
2) Yes, usually plumes are observed from the stacks in three different colors: white, brown, and orange.
Item 1-6.2 Record keeping
In addition to quality reports of monitoring to the NYSDEC, please require that the DEP send these reports to the Community Board 9 and NRCERB. Also, oil sulfur standard exceedences that occurred during the reporting quarter must be reported to the community and made available to the community immediately.
Item 1-14.2 MONITORING TYPE: INTERMITTENT TESTING
Stack testing that will be required once every 5 years in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory standards:
Copies of stack testing results must be given to the community, in addition to plume and particulate compliance certification activities.
Item 66. 1
This is good. The NYSDEC must hold the NYCDEP accountable to this standard, particularly in communities of color such as West Harlem, where a disproportionate number of city service facilities exists.
Item 1-24.2
This compliance must be carefully monitored by the NYSDEC and the community. Also, the Jerome monitors must be checked, housekeeping rules of cleanliness and maintenance procedures must be checked, and reports documented.
Item 1-27.2
Because of maintenance lapses this has been a source of odors in the past. These regulations must be carefully adhered to in order to stop the escape of odor.
Item 76.2
The handling of NRWPCP odor complaints is acceptable when followed. This procedure must be carefully monitored by the DEC and kept in place.
Item H
Items that may fall into categories pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 616 Public Access to records and section 114 (c) of the 503 (e) of the act. A list of such information entitled to “confidential treatment” should be made, explained for cause, and added to this permit before it gets out of hand.
All personnel, both NYSDEC and NYCDEP, must continue attending the NRCERB monthly forums, and make reports in order to maintain community oversight. The NYCDEP must continue to finance this level of personnel and this must be written into the Title V Permit with all aforesaid requirements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CB9M Distribution:
For those ineterested on Title V and the Questions pertaining to NRCERB Comments, follow the link and directions at beginning of this posting.
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/23/2005 9:46:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
To: Reysmont
Dear George,
I just got the link from Rick Muller (see below).
After you go to the link, scroll down the page to
NYC-DEP NORTH RIVER WPCP 2-6202-00007/00015 (466 KB PDF file).
Download the PDF. Ann's coments start on PDF page 7 of 109.
Enjoy.
Skip Stahly
__________________________
Click here: Bureau of Stationary Sources : Draft Title V Permits
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dardata/boss/afs/draft_atv_n.html
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/22/2005 9:56:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
BCC: Reysmont
NRCERB Comments re: Title V Permit
- from L. Ann Rocker
NYSDEC and NYCDEP’s NRWCP Title V Permit
NYSDEC Special Conditions
Item 1-1.1
1. We find this statement satisfactory.
2. This statement must be totally removed from the North River Title V, Permit and the following must be inserted and adhered to as follows:
The NRAQM equipment must be upgraded, renewed, replaced, and the program implemented continuously by the NYCDEP in perpetuity. The Harlem Community and other patrons enjoy Riverbank State Park atop the NRWPCP, where thousands of children and adults are in daily attendance. West Harlem has the highest asthma rate in New York, and Columbia University School of Public Health just finished a study of asthma in pregnant women and found that all the fetuses are affected by air pollutants.
The safety of the health of the community must be the priority in this component of the system.
Item 1-6.1
Opacity monitors must be installed on all ten engines, both blower and pump, to monitor all emissions and especially to avoid any unmonitored engine emissions from both types of stacks. This is necessary to stop disparities of which stack emissions are venting.
Item 6-1
Termination of monitoring station #8 leaves a void in the 8 existing monitoring stations. The move of the #3 monitor inside of NR’s North Wall to the South East Wall must remain identified as #3, because the #9 monitor that was promised to West Harlem and went into DEP’s budget was never installed. Monies for the #9 monitor were promised by the NYCDEP to NRCERB and the community for recreational usage. Please take note of this important concern.
The probe height requirement for the VOC monitors at the community station #6 is good. However, that monitor has to remain on top of the existing city transportation building roof, and the height must be compatible with the stacks in the RBSP.
In references to monitoring PM 2.5, the word “particulate” should be added, and the location of the monitor should be approved by NRCERB and the RBSP.
If the NYCDEP only has only two years left on this Title V Permit, they are clearly in violation for the last three years of operation of the NRWPCP, the NRAQP, and the NRWPCP Consent Order. A very significant penalty is in order here!
Item E: (a) (4)
An addition must be included as follows: The DEP must report these emergencies in the monthly review, the monitoring and compliance certification report, and report to the West Harlem Community and Community Board 9 within 30 days.
Item 10-1 (a)
3. Records must be made available to the community for examination upon request.
Item 1-2.
Is the 6 minute per hour Federal threshold to be established because currently the air emission contaminates are emited from the stacks most of the time? Usually there are continuous emissions.
2) Yes, usually plumes are observed from the stacks in three different colors: white, brown, and orange.
Item 1-6.2 Record keeping
In addition to quality reports of monitoring to the NYSDEC, please require that the DEP send these reports to the Community Board 9 and NRCERB. Also, oil sulfur standard exceedences that occurred during the reporting quarter must be reported to the community and made available to the community immediately.
Item 1-14.2 MONITORING TYPE: INTERMITTENT TESTING
Stack testing that will be required once every 5 years in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory standards:
Copies of stack testing results must be given to the community, in addition to plume and particulate compliance certification activities.
Item 66. 1
This is good. The NYSDEC must hold the NYCDEP accountable to this standard, particularly in communities of color such as West Harlem, where a disproportionate number of city service facilities exists.
Item 1-24.2
This compliance must be carefully monitored by the NYSDEC and the community. Also, the Jerome monitors must be checked, housekeeping rules of cleanliness and maintenance procedures must be checked, and reports documented.
Item 1-27.2
Because of maintenance lapses this has been a source of odors in the past. These regulations must be carefully adhered to in order to stop the escape of odor.
Item 76.2
The handling of NRWPCP odor complaints is acceptable when followed. This procedure must be carefully monitored by the DEC and kept in place.
Item H
Items that may fall into categories pursuant to 6 NYCRR part 616 Public Access to records and section 114 (c) of the 503 (e) of the act. A list of such information entitled to “confidential treatment” should be made, explained for cause, and added to this permit before it gets out of hand.
All personnel, both NYSDEC and NYCDEP, must continue attending the NRCERB monthly forums, and make reports in order to maintain community oversight. The NYCDEP must continue to finance this level of personnel and this must be written into the Title V Permit with all aforesaid requirements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CB9M Distribution:
For those ineterested on Title V and the Questions pertaining to NRCERB Comments, follow the link and directions at beginning of this posting.
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: NRCERB Title V Comments - from L. Ann Rocker
Date: 2/23/2005 9:46:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Pstahly
To: Reysmont
Dear George,
I just got the link from Rick Muller (see below).
After you go to the link, scroll down the page to
NYC-DEP NORTH RIVER WPCP 2-6202-00007/00015 (466 KB PDF file).
Download the PDF. Ann's coments start on PDF page 7 of 109.
Enjoy.
Skip Stahly
__________________________
Watershed conference
Subject: Watershed conference
Date: 2/23/2005 2:44:10 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: HDFCCenter
Hello all,
Attached please find the "Call for Abstracts" and first announcement for
the 2005 NYC Watershed Science and Technical Conference, to be held at
the Fishkill Holiday Inn and Conference Center on September 21 and 22,
2005.
In addition to considering a submission from your organization or
agency, please feel free to distribute it to any and all of your lists,
links and partners.
Many thanks,
Bill Harding
Please visit our website:
www.newyorkwater.org
7th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON WATERSHED PROTECTION
and
2005 NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCE
**First Announcement and Call for Abstracts**
The conference sponsors are pleased to announce a CALL FOR ABSTRACTS to be presented at the 2005 New York City Watershed Science and Technical Conference, to be held September, 21st and 22nd at the Fishkill Holiday Inn and Conference Center in Fishkill, New York.
Since the signing of the historic New York City Watershed Agreement in 1997, there have been unparalleled efforts and resources devoted to understanding the science of the New York City Watershed. The conference will bring scientists and technical experts together with watershed stakeholders and the public, to technically inform, present research findings and technical data, exchange ideas, and present information collected to date with regard to the protection of the nation’s largest unfiltered surface water supply. In addition, it will be a unique opportunity to interface with scientists working in similar arenas across the nation, providing an opportunity to enhance technology transfer and increase coordination among the array of entities working with watershed protection science.
Submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the Watershed Protection and Partnership Council’s Technical Advisory Committee for technical merit, interdisciplinary utility, as well as temporal and substantive relevance. Submissions accepted for presentation at the conference may be grouped into topic tracks. A ‘Compendium of Abstracts’ accepted for presentation will be published for distribution at the conference and to interested parties.
Abstracts will be accepted primarily in the following broad categories, but other submissions of significance will be considered:
. • Best Management Practices - including stormwater, agriculture, silviculture, and onsite wastewater treatment,
. • Research - including agriculture, silviculture, sampling, health studies, and wastewater treatment,
. • Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement - including WWTP Upgrades, new WWTPs, I/I, monitoring, stream restoration, GIS development and implementation,
. • Management, Planning and Outreach - including educational programs, volunteer monitoring, stream management plans, comprehensive planning,
. • Other topics - including nonpoint source pollution prevention, total maximum daily loads, wetland and watercourse protection, and pathogens and disinfection byproducts control.
Submission requirements:
1. 1. One page abstracts must be submitted by electronic and regular mail, to the address below, in 10 point Times New Roman, fully justified, with ¾ inch margins on all sides. The abstract shall not exceed 500 words, shall include the abstract title and author(s) names at the top of the page, and shall include contact information and affiliations at the bottom of the page.
2. 2. The proposed presenter of the abstract shall be noted, and the presenter’s summary biography shall be included with the abstract submission. Biographical data shall include employer (or academic institution, if student), title, brief job or research description, major projects, experience related to the topic being presented, education, licenses, and previous applicable employment.
3. 3. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 1, 2005. Notifications of acceptance will be made by May 1, 2005.
Please submit abstracts and the presenter’s summary biography to:
Mr. William C. Harding, Executive Director
Watershed Protection and Partnership Council
New York State Department of State
2 John Walsh Boulevard - Suite 206
Peekskill, New York 10566
wharding@dos.state.ny.us
Conference sponsors:
The New York State Department of State The Watershed Protection and Partnership Council The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Catskill Watershed Corporation The New York State Department of Health The New York Water Environment Association-Lower Hudson Chap. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection The American Water Works Association
Date: 2/23/2005 2:44:10 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: HDFCCenter
Hello all,
Attached please find the "Call for Abstracts" and first announcement for
the 2005 NYC Watershed Science and Technical Conference, to be held at
the Fishkill Holiday Inn and Conference Center on September 21 and 22,
2005.
In addition to considering a submission from your organization or
agency, please feel free to distribute it to any and all of your lists,
links and partners.
Many thanks,
Bill Harding
Please visit our website:
www.newyorkwater.org
7th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON WATERSHED PROTECTION
and
2005 NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCE
**First Announcement and Call for Abstracts**
The conference sponsors are pleased to announce a CALL FOR ABSTRACTS to be presented at the 2005 New York City Watershed Science and Technical Conference, to be held September, 21st and 22nd at the Fishkill Holiday Inn and Conference Center in Fishkill, New York.
Since the signing of the historic New York City Watershed Agreement in 1997, there have been unparalleled efforts and resources devoted to understanding the science of the New York City Watershed. The conference will bring scientists and technical experts together with watershed stakeholders and the public, to technically inform, present research findings and technical data, exchange ideas, and present information collected to date with regard to the protection of the nation’s largest unfiltered surface water supply. In addition, it will be a unique opportunity to interface with scientists working in similar arenas across the nation, providing an opportunity to enhance technology transfer and increase coordination among the array of entities working with watershed protection science.
Submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the Watershed Protection and Partnership Council’s Technical Advisory Committee for technical merit, interdisciplinary utility, as well as temporal and substantive relevance. Submissions accepted for presentation at the conference may be grouped into topic tracks. A ‘Compendium of Abstracts’ accepted for presentation will be published for distribution at the conference and to interested parties.
Abstracts will be accepted primarily in the following broad categories, but other submissions of significance will be considered:
. • Best Management Practices - including stormwater, agriculture, silviculture, and onsite wastewater treatment,
. • Research - including agriculture, silviculture, sampling, health studies, and wastewater treatment,
. • Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement - including WWTP Upgrades, new WWTPs, I/I, monitoring, stream restoration, GIS development and implementation,
. • Management, Planning and Outreach - including educational programs, volunteer monitoring, stream management plans, comprehensive planning,
. • Other topics - including nonpoint source pollution prevention, total maximum daily loads, wetland and watercourse protection, and pathogens and disinfection byproducts control.
Submission requirements:
1. 1. One page abstracts must be submitted by electronic and regular mail, to the address below, in 10 point Times New Roman, fully justified, with ¾ inch margins on all sides. The abstract shall not exceed 500 words, shall include the abstract title and author(s) names at the top of the page, and shall include contact information and affiliations at the bottom of the page.
2. 2. The proposed presenter of the abstract shall be noted, and the presenter’s summary biography shall be included with the abstract submission. Biographical data shall include employer (or academic institution, if student), title, brief job or research description, major projects, experience related to the topic being presented, education, licenses, and previous applicable employment.
3. 3. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 1, 2005. Notifications of acceptance will be made by May 1, 2005.
Please submit abstracts and the presenter’s summary biography to:
Mr. William C. Harding, Executive Director
Watershed Protection and Partnership Council
New York State Department of State
2 John Walsh Boulevard - Suite 206
Peekskill, New York 10566
wharding@dos.state.ny.us
Conference sponsors:
The New York State Department of State The Watershed Protection and Partnership Council The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation The Catskill Watershed Corporation The New York State Department of Health The New York Water Environment Association-Lower Hudson Chap. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection The American Water Works Association
Real Estate Is Still Surging in Harlem, a Study Finds
Click here: The New York Times > New York Region >
Real Estate Is Still Surging in Harlem, a Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/nyregion/23harlem.html?oref=login
NYTimes.com > New York Region
nytimes.com/realestate
Real Estate Is Still Surging in Harlem, a Study Finds
By DENNIS HEVESI
Published: February 23, 2005
he Harlem real estate renaissance rolls on - and the numbers show it.
Sales of condominiums and co-ops above West 116th Street and East 96th Street reached 5.5 percent of all sales in Manhattan last year, according to the Prudential Douglas Elliman Manhattan Market Report, compared with the 3.6 percent share it held in 2003.
By comparison, the downtown loft market was 9.4 percent of all sales in Manhattan, up from 8.1 percent the year before.
"They've both gone up," said Jonathan Miller, president of the Miller Samuel appraisal company, which prepared the Elliman report, "but the market that's gotten most of the attention, and was discovered first, was the loft market, which really came into being in the 90's. Now Harlem has become a significant segment that can't be overlooked."
It is impossible for Willie Katherine Suggs, president of the Harlem brokerage firm that bears her name, to overlook the change. "There are blocks in Harlem that bear no resemblance to what they looked like 10 years ago," Ms. Suggs said. "Right outside my door, it was like somebody bombed it out - vacant lots, vacant buildings. Now there are two nine-story luxury buildings, and they are doing a third one on the north side of 145th Street."
Seen over a 10-year period, Harlem's renewal is even more evident. The Elliman report tracked 8,653 co-op and condo sales for all of Manhattan last year, up 77.9 percent from 4,865 sales in 1995. In Harlem last year, there were 473 co-op and condo sales, a 164 percent jump from 179 sales in 1995. The report is based on closed transactions for all brokerage firms in Manhattan.
There has been, not surprisingly, a corresponding surge in prices. The average sales price for all of Manhattan in 2004 was $1,004,232, up 18.1 percent from $850,340 in 2003, and up 140.5 percent since 1995, the report said. In Harlem, the average price in 2004 was $358,657, up 36.9 percent from $261,951 in 2003, and up 333.7 percent from $82,693 in 1995.
The median price in Manhattan last year was $605,859, up 22.4 percent from $495,000 in 2003, and up 192 percent from $207,500 in 1995. In Harlem, the median price in 2004 was $305,490, rising by 32.8 percent over the median of $230,000 in 2003, and bounding up by 350 percent from $68,000 in 1995.
Ms. Suggs credits city housing policy for the boom. "You have city money involved," she said. "If you agreed to keep prices affordable, you got tax breaks and all kinds of incentives. And investors took advantage of them. Where else could you get a two-bedroom apartment for $190,000?"
Now, most of those subsidized, renovated apartments are gone, "and nonsubsidized apartments start at $450,000 and go up to over a million," Ms. Suggs continued. "It became the self-fulfilling prophecy."
Spurring the demand is the fact that Manhattan "has just gotten so expensive," said Dr. Chris Mayer, director of the Milstein Center for Real Estate at Columbia University. "And, certainly, the renaissance in Harlem, in Brooklyn and, frankly, across the bridges and tunnels to New Jersey, shows that close access to Midtown is worth the price."
At the same time, Harlem's character has changed in just a decade. "Large chain grocery stores are there; hotels opening up, the Body Shop, Starbucks," Dr. Mayer said. "And it has become harder for people on a limited income to live there."
"It's always an interesting question whether so-called gentrification is good or bad," he added.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A REPLY:
Subject: Harlem real estate boom
Date: 2/23/2005 11:45:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: heftnow@gmail.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Academic Dr. Chris Mayer (NYT 2/23/05) misses or gets wrong so much of
the truth about Harlem real estate, we're guessing he's a non-resident.
Mayer suggests the Harlem boom is about "access to midtown" and
because "Manhattan has gotten so expensive." Not irrelevant. But
Harlem residents aren't midtown-centric.
We come for a low-scale, less-dense place to live. We choose to be in and
around landmark-quality architecture. We feel we're not the terrorist target
midtown is.
We like having multiple subway options.
We like our proximity to bridges and highways AWAY from midtown.
We know our neighbors.
And since as long time resident broker Willie Sugg's noted, Harlem's
gentrification has meant filling up vacant lots and vacant
shells---not pushing people out--Dr. Mayer is wrong, it's become
EASIER for people of limited income to live here. We no longer have
to pay inflated ghetto prices because there is some retail competition.
We don't have to travel to midtown to buy as many of the things we need.
We are safer than before because of new neighbors in those formerly
vacant lots and buildings. And the recent enthusiasm about the "new" Harlem
has meant we are increasingly able to get fair and equal City and State services
and support than in the past, insteading of being treated as a ghetto for the
dumping of services and people midtown doesn't want.
Harlem real estate values reflect FAVORABLE SECULAR CHANGE in the
quality of life in Harlem for people of all incomes. They're not just
about the rise in midtown prices.
President
Harlem for Equal and Fair Treatment (HEFT)
537 W. 142nd Street, #1
New York, NY 10031
212/368-7058
HEFTnow@gmail.com
Real Estate Is Still Surging in Harlem, a Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/nyregion/23harlem.html?oref=login
NYTimes.com > New York Region
nytimes.com/realestate
Real Estate Is Still Surging in Harlem, a Study Finds
By DENNIS HEVESI
Published: February 23, 2005
he Harlem real estate renaissance rolls on - and the numbers show it.
Sales of condominiums and co-ops above West 116th Street and East 96th Street reached 5.5 percent of all sales in Manhattan last year, according to the Prudential Douglas Elliman Manhattan Market Report, compared with the 3.6 percent share it held in 2003.
By comparison, the downtown loft market was 9.4 percent of all sales in Manhattan, up from 8.1 percent the year before.
"They've both gone up," said Jonathan Miller, president of the Miller Samuel appraisal company, which prepared the Elliman report, "but the market that's gotten most of the attention, and was discovered first, was the loft market, which really came into being in the 90's. Now Harlem has become a significant segment that can't be overlooked."
It is impossible for Willie Katherine Suggs, president of the Harlem brokerage firm that bears her name, to overlook the change. "There are blocks in Harlem that bear no resemblance to what they looked like 10 years ago," Ms. Suggs said. "Right outside my door, it was like somebody bombed it out - vacant lots, vacant buildings. Now there are two nine-story luxury buildings, and they are doing a third one on the north side of 145th Street."
Seen over a 10-year period, Harlem's renewal is even more evident. The Elliman report tracked 8,653 co-op and condo sales for all of Manhattan last year, up 77.9 percent from 4,865 sales in 1995. In Harlem last year, there were 473 co-op and condo sales, a 164 percent jump from 179 sales in 1995. The report is based on closed transactions for all brokerage firms in Manhattan.
There has been, not surprisingly, a corresponding surge in prices. The average sales price for all of Manhattan in 2004 was $1,004,232, up 18.1 percent from $850,340 in 2003, and up 140.5 percent since 1995, the report said. In Harlem, the average price in 2004 was $358,657, up 36.9 percent from $261,951 in 2003, and up 333.7 percent from $82,693 in 1995.
The median price in Manhattan last year was $605,859, up 22.4 percent from $495,000 in 2003, and up 192 percent from $207,500 in 1995. In Harlem, the median price in 2004 was $305,490, rising by 32.8 percent over the median of $230,000 in 2003, and bounding up by 350 percent from $68,000 in 1995.
Ms. Suggs credits city housing policy for the boom. "You have city money involved," she said. "If you agreed to keep prices affordable, you got tax breaks and all kinds of incentives. And investors took advantage of them. Where else could you get a two-bedroom apartment for $190,000?"
Now, most of those subsidized, renovated apartments are gone, "and nonsubsidized apartments start at $450,000 and go up to over a million," Ms. Suggs continued. "It became the self-fulfilling prophecy."
Spurring the demand is the fact that Manhattan "has just gotten so expensive," said Dr. Chris Mayer, director of the Milstein Center for Real Estate at Columbia University. "And, certainly, the renaissance in Harlem, in Brooklyn and, frankly, across the bridges and tunnels to New Jersey, shows that close access to Midtown is worth the price."
At the same time, Harlem's character has changed in just a decade. "Large chain grocery stores are there; hotels opening up, the Body Shop, Starbucks," Dr. Mayer said. "And it has become harder for people on a limited income to live there."
"It's always an interesting question whether so-called gentrification is good or bad," he added.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A REPLY:
Subject: Harlem real estate boom
Date: 2/23/2005 11:45:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: heftnow@gmail.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Academic Dr. Chris Mayer (NYT 2/23/05) misses or gets wrong so much of
the truth about Harlem real estate, we're guessing he's a non-resident.
Mayer suggests the Harlem boom is about "access to midtown" and
because "Manhattan has gotten so expensive." Not irrelevant. But
Harlem residents aren't midtown-centric.
We come for a low-scale, less-dense place to live. We choose to be in and
around landmark-quality architecture. We feel we're not the terrorist target
midtown is.
We like having multiple subway options.
We like our proximity to bridges and highways AWAY from midtown.
We know our neighbors.
And since as long time resident broker Willie Sugg's noted, Harlem's
gentrification has meant filling up vacant lots and vacant
shells---not pushing people out--Dr. Mayer is wrong, it's become
EASIER for people of limited income to live here. We no longer have
to pay inflated ghetto prices because there is some retail competition.
We don't have to travel to midtown to buy as many of the things we need.
We are safer than before because of new neighbors in those formerly
vacant lots and buildings. And the recent enthusiasm about the "new" Harlem
has meant we are increasingly able to get fair and equal City and State services
and support than in the past, insteading of being treated as a ghetto for the
dumping of services and people midtown doesn't want.
Harlem real estate values reflect FAVORABLE SECULAR CHANGE in the
quality of life in Harlem for people of all incomes. They're not just
about the rise in midtown prices.
President
Harlem for Equal and Fair Treatment (HEFT)
537 W. 142nd Street, #1
New York, NY 10031
212/368-7058
HEFTnow@gmail.com
Lost Havana's preserver: IN TRIBUTE: GUILLERMO CABRERA INFANTE: BRILLIANT WRITER AND CRITIC OF CASTRO
Click here: Herald.com 02/23/2005 Lost Havana's preserver
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/1096680Click here: Herald.com 02/23/2005 Lost Havana's preserver 5.htm
Posted on Wed, Feb. 23, 2005
Lost Havana's preserver
IN TRIBUTE: GUILLERMO CABRERA INFANTE: BRILLIANT WRITER AND CRITIC OF CASTRO
Guillermo Cabrera Infante's death on Monday at age 75 leaves a void in the Spanish-language's literary world and in the heart of Cuba's diaspora.
A celebrated writer and movie critic, he wielded his pen in biting criticism of Fidel Castro and of totalitarian Cuba. As close friend and fellow writer Carlos Franqui said, Mr. Cabrera Infante was viciously attacked by Cuba's regime for his criticism.
Mr. Cabrera Infante broke with the regime in 1965 and settled in London. This was his 40th year in exile. He was an exile who famously recreated the lost Havana of the 1940s and 1950s in classic books such as Tres tristes tigres, known in English as Three Trapped Tigers; La Habana para un infante difunto, also loosely translated as Infante's Inferno. Another book Un oficio del Siglo XX -- 20th Century Job -- collects his film reviews.
His writing often defies literal translation because Mr. Cabrera Infante loved puns and word games. Indeed, he loved language as much as he did Cuban culture. Consider this excerpt from his 1985 Herald piece in Tropic Magazine describing his first sighting of Peniscola, a Spanish city, hearing Beethoven's Fifth blaring from a car radio. Read it aloud:
'Die-die-die dah! The fatal first notes of the Fifth had struck true. Destiny's at the door, like a higher calling of Avon: `This is Fate Calling!' Ding dang dong. How does Death knock on the hide of elephants? Dodo. Destiny is now a coda. The radio is already on its way to extinction. Off!''
Mr. Cabrera Infante will be missed by countless friends, literary fans and dissidents still struggling for Cuba's freedom. His lost Havana, however, lives in the legacy of his words.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/1096680Click here: Herald.com 02/23/2005 Lost Havana's preserver 5.htm
Posted on Wed, Feb. 23, 2005
Lost Havana's preserver
IN TRIBUTE: GUILLERMO CABRERA INFANTE: BRILLIANT WRITER AND CRITIC OF CASTRO
Guillermo Cabrera Infante's death on Monday at age 75 leaves a void in the Spanish-language's literary world and in the heart of Cuba's diaspora.
A celebrated writer and movie critic, he wielded his pen in biting criticism of Fidel Castro and of totalitarian Cuba. As close friend and fellow writer Carlos Franqui said, Mr. Cabrera Infante was viciously attacked by Cuba's regime for his criticism.
Mr. Cabrera Infante broke with the regime in 1965 and settled in London. This was his 40th year in exile. He was an exile who famously recreated the lost Havana of the 1940s and 1950s in classic books such as Tres tristes tigres, known in English as Three Trapped Tigers; La Habana para un infante difunto, also loosely translated as Infante's Inferno. Another book Un oficio del Siglo XX -- 20th Century Job -- collects his film reviews.
His writing often defies literal translation because Mr. Cabrera Infante loved puns and word games. Indeed, he loved language as much as he did Cuban culture. Consider this excerpt from his 1985 Herald piece in Tropic Magazine describing his first sighting of Peniscola, a Spanish city, hearing Beethoven's Fifth blaring from a car radio. Read it aloud:
'Die-die-die dah! The fatal first notes of the Fifth had struck true. Destiny's at the door, like a higher calling of Avon: `This is Fate Calling!' Ding dang dong. How does Death knock on the hide of elephants? Dodo. Destiny is now a coda. The radio is already on its way to extinction. Off!''
Mr. Cabrera Infante will be missed by countless friends, literary fans and dissidents still struggling for Cuba's freedom. His lost Havana, however, lives in the legacy of his words.
Latest Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived
Click here: Latest Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived - February 23, 2005 - The New York Sun
http://www.nysun.com/article/9574
Subject: Latest [WS Rail Yard] Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived
Date: 2/23/2005 6:11:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Feb 23, 2005;
Section:New York; Page:3
Latest Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived MTA ISSUES RFP TO DEVELOP RAIL YARDS COVETED BY JETS
By JEREMY SMERD
Special to the Sun
The latest and most lucrative bid for the right to develop the West Side
rail yards may also be the most short-lived.
An energy company, TransGas Energy Systems, which submitted a $700 million
offer Monday for air rights at the 13-acre site, said it does not plan to
respond immediately to yesterday’s request for proposals sent by the owner
of the rail yards, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The nominal value of the unexpected and conditional offer by TransGas was
$100 million more than Madison Square Garden offered and $600 million more
than the New York Jets had offered for the air rights, or development
rights. But the president of Trans-Gas,Adam Victor,said: “We are not
submitting anything further until we meet with the MTA.”
The cash-strapped agency, which is run by the state, hopes to sell the air
rights to raise money to plug a multibillion-dollar budget gap in its
capital plan for the next five years. The RFP sent out yesterday was in
response to calls for an open and competitive bidding process meant to
increase the price of the development rights. Mr. Victor said his
“non-conforming bid” would do just that.
“We believe it’s up to the management of the MTA to weigh the benefits of a
non-conforming bid against the paradigm they set forth in the RFP,”he said.
But the MTA will not entertain any proposals that do not conform to the
RFP, a spokesman said.
“We are delivering to interested parties copies of the RFP,” the spokesman,
Brian Dolan, said. “It is a process we put forward, and we will not
entertain any non-conforming proposals.”
Mr. Dolan said the MTA has no intention of meeting with TransGas. Mr.Victor
said he remained confident that the MTA would see that his company’s offer
— which deals with electricity as much as it deals with real estate — was
unusual enough that it could not conform to the normal proposals solicited
by the MTA, but was a compelling offer nonetheless.
“On something of this import they might not like what we have to say but I
think they will want to meet with us. I could be wrong but I don’t think
so,” Mr.Victor said. “If they refuse to meet with us or refuse to discuss
it we will have a tough decision to make.”
Both the Jets and Madison Square Garden said they would re-submit their
proposals once they received the MTA’s guidelines. The deadline for bids is
March 21. The MTA, in its request for proposals, said a winning proposal
would come at the least economic and environmental risk to the MTA and at
the same time give the greatest economic and civic benefit to the city and
the surrounding community.
The bid for the site by TransGas was unusual because the company announced
no plans to develop the site. Unlike the New York Jets’ plan to build a New
York Sports and Convention Center featuring a 75,000-seat football stadium
that would also serve as the city’s crown jewel in its bid for the 2012
Olympics, and unlike Madison Square Garden’s recently announced proposal
for a high-density housing complex over the rail yards, TransGas sought to
use the property as “collateral” to secure a 20-year power contract the MTA
currently has with the New York Power Authority, Mr.Victor said.
Since 2001, TransGas has been vying unsuccessfully to build a power plant
on the Brooklyn waterfront,Mr.Victor said.
Mayor Bloomberg told reporters yesterday that TransGas declined an offer
from the city to build the power plant at another location.
A representative from an organization that has worked with the community in
Williamsburg that opposes TransGas’s plans for a power plant there said the
proposal Monday was merely an attempt to circumvent community review with a
backroom deal.
“It was a thinly veiled effort to leverage their Brooklyn power plant
proposal by spending 700 million for the rail yards,” an environmental
policy analyst with NYPIRG, Jason Babbie, said. “Now TransGas will have to
follow the same rules as any developer and go through the process.”
The proposal from TransGas was met yesterday with derision from the Jets
president,Jay Cross,who took the opportunity to announce upcoming
events,notably the annual Whitney M. Young Jr. Football Classic, for a
stadium that has yet to be approved, let alone built.
“We have descended from the sublime to the ridiculous,”Mr.Cross said of the
TransGas offer. The Jets executive said the domed stadium, where the team
hopes to begin play in 2009, will create thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars in revenue.
The RFP posted on the Internet late yesterday is 25 pages long.
Real-estate experts said the solicitation, by creating uniform guidelines
and conditions, would allow for bids to be easily compared and a market
value for the site to be reached.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Waiting for a better deal on a football stadium
Date: 2/23/2005 8:02:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Waiting for a better deal on a football stadium
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
By LAWRENCE AARON
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTEmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY2NTczMDAmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5
CONSTRUCTION JOBS for minorities: That's what the Jets owners are promising
as an inducement for a few thousand more New Yorkers to support the stadium
planned for Manhattan's West Side.
The promise is very seductive, especially when you consider that last year
at this time a report by the Community Service Society came out saying
about half the black men in New York City are not employed.
Now the New York Jets organization, in an effort to build minority support
for their West Side stadium plan, has waved the prospect of jobs under the
noses of people starving for them. People who can ill afford the rent in
New York City should jump at the chance for a few months of steady work
building the stadium. Right?
Believe me, that would be a cause for rejoicing in a city where major
public and private projects go up with almost no black construction laborers.
If I thought the agreement would make any real difference in the long-term
employment of minorities in decent-paying jobs, I might be persuaded to
become a booster of the stadium plan, saying: "Go ahead. Let's all endure
more West Side Highway traffic snarls if it means construction jobs at the
stadium." But I'd have to read the fine print first.
The stadium, which in the Bloomberg administration's scheme of things is
the lynchpin for getting the Olympic Committee to stage the summer games
here in 2012 - no serious alternative site has ever been offered - has been
touted as a commercial boon to the whole region including the working
class, construction workers, service personnel in the hospitality
industries, and others.
Jets President Jay Cross went to great lengths to demonstrate the
organization's willingness to employ minority contractors and professionals
in the stadium plan. Last week he and Mayor Bloomberg, along with a several
black political leaders from Queens, got together on the Intrepid and
signed an agreement that they estimate could steer $100 million in
construction contracts to minorities.
But how can you think of this agreement as anything but just another ploy
to get approval for a bad project with questionable benefits to anyone-
including minorities?
Alas, after the stadium were to go up, I would be disappointed if the only
minority private-sector jobs there were the same old Senegalese vendors
with T-shirts and "I Love New York" gewgaws and tchotchkes.
Among the many losers in the deal would be the same working-class mass
transit riders facing more fare increases. They would be the ones
ultimately subsidizing the sale. As the only ones in line for the 13-acre
site over the West Side rail yards, the Jets offered $100 million for a
site appraised at $923 million. The MTA was willing to let the valuable air
rights go at a fraction of the value, until last week when the competing
offer of $600 million from Cablevision's owners, the Dolans, forced the
potential sale of the site to be thrown open to other bidders.
Some of the biggest supporters of the West Side site have been those Queens
political leaders, who would be better off pushing a venue in their own
borough.
Whoever gets the green light to build over the West Side rail yards -
whether it be the Jets, the Dolans or another commercial developer - needs
to give the city something that is not traffic-intensive, that gives the
MTA good money to hold back fare increases and that includes zoning for
affordable housing units.
In the final analysis, the benefits to minorities would be a few short-term
construction jobs offered with the intent of selling a bad idea to a few
more New Yorkers.
The approach reminds me of the politicians who troll the inner city for
votes and then disappear until the next election.
In the meantime, Cablevision is seen as a spoiler. But I say thanks to the
Dolans for forcing their way onto the scene.
Like a jackhammer, they broke up the too-cozy solidarity and forced the
project open to bid. And that's good for everybody - except the Jets.
Record Columnist Lawrence Aaron can be contacted at aaron@northjersey.com.
Send comments about this column to oped@northjersey.com.
http://www.nysun.com/article/9574
Subject: Latest [WS Rail Yard] Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived
Date: 2/23/2005 6:11:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Feb 23, 2005;
Section:New York; Page:3
Latest Counterbid May End Up To Be Most Short-Lived MTA ISSUES RFP TO DEVELOP RAIL YARDS COVETED BY JETS
By JEREMY SMERD
Special to the Sun
The latest and most lucrative bid for the right to develop the West Side
rail yards may also be the most short-lived.
An energy company, TransGas Energy Systems, which submitted a $700 million
offer Monday for air rights at the 13-acre site, said it does not plan to
respond immediately to yesterday’s request for proposals sent by the owner
of the rail yards, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The nominal value of the unexpected and conditional offer by TransGas was
$100 million more than Madison Square Garden offered and $600 million more
than the New York Jets had offered for the air rights, or development
rights. But the president of Trans-Gas,Adam Victor,said: “We are not
submitting anything further until we meet with the MTA.”
The cash-strapped agency, which is run by the state, hopes to sell the air
rights to raise money to plug a multibillion-dollar budget gap in its
capital plan for the next five years. The RFP sent out yesterday was in
response to calls for an open and competitive bidding process meant to
increase the price of the development rights. Mr. Victor said his
“non-conforming bid” would do just that.
“We believe it’s up to the management of the MTA to weigh the benefits of a
non-conforming bid against the paradigm they set forth in the RFP,”he said.
But the MTA will not entertain any proposals that do not conform to the
RFP, a spokesman said.
“We are delivering to interested parties copies of the RFP,” the spokesman,
Brian Dolan, said. “It is a process we put forward, and we will not
entertain any non-conforming proposals.”
Mr. Dolan said the MTA has no intention of meeting with TransGas. Mr.Victor
said he remained confident that the MTA would see that his company’s offer
— which deals with electricity as much as it deals with real estate — was
unusual enough that it could not conform to the normal proposals solicited
by the MTA, but was a compelling offer nonetheless.
“On something of this import they might not like what we have to say but I
think they will want to meet with us. I could be wrong but I don’t think
so,” Mr.Victor said. “If they refuse to meet with us or refuse to discuss
it we will have a tough decision to make.”
Both the Jets and Madison Square Garden said they would re-submit their
proposals once they received the MTA’s guidelines. The deadline for bids is
March 21. The MTA, in its request for proposals, said a winning proposal
would come at the least economic and environmental risk to the MTA and at
the same time give the greatest economic and civic benefit to the city and
the surrounding community.
The bid for the site by TransGas was unusual because the company announced
no plans to develop the site. Unlike the New York Jets’ plan to build a New
York Sports and Convention Center featuring a 75,000-seat football stadium
that would also serve as the city’s crown jewel in its bid for the 2012
Olympics, and unlike Madison Square Garden’s recently announced proposal
for a high-density housing complex over the rail yards, TransGas sought to
use the property as “collateral” to secure a 20-year power contract the MTA
currently has with the New York Power Authority, Mr.Victor said.
Since 2001, TransGas has been vying unsuccessfully to build a power plant
on the Brooklyn waterfront,Mr.Victor said.
Mayor Bloomberg told reporters yesterday that TransGas declined an offer
from the city to build the power plant at another location.
A representative from an organization that has worked with the community in
Williamsburg that opposes TransGas’s plans for a power plant there said the
proposal Monday was merely an attempt to circumvent community review with a
backroom deal.
“It was a thinly veiled effort to leverage their Brooklyn power plant
proposal by spending 700 million for the rail yards,” an environmental
policy analyst with NYPIRG, Jason Babbie, said. “Now TransGas will have to
follow the same rules as any developer and go through the process.”
The proposal from TransGas was met yesterday with derision from the Jets
president,Jay Cross,who took the opportunity to announce upcoming
events,notably the annual Whitney M. Young Jr. Football Classic, for a
stadium that has yet to be approved, let alone built.
“We have descended from the sublime to the ridiculous,”Mr.Cross said of the
TransGas offer. The Jets executive said the domed stadium, where the team
hopes to begin play in 2009, will create thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars in revenue.
The RFP posted on the Internet late yesterday is 25 pages long.
Real-estate experts said the solicitation, by creating uniform guidelines
and conditions, would allow for bids to be easily compared and a market
value for the site to be reached.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Waiting for a better deal on a football stadium
Date: 2/23/2005 8:02:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Waiting for a better deal on a football stadium
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
By LAWRENCE AARON
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTEmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY2NTczMDAmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5
CONSTRUCTION JOBS for minorities: That's what the Jets owners are promising
as an inducement for a few thousand more New Yorkers to support the stadium
planned for Manhattan's West Side.
The promise is very seductive, especially when you consider that last year
at this time a report by the Community Service Society came out saying
about half the black men in New York City are not employed.
Now the New York Jets organization, in an effort to build minority support
for their West Side stadium plan, has waved the prospect of jobs under the
noses of people starving for them. People who can ill afford the rent in
New York City should jump at the chance for a few months of steady work
building the stadium. Right?
Believe me, that would be a cause for rejoicing in a city where major
public and private projects go up with almost no black construction laborers.
If I thought the agreement would make any real difference in the long-term
employment of minorities in decent-paying jobs, I might be persuaded to
become a booster of the stadium plan, saying: "Go ahead. Let's all endure
more West Side Highway traffic snarls if it means construction jobs at the
stadium." But I'd have to read the fine print first.
The stadium, which in the Bloomberg administration's scheme of things is
the lynchpin for getting the Olympic Committee to stage the summer games
here in 2012 - no serious alternative site has ever been offered - has been
touted as a commercial boon to the whole region including the working
class, construction workers, service personnel in the hospitality
industries, and others.
Jets President Jay Cross went to great lengths to demonstrate the
organization's willingness to employ minority contractors and professionals
in the stadium plan. Last week he and Mayor Bloomberg, along with a several
black political leaders from Queens, got together on the Intrepid and
signed an agreement that they estimate could steer $100 million in
construction contracts to minorities.
But how can you think of this agreement as anything but just another ploy
to get approval for a bad project with questionable benefits to anyone-
including minorities?
Alas, after the stadium were to go up, I would be disappointed if the only
minority private-sector jobs there were the same old Senegalese vendors
with T-shirts and "I Love New York" gewgaws and tchotchkes.
Among the many losers in the deal would be the same working-class mass
transit riders facing more fare increases. They would be the ones
ultimately subsidizing the sale. As the only ones in line for the 13-acre
site over the West Side rail yards, the Jets offered $100 million for a
site appraised at $923 million. The MTA was willing to let the valuable air
rights go at a fraction of the value, until last week when the competing
offer of $600 million from Cablevision's owners, the Dolans, forced the
potential sale of the site to be thrown open to other bidders.
Some of the biggest supporters of the West Side site have been those Queens
political leaders, who would be better off pushing a venue in their own
borough.
Whoever gets the green light to build over the West Side rail yards -
whether it be the Jets, the Dolans or another commercial developer - needs
to give the city something that is not traffic-intensive, that gives the
MTA good money to hold back fare increases and that includes zoning for
affordable housing units.
In the final analysis, the benefits to minorities would be a few short-term
construction jobs offered with the intent of selling a bad idea to a few
more New Yorkers.
The approach reminds me of the politicians who troll the inner city for
votes and then disappear until the next election.
In the meantime, Cablevision is seen as a spoiler. But I say thanks to the
Dolans for forcing their way onto the scene.
Like a jackhammer, they broke up the too-cozy solidarity and forced the
project open to bid. And that's good for everybody - except the Jets.
Record Columnist Lawrence Aaron can be contacted at aaron@northjersey.com.
Send comments about this column to oped@northjersey.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
