city limits magazine, june/july 1980 issue

8/3/2019 City Limits Magazine, June/July 1980 Issue

1/24

CITY LIMITSJUNEJULY 1980 $1.50 VOL.5 NO.6

Rehab Tug-of-WarThis is a tale of five city tenements - two destroyed, two saved and one still thesubject of struggle between tenants an d the city bureaucracy-a bureaucracy that is grapplingwith choosing between federally subsidized development schemes or honoring prior commitments to tenants for self-sufficiency through ownership.

Two small upper Manhattan buildings of less than a dozen units each at West 145th Streetan d Amsterdam Avenue battled the city and developer successfully an d are now assured thatthey can continue on their route to tenant ownership without fear of displacement.

Two larger buildings on Decatur Avenue in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx standstripped an d vacant while fifty families are scattered throughout the city living in emergency

(Continued on Page 4)

The corner o f Amsterdam Avenue and 145th Street.


2/24

A Decade That Begins With Miamiby Betty Terrell

On May 17, 1980 an explosion of fury and rageerupted in Miami, Florida,which officials say resulted indamages of $200 million. This dollar estimate was madequickly-within a few days-but there has yet to be anestimate of what it will take to rebuild the lives of thethousands of individuals who suffered before an d afterthe riots from the most serious type of damage imaginable: human destruction. The court verdict on the murder of a black man was clearly the trigger, but not theroot of the problem.

Miami reminds us of the nineteen sixties-a timewhen economic and racial segregation had to its creditthe destruction of more lives than World War II. I f weassess the situation in 1980, we see an absence of the bla

tant signs which separated people by race in the sixties,but all of the other ingredients appear the same. Institutionalized racism, coupled with the economic patternsof our soci ty, has again brought us to the brink of chaos- a n explosion which has the potential force of Miamitenfold or a hundred and tenfold.

The problem is not one of isolated Miamis, but aproblem of national scope and must be addressed assuch.

The social pattern in America Society has been one ofgive .aways in times of social unrest and take-backswhen the rage subsides. These policies have always beenjustified in economic terms. The 1960's was no excep-tion. ,

The economic problems of the sixties were serious;resulting in alarming unemployment figures. Coupled

CITY LIMITS/June-July 1980

with the lack of minority representation in decisionmaking roles and a complete lack of government response, there was no place a person could turn to gainassistance even to feed his family . These factors coupledwith daily reminders of deep-seated racism triggered areaction by the Black community which shook the veryfoundation of our nation and caused the decisionmakers to take a close look and begin to reshapepriorities .

The result was the Great Society programs which offered temporary relief to a fairly large number of poorand minority people. But the giveaway of the sixties wasa deal in which the minorities really lost: only a smallnumber of people received long-lasting benefits such as

education, access to well-paying jobs, and positions ofpower in government. I t was for the mC


3/24

VESTING INTERESTSEditorials present an opportunity for comment,

advice and opinion concerning important publicissues, often government policy and administration.With this opportunity comes the responsibility to offer opinion and advice that is sound, moral and beneficial to the public. In a recent editorial (June 7,1980), the New York Times, while taking the opportunity, abandoned its responsibility.

The editorial gives an overview on and recognizesthe success of HPD 's alternative management program and improvement in the central managementof city-owned buildings. But as not to overburdenthe successful programs, the editorial goes on toadvise the city to take a very irresponsible course ofaction: not to vest title to thousands of currently In

Rem buildings. Such advice falls down on tw o important matters.

By insisting the city not take title to buildingsover four quarters in tax arrears, the Times is condemning those tenants in occupancy to unsafe andinadequate housing . With neither landlord nor cityresponsible for cervices, these tenants will sufferthe ravages of abandonment: no heat, no hot water

and neglect of repair and lack of safety. Not onlydoes such advice display a total lack of compassionfor these low income residents, but it asks the cityto abrogate it s own guarantee to each citizen of adecent and safe home, and, if necessary , to act as"the landlord of last resort: ' It also ignores federalcivil rights and housing law which guarantee similarrights.

The Times justifies its recommendation by claiming that bringing more buildings into city ownershipwould overburden the city's management programand compromise their success. Yet,legally the cityhas no such option . The law is very clear that theremedy for real estate tax delinquency is for the cityto take title and through management, auction orsome other form of disposition to recover lostrevenue and get the property back on the tax rolls.For the Times to recommend, and for the city to takesuch advice is to encourage nonpayment of taxes,as well as an affront to all tax paying owners. Thescheme could well backfire. In line with the Times'sreasoning, the City Limits editorial board shouldrecommend to the five Tenant Interim Lease buildings that were recently purchased by their tenants

3

that they need not pay taxes, for the city will notforeclose.

The Times further suggests, af ter praising the virtues of tenant ownership and management, that thevery slumlords who abandoned their propertiesshould be rewarded with a program and incentive toencourage them back into their buildings. When will

it be understood that the private market cannot operate effectively with an expected rate of return inmany of the city's low income neighborhoods andthat the viable alternative to city ownership is publicownership by non-profit co-ops and community organizations?

One last disturbing poin t about the editorial is notin the content of the editorial but the fact that thecity follows these recommendations. We thoughtthe city was supposed to have rejected Roger Starr'sirresponsible housing policies years ago. 0

_CITY LIMITS.City Limits is published monthly except June / July and August /September by the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers,Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and the Urban Homesteading A ssistance Board . Subscriptionrates: $20 per year ; $6 a year for community-based organizations andindividuals. All correspondence should be addressed to CITYLIMITS, 115 East 23rd St., New York, N.Y. 10010. (212) 477-9074,5 .

Second -class postage paid New York, N .Y. 10001City Limits (ISSN 0199-0330)

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom RobbinsAssistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan BaldwinBusiness Manage r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Carolyn WellsDesign and Layou t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis FulgoniCopyright 1980. Al l rights reserved . No portion or portions o j thisjournal may be reprinted without the express written permission o j hepublishers.

This issue was funded by a grant from New York Community Trust

Cover photo by Marc Jahr

Dear Friends and Readers of City Limits:Since we began publishing in February, 1976, we

have always welcomed and encouraged you to sub-mi t guest articles on housing and related issues .

We attempt to cover as many issues as we canourselves bu t realize that we don 't know or hearabout everything that is happening in your neigh-borhood or field of interest.

It is with this in mind that we again invite you tosend editorial materials to us . We are always in-terested to hear firsthand from you what is happen-ing.

Please keep us in mind and pick up that pen orget out that typewriter.

Cordially,The Editors

CITY L1MITS/June-July 1980


4/24

A Conflict Over Rehab Plans

MableSmith , 241 WestIJIth St . tenant

Continued from p. 1 by Susan Baldwin

housing an d welfare hotels. An d the third in Harlem,241 West l11th Street- is still fighting for its life.

"They may think they can kick us around and takeour homes away because we're poor, but the government isn ' t going to find that so easy because we plan to

fight all the way for our homes, and I don't plan to remain poor long."

Such were the comments from Robert Lewis, a youngmusician who resides at 241 West lllth Street in WestHarlem, where a major federally funded government rehabilitation program is slated to begin within the nextfew months . And Lewis is joined by other angry building residents in his determination to resist relocationfrom his apartment.

"I had to give up all my savings to move here, andI've been fixing up my apartment," he asserted, adding,"This is the best place I've ever lived. This is home forme, my wife and child and we won't leave-even if theyoffer us money to get out." His assertion at a recent tenan t meeting was punctuated by others, including hiswife, Venetta, who chimed in, "Yes, the city better get itstraight. We are not happy gypsies, and we won'tmove ."

The building in question-241 West ll1th Street- istenant-run under a city housing program known at theTenant Interim Lease (TIL) program, under which residents collect rent and use this money to make basicrepairs and provide services. At the end of a trial management period, tenants are encouraged to buy the

CITY LIMITS/June-July 1980 4

building as low income cooperatives under the city's lowcost homeownership program.

Why are these tenants enraged and fighting the city'splans to relocate them? I t is very simple. The city's program has run afoul of the federal government's substan

tial "gut" rehabilitation program for Section 8 subsizedhousing in what has been dubbed "Gateway to Harlem". This area has been designated a NeighborhoodStrategy Area (NSA), where a local developer and anon-profit community organization have a $10 millionplan to rehabilitate 177 apartments in ten buildings.

Cauldwell-Wingate, a well-known Harlem developer,and the West Harlem Community Organization haveplans for the rehabilitation and are known as cosponsors or developers and, through this partnership,will share in the profits from the sale of the project's taxshelter.

Two years ago, HUD awarded New York City 6,500units of Section 8 housing under this innovative NSAprogram which allowed for 20,000 such units nationwide.

As is often the case with implementing new government programs, the project is just getting started in thedesignated city neighborhoods, and one of the majorcomplaints from tenant leaders is that developers areselecting occupied buildings-frequently ones involvedin other city programs-when they could just as easilydevise plans that would focus on vacant properties.

"I would like to know how they can stitch this build-


5/24

ing into a land package before they would allow peoplewho have been trying to bu y for ten to 15 years," saidMable Smith, a tenant leader in the building for 40years. "W e are just shocked that our homes are beingoffered ou t of the blue to developers at a f irst shot."

According to Smith, 241 West 111th Street has beeninvolved in dealings with th e city since 1964, and,although the tenants have attempted to buy their build

ing for years, their efforts have failed because of thefailure of the city's programs to work.

Th e city takes a different view of the tenants' situation.

" I know the tenants want to buy that building but sofa r as I know, it is still going to be in the Section 8 proposal," said William White, directo r of the NSA program at the city's Department of Housing Preservationan d Development. "That building has had 11 years toget its ac t together and hasn't succeeded . . . I t is on ablock with a lo t of rehab planned, and we don't want i tto be an eyesore in the midst of the other rehabilitatedhousing."

He also said he doubted that the tenants could get amortgage for the building, stressing that the Section 8subsidized housing would be better for all concerned. Inaddition, he suggested that only a few of the tenantswere fighting th e Section 8 proposa l -an allegation hotly denied by the 16 resident families.

On the other hand, tenants in another NeighborhoodStrategy Area in Upper Manhattan's Hamilton Heights,have been successful in their efforts to have their buildings removed from an NS A rehabilitation package. Th ebuildings-500 and 506 West 145th Street-also small,tenant-run and occupied, ar e enrolled in the interim

lease program and, until a few weeks ago, were scheduled to be absorbed in a developer's package. The developer, a community-based builder, is G . WilfredGooden.

"W e were told at first that if we did everything thecity said to do we could buy our buildings, and then weheard this was all ou t the window when the big developer came along," said George Lande, owner of the drugstore at 550 West 145th Street which is also known as1714 Amsterdam Avenue. "I've been here 15 years andbefore that I was 15 years over at Seventh Avenue andWest 140th Street. I bought this 50-year-old drugstorebecause I had faith in the neighborhood an d wanted itto survive."

Late in May, th e tenants of 500 an d 506 took a secretvote at two separate community meetings. The vote wasoverwhelmingly in favor of tenant ownership.

Plans for inclusion of the buildings in the developer'sproposal continued until pressure from the tenants, aneighborhood technical assistance group known as theUrban Homesteading Assistance Board, an d sympathetic housing officials at HPD led to a change of plans.

In a letter addressed to Gooden's consultant, Thornto n Sanders of the Sydebon Corp., HPD Deputy Com-

5

mISSIOner Charles Reiss wrote: "As you know, bothbuildings are currently being managed by their tenantsunder HPD's Tenant Interim Lease program. While webelieve that both buildings require some renovation, acomplete rehabilitation would require the relocation ofall tenants and, importantly, deny the tenants theprivilege of home ownership; home ownership is on e ofthe major objectives of the TI L program,and the city is

committed to fulfilling that goal."Gooden and his consultant charged that they cannot

carry ou t an economically feasible rehabilitation of therest of the adjacent buildings in their proposal as 500an d 506 are pivotal buildings fo r joining all the buildings with elevator service an d providing communalrooms. They also assert that the city promised the buildings to them and said it would no t renew the tenant leasewhen it expired in July.

In addition, they maintain that Section 8 housingwould better serve the needs of the community as itwould help the low income residents achieve betterhousing.

Under the Section 8 program, tenants who qualifyneed pay only one-quarter of their income for rent. Forexample, Section 8 subsidy would be available to a family of four with an income of up to $17,050, althoughCongress is presently considering a reduction of incomeeligibility levels.

Asked why HP D removed the Hamilton Heightsbuildings from the developer's proposal bu t no t 241West l l l th Street, Martha Gershun, of HPD's public affairs department, said, "Tony [Gliedman] is firm onthis. All leases signed before the Section 8 packagingwas firm will not be upset . . . 500 an d 506 were signedbefore, bu t this was not true in the case of 241 . . . wherethe tenants signed the lease in October, an d the Section 8package was approved earlier in the summer." Gliedman is commissioner of HPD.

According to the records of the tenants association at241 West 11lth Street, they joined the city's Direct Salesprogram, which was eventually replaced by TIL, inMay, 1978, and signed an interim lease with the city inSeptember, 1979. In earlier years, they also applied tothe city's coop conversion plan under the MunicipalLoan program bu t were turned down in January, 1976,because of the city's lack of funds.

Prior to becoming city-owned in December, 1974, 241was on repeated rent strikes against landlords for lackof services and entered th e city's receivership program inApril, 1971. The tenants also maintain that the city losttheir original TI L lease an d they were forced to sign anew on e in October, 1979.

Asked why the city ha d expressed no knowledge of241 's history with the city, William Smith, director ofthe TI L program, said, "I know now that they have along history with the city . . . I th ink it's unfortunate thata lot of their contacts are no longer here . . . But I still seethis as a development question, an d I am in property



6/24

Unoccupied buildingsin West 145th Street

rehabilitation plan .

management. I did not know of this history before."He also said that HP D should do more checking in

the future an d make sure buildings are not in old pipelines that are defunct. "As far as I know, this is wherethis building is now," Smith added.

According to Ed Moses of U-HAB, who works withthe tenants at 241, repeated efforts by his organizationand sympathetic HP D officials have proven futilebecause Gliedman has remained adamant in his decisionnot to remove them f rom the Section 8 package.

In addition to complaints about the city's indifferenceto their plight, the tenants claim that both CauldwellWingate and the West Harlem Community Organization said in the early stages of developing their proposalthat they could carry ou t their plans without 241 Westll1th Street.

Margaret McNeill, chairman of the West Harlemorganization, confirmed tha t she had said "i n the beginning that it made no difference to me whether this build

ing was in or out" of the package and that she was complying with the city which had selected a developmentstrip that was in the middle of the block on West 111thand 112th Streets. Cauldwell-Wingate could not bereached for comment.

The question of why the city and developers continueto select occupied buildings for rehabilitation continuesto rage, while parties involved in the downfall andevacuation of 50 families from two buildings at 2653and 2657 Decatur Avenue in the Kingsbridge, BronxNSA attempt to explain what went wrong in this proposed $3.4 million rehabilitation venture.

The developer, William Hubbard of the Center forHousing Partnerships, maintains that rivalry betweentwo local non-profit housing organizations for controlof the buildings created an atmosphere of confusioncausing the tenants to "overreact" and go on rent strikewithout paying rent to a tenants' association or the landlord, leading to the landlord's refusal to provide services, and finally, an emergency evacuation of the remaining families by the city on April 1, 1980.

Charles Rappaport, the former director of one of thecommunity groups-West Bronx Housing and Neighborhood Resources Center-said the incident caused


him to lose his jo b because the city refused to fund hisorganization as long as he was the director. He hascharged HP D with failure to inform the tenants of theproposed rehabilitation plan until " it was too late."

An independent proposal writer and HP D officialswho worked on the project said the incident raised thequestion of both the government's and the developer'sresponsibility to brief tenants about development plansbefore they are alai! accompli.

"Sometimes you can promise something too soon,and it never materializes," said Jane Gallagher, thepackager . "Then you have something like the rage inMiami, but it is not confined to Miami . . . I t can happenin any neighborhood."

In the meantime, the two buildings which were onceoccupied now stand stripped and vacant with more than115 violations-110 more than had been registered withthe city this same time last year. And the landlord whosold his option on the buildings for $150,000 to the developer now owes the city $140,000 in fines, liens and

costs."Stories like this just show you they should leave the

occupied buildings alone," Mabel Smith concluded asshe mused about her building'S future. "They don'thave the whole story on 241. We have maintained ourbuilding, we believed in the city's programs, and ou rbuilding is the best one on the block. What makes themso sure that it is going to become the worst, an eyesore?. . . This is like a family here. Everybody looks out foreveryone else, and nobody gets hurt. Nobody gets kicked ou t like those poor people in the Bronx. Why don'tthey go after the vacant, tinned-up buildings. They'replenty of them around."

Smith has called for an HU D investigation of herbuilding'S dilemma, but Alan Wiener, New York areamanager, could not be reached for information regarding an inspection of 241's complaint .

Another resident concluded on a more philosophicalnote.

"I've been moving too long. I came here in 1961 aftermoving all the time, and I want to stay," said MattieHall, a wiry elderly woman. "W e want roots and t hat'swhat we're trying to establish here. We'll fight hard toget them." 0


7/24

As the budget negotiations went down to the last minute , communitygroups protested outside City Hall to demand more funds for neighborhoods and tenant-run buildings .

CITY CD BUDGETAPPROVED OVER PROTEST

On June 11, as the city's Community Developmentbudget went down to the wire in last minute negotiations, 200 people from community groups and neighborhoods across the city demonstrated at City Hall to

express their support for a "Counter Budget" issued bythe New York City Community and Development Coalition. The demonstration capped dozens of hours ofmeeting between community groups and city officials toplead for more funding for tenant management andbuilding rehabilitation programs.

Negotiations, however, appear to have been largelyfruitless, as the finalized city application was substantially unchanged from its original form. $600,000 wasadded to the $200,000 allocated for the Sweat EquityProgram, far short of the $7.7 million the "CounterBudget" called for to complete work on the buildingspresently in the pipeline .

"Aside from the Sweat Equity, the rest of the changeswere all pure pork barrel stuff," said Brian Sullivan ofthe Pratt Institute . "The standard citizen participationprocess in creating the CD budget just isn't workingit's largely wasted . People spent thousands of hours trying to hammer out priorities and plans, but the decisionsare largely made behind closed doors."

Not included in the budget, but made in pledges fromDeputy Mayor Robert Wagner and Housing Commissioner Anthony Gliedman, was a commitment to use $2million in CD money for the rehabilitation component

7

of the community management if the city's presentplans to use Section 8 moderate rehabilitation proveunfeasible.

The Community Development Coalition is planningto file an administrative complaint with HUD in July,after the city 's formal submission. The complaint,which is the first step in a legal challenge which may in

clude a law suit against the city, will cite violations bythe city in allocation of its Community Developmentfunds . 0

CITY DENIES BANKREDEMPTION REQUEST

Three years after their building was abandoned by itsformer owner, tenants of a large Washington Heightsapartment house have successfully turned back an attempt to return the building to private ownership.

The Board of Estimate voted on June 12 to reject anapplication from United Mutual Savings Bank, mortgagor of the property, to redeem the building from cityownership. The building at 800 Riverside Drive is currently in its second year under the Tenant Interim Leaseprogram.

Tenants at the building-known as the Grinnelltook court action in 1977 following a winter of frequentheat interruptions and elevator failures. According totenants repeated attempts to solicit the bank's assistancewere made but no help was forthcoming. A 7A adminis

trator WC:'i appointed, and, following seizure of thebuilding f ~ rback taxes by the city, it was accepted intothe Interim Lease program.

Under the law, the bank had a 20 month grace periodduring which it could file to redeem the building at thediscretion of the city, a right the bank exercised, filingits application just before the May, 1980,deadline.

Richard James, chairman of the Grinnell TenantsAssociation, asserted that the bank's interest in 800Riverside had been rekindled after tenants made substantial capital improvements in the building.

Apartments in the 83 unit structure at 158th Street aregenerally large, averaging between 6 to 7 rooms.Although tenants say they have received assurancesfrom HP D that the building will be sold to them at theprice of $250 per unit, they have yet to receive a firmcommitment. According to James, the building is"about 50-50" low and middle income tenants. Currently an engineering study is underway and Jamesestimates it will cost tenants between $500,000 to$750,000 to make needed repairs.

" I f HP D comes up with a high purchase price for ourapartments , this may turn into a pyrrhic victory," notedJames. 0

CITY LIMITS/June-July1980


8/24

p. S. 133 on six and one-half acre Baltic Street development sile.

A Brooklyn Neighborhood DebatesWhich Path to Development?

by Tom Robbins

Public School 133 stands like a forgotten monumentfrom an earlier era on the edge of a long barren stretchof ground just of f Fourth Avenue in the lower ParkSlope area of Brooklyn. Police from the 78th Precinctenjoy referring to the baroque 1898 building as "TheLittle School on the Prairie." Stray dogs, who wanderacross the six and one half vacant acres harassing smallchildren and disturbing nearby residents, add to thesense of desolation. The school, ironically, is the solesurvivor of a 1970 Board of Education inspired plan toraze the apartment buildings, factories and warehouseson the square block between Fifth an d Fourth Avenues,and between Douglass and Butler Street clear across ablock and a half to Baltic Street, in order to build newgrade and intermediate schools.

I t is Baltic Street whose name has come to be affixedto the huge lot which presently serves the multiple functions of open air garage, vegetable garden and junkyard . By 1975 the city's plans for the new schools layshattered on the rocks of fiscal retrenchment and a community already suffering from abandonment and neglect was left with a gaping hole and no funds withwhich to fill it.

Large areas of vacant urban land can pose as manyproblems as possibilities. A community's developmentplan may hinge on a number of factors anyone of whichcan bar the way to construction. Contending forces in

CITY LIMITS/June -July 1980

the neighborhood, representing differing points of view,and frequently different racial and economic groups,may vie for control. Political officials, controlling agood number of the switches and levers, can move aproject swiftly along or midway leave it stalled.

To a large extent the eventual success of any proposalwill depend on the sponsor's ability to weave a carefulpath through the numerous hazards and pitfalls alongthe way, ever mindful the project is not merely c reatingstructures ou t of rubble, but helping to shape the economic and social direction of a neighborhood.

8

Since the time the Board of Education plan for the lotfizzled, the Baltic Street ground has figured prominentlyin the thinking of neighborhood groups. An early goalof the Fifth Avenue Committee, which began operatingin 1977, was some form of development on the site. FAChad from the first a two-sided battle to wage. On theone hand,it set ou t to deal with problems akin to mostlow income, minority neighborhoods in the city: housing abandonment and deterioration of the Fifth Avenueshopping strip. On the other, the pressures from theburgeoning, increasingly white and middle class rejuvenation of the upper Park Slope neighborhood were being felt. While there were benefits from the brownstonemovement, there was also an increasing dilemma of howto hold on to a moderate to low income area while realestate values spiralled about it.


9/24

To a large extent the Fifth Avenue Committee attempted to represent all the elements in an ethnicallyand economically diverse neighborhood. But, on theissue of the Baltic Street lot development, that broadbased coalition foundered,and from the fallout, anotherorganization, with a distinctly different opinion on thelot, developed.

An initial public confrontation, although surprisinglyrestrained, between two development proposals tookplace at a recent meeting of the Land Use Committee ofCommunity Board Six. Nineteen committee members,and an audience of 70, listened and questioned as thetwo proposals were unveiled in the first step towardscity approval. One plan, strongly backed by the ParkSlope Improvement Committee, which had splinteredfrom FAC, proposed the construction of a "one stopshopping environment" to include a 30,000 square feetsupermarket an d an additional 17,000 square feet of ancillary stores, including a bank and a pharmacy. To ac-

commodate what the developer, the Rentar Development

Corporation, and the prospective tenant, WaldbaumsSupermarkets, feel will be a large number of car drivingcustomers from surrounding neighborhoods, the plancalls for 357 parking spaces.

Committee members and others raised questionsabout the effect on the school, the number of jobs thatwould be generated and the impact on local merchantsof a large shopping center. But in sum, the proposal wasfairly straightforward and easy to understand: Rentarwas ready to build, Waldbaums was ready to tenant,and private financing would be used throughout.

The proposal of the Fifth Avenue Committee was agood deal more ambitious and required a certain leap of

faith. FAC's plan, two years in the making, contemplated a mixed use scheme for the lot. Like the Rentar IWaldba um plan it would include a supermarket ofequal proportions, but with far fewer parking spaces. Inaddition, 210 units in 70 low- rise townhouse- stylebuildings would be built, with two low income Section 8subsidized tenants and one home owner per building.Capping the plan, the group said it had found a way toconstruct a new 600 to 700 seat grade school without using funds from the city's capital budget. Instead, theNew York Educational Construction Fund, a quasipublic agency similar to UDC, would float bonds toraise funds for the school's construction and the interestand amortization on the bonds would be paid of f by using the real estate taxes from the commercial complexand the housing.

For some on the committee and in the audience, itwas a complicated scheme to digest at one sitting, butfor others the openness of the plan was encouraging."The mixed use idea was always expected for the area,"said Bill Woods of the City'S Brooklyn Planning Officewho was in attendance. "What's exciting is you are being presented with a wonderful opportunity to jump inand help plan."

9

Selma Abramowitz, only recently made chair of theLand Use Committee, said no decision should be madeyet, but suggested a "series of working meetings" forthe committee. "I see problems with both proposals,"she said later. "I just hope there will be a lot of questions, and that we'll get the answers."

In the week following the Land Use meeting, the ParkSlope Improvement Committee held a fundraising dinner at a popular health food restaurant on what PSIC'sChairman Lew Smith refers to as Park Slope's "goldcoast." The group was looking to meet the costs it hadincurred in producing and mailing a 9,000 piece poll ofregistered voters in the vicinity of the Baltic Street lot.Voters were asked to check "yes" on a postcard if theywanted to see a supermarket on the lot, "no" if they didnot. The group s ~ i dou t of nearly 2,000 replies only 117voted "no." No mention was made that a different,multi-use proposal, including a supermarket, had alsobeen made for the lot.

"When I moved here six years ago," said Smith

recently,"there

wasn't a single abandoned buildingalong the Fifth Avenue corridor. Now there are 170which are vacant or partially empty. The area hasbecome bombed out." Active in the Fifth Avenue Committee until the Baltic Street plans diverged, Smith feelsthat actions FAC took to withhold abandoned buildingsfrom the city auction block have helped increase abandonment. "I've watched my neighborhood be burneddown and robbed," he said. "FAC has completely lostits perspective."

Along with other dissatisfied members, Smith established the PSIC which has worked hard to drum up support for the shopping center. To David Brennan, PSIC

President and like Smith a homeowner in lower ParkSlope, the issues of the Baltic Street lot are clear. "Theywant housing and we want commercial," he said after asecond land use committee meeting which agreed it stillneeded more answers to its many questions. "I'm opposed to subsidized housing of any form," he added.

While both proposals contain the common element ofa supermarket, according to Aaron Malinsky, RealEstate Director for Waldbaums, the two plans are" diametrically opposed." Pointing out that two supermarket chains, Food Fair and Bohacks, had recentlygone out of business in Brooklyn, Malinsky said hiscompany had outlined large stores with big parking lotsas the only way to survive. "There's not enough roomon the lot for a new school," said Malinsky.

The prospect of a large, suburban-type'shopping mallhas caused some consternation in the neighborhood.The effect of the shopping center on local bodegas andother "mom and pop" stores is one the community hasgrappled with before and no clear answers were found.Two years ago the issue was intensely thrashed out whenPathmark sought a community nod to construct asimilar center less than a mile away at the site of a GoyaFoods plant. Path mark eventually did get the go-ahead

concinued on page 17



10/24

Revolving Funds, Red Tape CutsTo Speed Loans to 7A Buildings

by Peg Byron

Caught in a limbo between landlord neglect and cityownership of a building, tenants have one course of action to eliminate landlord profit and abuse through Ar -ticle 7-A. According to the law, tenants may choose anadministrator to manage their rents and restore services,before the building must suffer further deteriorationand go In Rem. The 7-A Seed Money Program is intended to get major repairs made before they become morecostly, with interest free loans which are not repaid untilthe building is financially capable.

Unfortunately, the slow paying, relatively small projects funded by 7-A loans have had little appeal to mostcontractors. As a result, few 7-A managed buildingshave applied for and gotten money for those repairswhich their rent rolls can't cover. This pattern, at leastfor 7-A, may be changed by the end of JulY,however,with the partnership of the Division of Evaluation andCompliance and two private foundations and plans toeliminate or side-step red tape at the city Controller's office.

"Application for 7-A loans had died down due to procedural difficulties," Assistant Commissioner JosephShuldiner said. "7-A administrators couldn't getenough estimates," he said, "s o we got a legal opinion

that three written estimates were not necessary." Onewritten estimate from a contractor per repair iteIP willnow be required with a 7-A loan application and thatestimate will then be the contract used.

A more notorious problem with the original loan procedures was the six to eight weeks or more delay beforethe contractor got his or her check from the city. Tospeed things up, the Fund for the City of New York andthe New York Community Trust will back federal community development money with a revolving loan, interest free, to be used to make prompt payments to contractors and to be replenished by the more slowly processed CD money about six weeks later. $10,000 and$40,000 from each foundation respectively will beavailable, and checks will be disbursed by the Fundupon notification from HP D that contracted work hasbeen completed and inspected. "W e hope to issue acheck within a week," Nancy Castleman, Grants Administrator for the Fund,said.

"This is one of the few programs to really stem milking of buildings by landlords before it gets too late. Butsome people feel that dealing with the city is like waitingfor Godo t," Castleman said. "W e hope to make it enticing for others to be 7-A administrators," she said.

CITY LIMITS/June-Ju ly 1980

Shuldiner told City Limits that he expects the program will spend at least $350,000 a year, on about 40buildings, in contrast to the 28 loan total of about$160,000 spent over the past two years. This year's 7-Aallocation is well below Shuldiner's goal, but,he said,"The Commissioner (Anthony Gliedman) has definitelyindicated that we can get what we can spend. I don't seethe budget as a problem."

Albion Liburd, director of the 7-A Seed Money Program, first discussed the possibility of working ou t a"quick cash flow" program with Castleman, whoseorganization has made similar loans to non-profitgroups also waiting for government grants to be processed.

As part of their agreement with the Division ofEvaluation and Compliance, the Fund is also bringing aconsultant "to look at ways to improve the processingof payments in the program," Castleman said.

" I f we have the money at a faster pace, we can use theneighborhood people (contractors) who need the moneyand are more responsible," said Rudolpho Foster, a 7-Aadministrator in upper Manhattan. "W e could get a lotmore for our money with these contractors, but theycan't wait sixty days to get paid," said Foster. Small

contractors "are living from hand to mouth," he said.For programs,like 7-A especially , payment delays canbe an obstacle. The maximum 7-A loan is only $10,000and that is usually divided among different trades andcontractors. Smaller contracting firms, many minorityowned, tend to handle jobs of this size and cannot afford to advance the money necessary for materials andlabor, much less wait a couple of months to be paid. 7-Aadministrators would find themselves at a competitivedisadvantage, assuming they could even get a contractorto consider the job. "You have to be able to preparebids for contractors; they don't like to write thingsdown. They don't like to wait for city money, and withno money up front, that leaves very few contractors tobid," said Ron Webster, a property manager for People's Fire House in North Brooklyn.

Webster recommended more technical assistance to7-A buildings and emphasized the need for making advances to small contractors in order to open bidding tothem. "U p front money is the critical piece," he said.

The possiblity of making advances to contractors, asis common practice in private industry and imperativefor 7-A size operations, is being explored by the Fund."I n the coming year, we will be trying to figure out ways

10


11/24

to make advances to the contractors, " Castleman said.Seed money has been available to 7-A managed build

ings since 1978, for repairs before the buildingdeteriorates further and goes into city ownership. To use7-A, at least one third of the tenants in a privatelyowned building that is not receiving services or has beenabandoned must petition the court to approve anadministrator, usually chosen by the tenants. The administrator, with training from HP D and often withhelp from a community organizer, is obliged to makecertain specified repairs with money from the rent rolland possibly from the Emergency Repair Program. Theadministra tor has the power to evict non-paying tenantsand may take up to 5 per cent of the rent roll as salary.While in the program, the building does not make tax,mortgage, or past debts payments.

Tenants are expected to contribute energy as well asrent to their building, and this helps make qualityrepairs and maintenance affordable at this time . Someremain skeptical. As one observer noted, tenants may

find themselves "jumping through hoops for crumbs."Joint effort , however, may save tenants from possibledisplacement and the city from acquiring anotherdilapidated building.

"What I want to do is match the commitment of thetenants," Shuldiner said. "$1,000 spent now is a lotmore than $50,000 two years from now . . . I f the program works, the city is doing well for itself." 0

Peg Byron writes fo r the feminist monthly Womanews and other community interest publications.

APARTMENT DATA SERVICEFOR HANDICAPPED

A special federally funded project will attempt tomatch handicapped New Yorkers with apartments ofspecial design via a computer bank. The project, whi.chhas been allocated $100,000 in federal CommumtyDevelopment funds, will be operated by the SettlementHousing fund under contract to HPD.

The Housing Data Bank Referral Service is designedto facilitate access by the handicapped to housingopportunities appropriate to their special needs. According to the Mayor's Office for the Handicapped, ~ h ~ r eare an estimated one million handicapped people hvmgin New York City. Of these, almost 500,000 are nonelderly adults with work-related disabilities, four fifthsof whom have incomes under $7,000.

Although many handicapped New Yorkers are holders of Section 8 rental subsidy certificates,many of theseare expiring because of the shortage of available ho.using. The referral service hopes to tap both p u b l ~ c l yassisted housing as well as the private sector for housmgopportunities. Applications for the Data Bank ~ r eavailable through the Mayor's Office for the HandIcapped,by calling Rita Warren at 566-0972. 0

11

NEW INSURANCE RATESSET FOR THE BRONX

After more than a year of negotiations with localcommunity groups over widely disparate insurance ratesset for New York City neighborhoods, the insurance in

dustry announced new advisory rates for apartmentbuilding liability insurance on May 30. The InsuranceServices Office, an association of some 1300 propertyand casualty firms, which sets rates that are used bymany firms, reduced the number of rating territories inthe Bronx from 14 to 3. ISO also lowered the price differences from one neighborhood to another.

The Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition's Insurance Committee, which has worked to reduce the wildly varying rates, said that under the newprice structure insurance costs for two comparab.lebuildings in different neighborhoods would be closer mrange. An apartment building on Prospect Avenue in

the Morrisania area, currently paying an $1873 premiumwould now pay $1300. A similar apartment building onValentine Avenue in the Fordham section would see itspremium rise from $427 to $700.

Insurance Committee Chairwoman Breda Campbelldescribed the new rates as unsatisfactory. "All they didwas eliminate the drast ic price differences," she said.

"T.hey have not even tried to answer our charges of unfair pricing." The Coalition has renewed its demand forpricing on a case-by-case inspection of the property.Committee member Ted Panos stated, "As long as theyuse territories there will be price discrimination. Thecompanies and the state Insurance Department seem tobe tossing up their hands and saying there is nothingthey can do. We are not about to be satisfied with thebone they are tossing us."

The Coalition Committee has arranged a meeting tobe held in the Bronx to register its objections to the newrates with New York State Insurance Department Deputy Superintendent Donald Gabay. I t will also offer al ternatives to the ISO "territory" rating system.

At a June meeting with Travelers Insurance the Coalition pushed the company to take the lead in reformingthe rating system. The group proposed tying liabilityrates to the number of housing code violations on a par

ticular property."ISO exists because of the insurance companies,"said Campbell. " I t provides a convenient shield whenthese pricing issues come up." Noting that Travelersagreed to consider the proposal, Campbell said thegroup will make the same proposition to three other majo r insurers it is working with, Allstate, Aetna and Hartford. 0 Jjrn Buckley



12/24

Nicholas Polonski, in front o f 112 Bedford , one of the fi r s t low income tenant co-ops.

by Bernard Cohen

Five city-owned buildings totaling 82 apartments werepurchased by the tenants in June, culminating nearlytwo years of work by housing officials to design a salesprogram capable of extending the benefits of cooperative ownership to lower income people.

Only a handful of buildings in poorer neighborhoodshave ever achieved true cooperative status because ofthe exorbitant cost to convert plus other legal and policyobstacles. "Never has the city sold buildings directly toindividual tenant cooperatives," said Robert Robbin,general counsel of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. "The key piece is the ability tosell to tenants in occupancy ."

Buildings will be eligible for cooperative conversionfollowing a year or more of successful management bythe tenants, by community organizations or by courtapproved administrators. One-fourth of all occupied InRem units are in buildings under one of these so-called"alternative" programs. The rent collection rate underalternative management is about 90 per cent , twice therate of buildings centrally managed by the city.

Under the new policy, city-owned building s will besold to non-profit corporations formed by eligible tenant and community groups. The pricetag will be $250per unit, except in neighborhoods such as Clinton inManhattan where the private market could command a

much higher price. Rents will be targeted at $45 to $55per room per month . A commitment of 60 per cent ofthe tenants to buy will be nece ssary before the buildingcan be converted. To pre serve the low-income nature ofthe co-op, tenant purchasers cannot earn more thanseven times the annual rent and the buildings cannot besold for at least ten years without permission of the city.Furthermore , profit s from the re-sale of individualapartments must be shared with the co-op .

Probably the biggest hurdle in the development of thesales program was how to make the co-op s conform to


Over Hurdles and Snags,First TIL Buildingsare Sold to Tenants

state law that requires the disclosure of important financial and structural information to potential buyers ofhousing cooperatives . The starting cost for a prospectusis about $10,000 including legal and engineering fees, asum far out of reach for people of very modest means.Eight months of negotiations between city officials andthe State Attorney General's office led to an agreementin early June on an offering plan containing a mixtureof boilerplate and individually tailored documents to becompiled by the city as the sponsor of the proposed conversion, at no additional cost to the tenants. The citycollects much of the data anyway while the buildings arein management.

The sales policy has developed in many stages. Anearly draft was circulated in late 1978. A number of controversies were generated along the way. Although the$250 price i s based on the average amount the city was

paid at auctionsof

similar In Rem buildings, some officials pressed for a higher figure. On March 22, 1979,the Board of Estimate approved a policy that set $250 asthe general figure but gave the city the option of raisingthe price. Tenant groups in the program argued for auniform $250 price. And on February 21, 1980, theBoard of Estimate passed a resale policy designed todampen speculation . While the policy does not prohibitprofits, it sets down conditions under which tenants willhave to share from 50 per cent up to 100 per cent of theirearnings with the co-op . Some tenants had argued forstricter limits on profits while others opposed any controls .

One of the buildings sold in June during anassembly line of closings at HP D was 112 Bedford Avenue in the Greenpoint-Williamsburg section of Brooklyn . It is a modest six -unit building set in an Old Worldlooking Polish neighborhood that prides itself on beingone of the safest, most law-abiding neighborhoods inthe city. American flags flying from two apartments at112 Bedford describe the patriotism of the tenants, all ofwhom are middle age or elderly. An unlikely hotbed ofradicalism, the building has been under tenant controlsince 1974, when it was still privately owned. Following

12


13/24

frequent lapses in heat and hot water during the winter of1973 and the discovery the next November of empty oiltanks and $800 owed by the owner to the fuel company,the tenants decided to step in.

"I informed the other tenants that I was not going togo through another winter like that," said Nicholas Polonski, a retired investigator from the Sanitat ion Department and also chairman of the Northside CommunityDevelopment Council. "I suggested that we pool ou rrents and order the fuel ourselves, and we did that."

Polonski, the "junior" tenant with only 21 years inthe building, said the city seized 112 Bedford for nonpayment of real estate taxes in 1976, "and now ourproblems really started." First was the broken showerpipe that gushed water for five days before it was fixed,followed by the minor boiler adjustment that turned into an $80 repair job after the city did the work, Polonskirecalled. "I went to see the commissioner himself andtold him, 'The last landlord was a slumlord, You'reworse. I' m not giving any more rent to you people!'"And they didn't. Instead, he said, the tenants have sunkbetween $10,000 and $12,000 from their rent into thebuilding, fixing the roof, fireproofing the stairwell,strengthening the structural supports, closing up twoabandoned storefronts and making other repairs. Polonski said the tenants have been trying to buy theirbuilding since 1976.

The four other buildings sold this week were 2674 Valentine Avenue (10 units) and 684 East 189th St. (33units) in the Bronx and 210 Forsythe St. (13 units) and184 East 7th St. (20 units) in Manhattan.

The sale of five buildings is a major milestone considering the record of the past. There are 126 morebuildings totaling 2,923 units in the sales pipeline, andHousing Commissioner Anthony Gliedman has predicted that many units will be sold by the end of the year.But many housing experts say the ultimate success of theprogram depends on the outcome of a number of factors that have not been tested yet.

The crucial question is whether the low income tenantco-ops will survive. The first five buildings were clearlyamong the strongest buildings in terms of repair readiness and tenant cohesion. Most of the city-owned buildings are very old and suffered substantially from thewithdrawal of services before being turned over to thetenants. The amount of government funds invested in

the buildings varies from $20,000 per unit for rehabilitation of a relatively small number of units and $2,500 perunit for maintenance under community management tooften a few hundred dollars per unit under the muchlarger tenant management program. By the time thebuildings are ready for conversion , rents will have beenraised several times, very possibly to the limit of whatthe tenants can afford. What will be the impact of risingoperating costs or a major system breakdown on buildings already at the margin? Housing officials havepromised to target rent subsidies to tenants who cannot

--- - - - - -

afford rent increases, and, after some reluctance, to setaside a pool of low-interest loan funds for the tenant coops. Officials have resisted the idea of creating a reservefund for the buildings using the kind of purchase moneymortgages now offered to those who buy city propertyat auction.A more technical question involves how well the new coops will weather the administration of four complicatedhousing regulatory systems: the co-op rules; rent control; rent stabilization and senior citizen rent exemptions.

Tenant managers on the whole are not bashful aboutclaiming the credit for saving hundreds of buildingsfrom the fate of decay and abandonment, nor do theyshy away from policy issues. They have taken the position that the city stands to gain more by encouragingstable ownership by people who are committed to maintaining their homes than by treating sales purely as arevenue program. To them, this means a uniform $250sales price, adequate repairs in the buildings before salesand financial support in the form of rent subsidies andlow-interest loans for co-ops that need the help.

"Nobody in this building wanted to be a landlord,"insists Polonski, "but we had no choice. I t was the onlyway to stay in the building, to maintain it and to live inthis community. Nobody wants to leave this community." A neighbor, Dorothy Vaamonde, a 46-year residentof the neighborhood, chimed in, "This is my home forthe rest of my life, I hope." 0

13

7 CITY GROUPS CHOSENFOR NEW HU D FUNDING

Seven New York City community groups were among70 chosen nationally to receive grants under the newNeighborhood Self-Help Development Program. Theprogram, which made grants totalling $8.6 million forrevitalization projects, is aimed at providing publicfunds that will leverage additional private sector investment.

The seven New York City groups to receive grants inthe program's first cycle are : A d o p t - a ~ B u i l d i n g ,$125,000to rehab and manage 12 buildings; St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation & Housing Rehabilitation Corp.,$120,000 to build a commercial center; West HarlemCommunity Organization, $147,304 to purchase, rehaband co-op 12 city-owned buildings; Manhattan ValleyDevelopment Corp., $125,000 to rehab two vacant cityowned buildings; Southern Brooklyn Community Organization, $175,000 to rehab and manage 177 units ofhousing jointly with the Sunset Park RedevelopmentCommittee; Southside United Housing DevelopmentFund, Inc . (Los Sures) $126,923 to acquire, rehab andco-op 47 units; Harlem Interfaith Counselling Services,$125,000 to rehab a block of historically designatedbrownstones for a neighborhood based mental healthfacility. 0



14/24

State Legislators Pass Group Funding,Reject Co-op Protection Bill

by Michael McKee

Legislation to create a Rural Community Preservation Companies program and to amend the existingNeighborhood Preservation Companies program passedboth houses of the State Legislature in the final hours ofthe 1980 regular session. The measure was adopted bythe Assembly at 4:26 a.m. June 14, and cleared theSenate twenty minutes later, seconds before that bodyadjourned for the year. Governor Carey signed the actinto law on June 25.

An appropriation of $750,000 for the rural piece wasremoved from the bill when the Senate and Assembly

failed to agree on a number of budget matters. Fundingfor the new program of grants to community preservation organizations in municipalities of less than 20,000population may be considered in the fall when theLegislature returns to Albany to adopt a supplementalbudget for 1980.

The bill removes the current three-year limit on funding eligibility and replaces it with an aggregate $300,000cap for urban and rural groups. The requirement that afunded organization develop a plan for becoming "selfsufficient" is retained, but the three-year deadline fordoing so is eliminated. Commercial revitalization projects relating to "local retail and service establish

ments" are made eligible activities, as long as they arecarried out as part of a housing program.The bill was sponsored by Senator H. Douglas Bar

clay (Republican of Pulaski), Assembly MajorityLeader Daniel Walsh (Democrat of Franklinville) andAssembly Housing Committee Chairman Edward Lehner (Democrat of Manhattan). The latter has announced that he will not seek re-election this fall in order torun for Civil Court judge.

Still up in the air is whether Carey's Division of theBudget will impound any of the $7.6 million appropriated earlier this year for the N.P.C. program, underwhich 154 community organizations throughout thestate are now funded. Last year the budget office didnot allow the state Division of Housing and CommunityRenewal to spend almost $1 million of the $6.925 million approved by the Legislature; these impoundedfunds were "rolled over," or reappropriated, thisspring, but this does not mean that they will be spent.

Co-op ConversionThe State Senate refused to pass a tenant protection

bill which had cleared the Assembly by a wide margin.Sponsored by Lehner and Senator John Flynn (Republi-


can of Bronx-Westchester), the bill's major featurewould have raised from 35 percent to "a majority" thenumber of tenants who must purchase their apartmentsin a co-op conversion plan before the sponsor can evictnon-purchasing residents.

The bill was effectively killed in the Senate, where italready faced tough going, by Mayor Edward Koch. Afew days before adjournment the City of New Yorkissued a legislative memorandum in opposition to theFlynn-Lehner bill, asserting that conversions are "good"for the city and that nothing should be done to impede

them. Some of Koch's advisors had urged him to stayout of the issue; the memo was issued on his instructions, at the request of Sheldon Katz, head of the RentStabilization Association, the landlord organizationwhich has seized effective control of New York City'srent stabilization system.

Koch's stance made it possible for Republican Senators with large tenant constituencies to cave in to Majority Leader Warren Anderson (Republican of Binghamton) who had made a commitment to the real estateindustry not to allow the bill through his house. Thenervous Senators could feel comfortable hiding behinda Democratic mayor willing to risk widespread tenant

wrath.The loudest sigh of relief came from Roy Goodmanof Manhattan, who was under pressure from his EastSide constituents alarmed at the accelerating flood ofconversions. Beyond putting his name on the Flynn billas a co-sponsor, he was hoping to maintain his usual lowprofile on tenant legislation.

However, Goodman was worried enough to extractsome last -minute concessions from Lester Shulklapper,the real estate lobbyist who is close to the Senate leadership and who has virtual veto power over most landlordtenant legislation. Shulklapper agreed to provisions toexempt handicapped tenants from eviction (the definition is extremely restrictive-only persons totallyunable to work qualify) in conversions; raise the incomeeligibility for senior citizens who are protected fromeviction to $50,000 from the current $30,000; and require owners to report to the Attorney General everythirty days on their progress toward meeting the 35 percent requirement.

This latter feature is a watered-down substitute forthe Flynn-Lehner provision which would have given tenants the right to inspect all signed subscription agreements on three days' notice. Currently owners are able


15/24

RENT BOARD GRANTSHIKES FOR LANDLORDS

On June 26, the New York City Rent GuidelinesBoard at the last of a series of meetings, set the highestguidelines in its ten year history. The Board is mandatedby the Rent Stabilization Law to annually set the max

imum rates for vacancy and renewal leases for the City's900,000 rent-stabilized apartments.

William Rowen of the New York State Tenant andNeighborhood Coalition characterized the Boardmeeting as "the usual ritualistic rent-letting."

Fo r renewal leases signed between July 1, 1980 andSeptember 30, 1981, landlords are permitted to raise therent pursuant to the new order #12 by 11 per cent for aone-year lease, 14 per cent for a two-year lease and 17

per cent for a three- year lease.Th e Board allowed an additional 5 per cent vacancyallowance to be added to the guidelines for leases signedby a new tenant after a vacancy, with the exception thatwhen the vacancy was the first to occur since July 1,1975, the vacancy allowance may be 10 per cent.

The RGB also adjusted downward the $12 a monthfuel surcharge, currently being paid by tenants who areunder existing leases, signed between July 1, 1978 andJune 30, 1979, known as RGB Order No. lOc. This surcharge is now $8 a month, effective July 1, 1980. TheBoard added a fuel surcharge of $8 a month to existingleases signed between July 1, 1979 and June 30, 1980,

known as RGB Order #11. However, the Boardstipulated the effective date of this surcharge to be theanniversary date of the lease, so that only mutiple-yearleases would incur the surcharge, and only after thelease was a full year old.

The RGB also added a 1 Yz per cent guideline for

to engage in high-pressure tactics, claiming that theyhave or are about to reach 35 percent and therebystampede tenants into buying ou t of fear of eviction .After voting with the Democrats in the ritual losingfloor amendment to attach the Flynn-Lehner bill to theweak Shulklapper package, Goodman claimed victory.

A separate bill to bar "eviction" plans entirely and toallow only "non-eviction" conversions remained buriedin committee in both houses. Neither of the measure'ssponsors, Senator Frank Padavan (Republican ofQueens) and Assemblyman Saul Weprin (Democrat of

Tenants demonstrate against rent hikes outside Sheraton Centre Hote las upstairs Mayor Koch and Housing Commissioner Gliedman shared$30 per person fundraiser breakfast with the Rent Stabilization Asso-ciation. The Rent Guidelines Board announced new increases instabilized apartments that afternoon .

those tenants whose landlords pay for their electricity.This amount would be added to the 11, 14 and 17 percent increases.

Members of the real estate industry in attendance ofthe meeting attacked the guidelines as "disastrous."Tenant representatives claim that the Board had, asusual, reliable data for the cost increase portion of theguidelines, but no data whatsoever to justify the vacancy allowance. 0

Queens), made any a ttempt to move the legislation.Other Measures

Also passed were bills requiring the New York CityHousing court to hold one night session per week;allowing tenants whose buildings are without heat topurchase fuel or repair boilers and deduct the cost fromtheir rent; and allowing fire-door exits to be locked ifthey can be easily opened or unbolted from inside without a key. A measure to extend the protections of rentstabilization to loft tenants in New York City passed theAssembly bu t was no t acted on in the Senate. 0

15 CITY LIMITS/June-July 1980


16/24

Low Income HousingSubsidies ComeUnder Fire In Congress

On their way to refunding in this fiscal year, federallow income rent subsidy programs faced a majorchallenge in both houses of Congress. While specificproposals which would have re-focused the thrust offederal policies away from new and rehabilitated apartments to a greater emphasis on existing units as well astowards enabling middle income rental constructionwere defeated, the attempt may well be a harbinger ofgreater change to come.

In a budget conscious, cost-cutting Congress the government's major tool for creating new housing for thepoor, Section 8 housing subsidies, came under heavysalvos of fire as its appropriation moved through committee and onto the floor of both houses. The mostdramatic indication of the Congressional mood came inApril when a motion to eliminate all governmentassistance to low income housing was defeated only by atie vote in a Senate committee.

What eventually emerged in the Senate from the clashof differing outlooks on how the federal housing subsidy dollar should be spent was a total of 255,000assisted units-including 118,200 for new and substantial rehab and 78,800 existing subsidies. The Housedecided not to consider the legislation until after itsrecess.

Foremost on the list of complaints against Section 8was the immense costs involved and the rising amountof funds already pledged for support. Those membersof Congress questioning the subsidy program found ample fuel for their arguments in a U.S. Government Accounting Office report released in early June whichlabelled Section 8 "extremely costly" and "of benefit toonly a fraction of the millions of households in need."With 759,000 families receiving assistance at the end of1979, and 250,000 more expected, the GAO estimatedthe government will owe over $128 billion over the nexttwenty to forty years.

Figures such as these "spell the death knell" for the

program said one Congressional housing aide.I t

was inresponse to this kind of pressure that bills were introduced in the Senate and the House to re-shapegovernment assistance programs. Both bills, introducedin the Senate by Senators William Proxmire, Democratof Wisconsin, and Harrison Williams, Democrat ofNew Jersey, and in the House by RepresentativeThomas L. Ashley, Democrat of Ohio, called for a shiftin the "mix" of existing and new subsidies, towardsgreater emphasis on existing units.

The rationale behind the effort, its supporters said,emerged from an overall analysis of how best to achieve


the goals of creating more decent living units for thepoor, while at the same time keeping costs low. Whatemerged was a program which aimed at removing a portion of funds from Section 8 new and rehabilitatedhousing and putting them to use by subsidizing the costsinvolved in building middle income rental units. According to the Senate housing committee report,"it is moreefficient to rely on existing housing to subsidize lowerincome people, and undertake a separate program involving a shallower subsidy to spur multifamily rentalproduction."

The bonus to the poor, the bill's adherents said,would be greater accessibility to housing because of theunits which would "filter-up" once their middle incomeoccupants moved to new housing.

"It 's part of the 'more bang for a buck' school ofthinking," commented Cushing Dolbeare, president ofthe National Low Income Housing Coalition whichopposed the legislation .

Both sponsors and opponents of the effort were inagreement that a strong tide of resentment was buildingin Congress against the costs of low income housingsubsidies and that something would have to be done tostem it. "This was introduced with the best of goodwill" said Dolbeare . "There is a lot to be said for a middle income rental subsidy program, but to divert badlyneeded funds from low income housing is just plainwrong."

Supporters point out that there is a net gain in thenumber of low income families that can be assistedthrough a shift in the mix, as well as that both bills contain provisions mandating between 20 to 30 per cent ofthe units built under the new program be set aside for

Section 8 eligible families. "The social theory behindthe legislation," said Roger Faxon, an aide to Representative Ashley, "is that you have to affect supply and demand. In many areas we have an extreme housing shortage, and by opening up more units you push the pricedown ."

But while that theory may hold true for some areas, itdoesn't for others countered the critics. "It 's based onthe vacancy rates for places like Houston, Texas," saidCharles Laven of the Urban Homesteading AssistanceBoard. "I t assumes that housing depreciates in valuerather than appreciating, and it also assumes that housing doesn't deteriorate. In New York City there is a vast

amount of land and housing stock available for new andrehabilitated housing, but there's a mis-matched demand for housing."

Since its inception in 1974, after the Nixon moratorium on federal housing construction, the Section 8 program has been often criticized, but no a c c e ~ t a b l ealternatives have been proposed. "I don't know where else wecan go," said Al Eisenberg, a staff member of theSenate Subcommittee on Housing, after the rejection ofthe multifamily initiative. "Section 8 seems to work, butas everyone can see it's expensive. But if you want theprivate sector to be involved, then it's going to cost ." 0


17/24

BROOKLYN DEVELOPMENT Continued from p. 9

although it ha s yet to start construction. But while thedebate raged, studies and reports were entered intoevidence, each one attempting to conclusively proveshopping malls either led to a new bonanza for smallmerchants, o r to their rapid demise.

"N o two scientists would come to the same conclu-sion on that issue," said Malinsky. To others the issue isdecidedly secondary. "Why should we subsidize margin-

al businesses that can't look after themselves?" askedBrennan of the PSIC. Joel Gurney, Vice President ofRentar, is convinced his shopping center would have a"ripple effect" on Fifth Avenue stores. "Waldbaumswould drop out if it's not built to their criteria," Gurneywarned the Land Use Committee.

The Rentar Corporation came well recommended tothe Community Board. As developer of the Albee SquareMall, the key ingredient of the revitalization of FultonStreet in downtown Brooklyn, the company is much in-volved with community development. Rentar is also po-litically involved and has been served well by its closeties to the Brooklyn Democratic Party. The corporationhas received numerous public contracts in the past, in-cluding a long term lease to develop and manage theFlatlands Industrial Park.

A major part of the effort to win approval for anylarge scale development is the successful wooing of po-litical officials, and both groups have been actively seek-ing support. A key figure is Borough President HowardGolden, who, so far has no t publicly, stated his prefer-ence for either plan. "The Borough President believesthere is an opportunity to get something done," saidGolden aide Ray Levin. "We don't think the plans areincompatible . We'd like to see a new school or modern-ization of the existing school. So far FAC has spoken tous in generalities. It's one thing to say ECF can build anew one and another to actually bring it off." The finaldecision, Levin said, does not rest with the CommunityBoard. "They serve in an advisory capacity to us, notthe other way around," he said.

As city budget negotiations went down to the lasthour Brooklyn political leaders were able to get a com-mitment for design funds for the rehabilitation of P. S.133 and a listing of $2 million to be spent in fiscal year1982 for modernization. 1982, however is a long time,and another round of budget balancing away. Board ofEducation engineers have estimated that it would cost

$4 million to rehab the school, two thirds the cost of areplacement school. Such figures in the past have effec-tively blocked any attempt to do a modernization ofP.S. 133 . At the Land Use meeting where the BalticStreet proposals were unveiled a number of sharp ques-tions were aimed at the Rentar/Waldbaums proposi-tion's lack of planning for the school. "It 's an amazingcoincidence that all of a sudden funds were found torehab the school at the last minute," noted Jack Ulrich,a local schools activist, and member of the SouthBrooklyn Action Movement which is backing FAC's

proposal.The Fifth Avenue Committee has brought powerful

allies with it for the implementation of its mixed useplan for the site. Even opponent Lew Smith has com-mented admiringly on FAC's development group. "I 'mimpressed with the team they have managed to put to-gether," he told a Land Use Committee meeting. A ma-jo r part of that team is the Aetna Life and Casualty

Company which is working closely with the communitygroup and has already granted $25,000 for planning. Inaddition, the company has pledged financial backingfor the housing and commercial components . JerryAltman, a consultant for Aetna who is working onFAC's proposal, said the company sees important stakesin the Baltic Street plan . "From a neighborhood revital-ization point of view," he said recently from his base inChicago, "Aetna wants to test a national demonstrationmodel that shows how a lender, in conjunction with abroad based community organiza tion, can stimulaterebuilding a neighborhood ."

FAC has also hired attorney John Zuccotti to repre-sent it in negotiations with the city and HUD for its pro-posal. Zuccotti, former Deputy Mayor and PlanningCommissioner, is a highly sought after developmentlawyer because of his excellent city and federal housingconnections. "W e knew we needed some muscle on thisone," said a FAC member. FAC's present housingscheme falls midway between two different federal pro-grams, one aimed at middle income and the other atlow, and convincing HUD that the project is workablemay take some doing: "The combination of homeown-ership with subsidized units is something we think HUDwill find attractive ," said Altman.

At one point FAC suggested the site be totally low in-come housing, a position it has since rejected . "This isan area where there is a strong feeling for home owner-ship," said Rebecca Reich, FAC development director,"and at the same time there is a real need for low in-come housing. The Baltic Street plan complementsother work FAC has undertaken and proposed, in-cluding Section 312 homesteading."

On a recent Saturday afternoon five men workinglaboriously on the engine of a vintage Ford Galaxieparked on Butler Street in the middle of the lot had notrouble deciding which of the plans they thought bestfor their neighborhood. "I grew up right over there,"

said one, pointing to a mound of broken concrete andtwisted steel adorned with a torn mattress. "And we allwent to school in that building," indicating the statelystructure at the end of the block. "Sure we need someshopping but we need housing even more. I f this landbelongs to the city, why should it go to benefit some richguys?" Four heads nodded vigorously in agreement asthey eyed the terrain about them . 0

17 CITY LIMITS/June-July 1980


18/24

Quotas and Starrett City:An ExchangeTo the Editor:

The recent article by Tom Robbins on Open HousingCenter's contract dispute [April, 1980] was misleadingin what i t failed to report, although I provided the infor-

mation to him. He reported that OH C claimed we wereseeking to keep Starrett City "mostly white". What hefailed to mention was the actual racial composition ofthe nearly 6,000 families, i.e.: 64OJo majority and 36%minority. Because of family composition, the actualminority population is even larger than its family per-centile. What has been accomplished at Starrett City,more successfully and surely on a larger scale than any-where else, is the creation of a stable, integrated com-munity. What we are fighting for is the constitutionalright of our residents to continue to live in an integratedcommunity. Apparently this goal is of little interest toOHC.

In a recent report to the New York State Division ofHousing & Community Renewal, Dr. Kenneth Clarkconcluded:

" I t becomes clear that to achieve an integrated resi-dential community at Starrett City requires a thoughtfuland deliberate plan to eliminate or prevent segregation.Integration is no t a possible outcome of the naturaloperation of market forces-"

"T o achieve an integrated residential community atStarrett City requires conscious attention to race in theselection process. I t requires deliberate planning of the

ratio of white to minority residents-""If segregation is the operational form of discrimina-tion, and if residential integrat ion is a high priority, thenthe selection process canno t be color blind, for to be col-or blind in a color conscious society is to perpetuaterather than eradicate discrimination and segregation."

Although we have no t been involved in OHC's con-tractual dispute, we would like to suggest that their at-tacking an integrated development when so manysegregated developments exist could call into questionthe motivations and responsibility of that organization.


A cour t decision against Starrett City could conceivablynullify the effectiveness of affirmative action programsand affirmative marketing programs across the nation.

Robert C. RosenbergGeneral ManagerStarrett City

We do not agree that characterizing 64 per cent as"mostly" is misleading. But Mr. Rosenberg's letterraises important issues regarding the suit against Star-rett City's renting practices which, fo r lack o f space, wewere unable to report on in our April article. To givetheir perspective on the suit we have asked the OpenH o u ~ i n gCenter to respond. Editors. 0

To the Editor:

18

The Open Housing Center, as a fair housing agency,has a responsibility to assist minority persons who feelthat they are meeting racial discrimination in their questfor housing. In keeping with that responsibility, theCenter has provided assistance to the numerous minor-ity persons who have contacted us regarding StarrettCity's exclusionary practices.

Mr. Rosenberg contends that he is fighting for theconstitutional rights of Starret t residents to live in an in-tegrated community. Ou r clients are just as vigorouslyfighting for their express constitutional and statutoryrights to lease apartments wi thout consideration of theirrace and color.

Despite Mr. Rosenberg's predictions of doom for af-firmative marketing should the Plaintiffs prevail, mar-keting is not the issue. The affirmative marketing

regulations promulgated by H.U.D. prohibit discrimin-ation. Mr. Rosenberg has no t discussed the ugly ra-tionale for the imposition of the racially exclusionaryquota. The quota has been developed to keep the num-ber of minorities living at Starrett City to a level atwhich the white residents will feel comfortable. Farfrom engendering racial harmony, this practice canonly serve to further stigmatize Blacks.

Integration is a laudable goal, but must minorities,who have suffered and still suffer the burdens of racismand the resulting segregation in society, now bear the


19/24

brunt of this society's meager attempt to integrate? ABlack who is denied an apartment in an attempt tomaintain a racially segregated community and a Blackwho is denied an apartment in order to maintain an integrated community are in the same position. They havebeen denied an apartment because they are Black.

The concept of "tipping" and the utilization of quotas to artifically restrict the numbers of Blacks and/orHispanics living in a particular area or complex is an acceptance and validation of the racism endemic to thissociety.

To the Editor:

Betty HoeberDirectorOpen Housing Center, Inc.

On the cover of City Limits in July, 1978, the entry of590 Parkside Avenue, a 40-unit Brooklyn apartmentbuilding into HPD's Community Management Prog ram

was heralded as a great victory. After much work by thetenants and community organizers, the building received a precedent -setting $6,OOO-per-unit for therenovation . There indeed seemed to be much cause foroptimism .

But the state of 590 Parkside today points up thedrastic difference between the promise of HPD's alternative management programs and the reality.

In May, 1980, an inspection of 590 showed lightingfixtures dangling from ceilings, holes in walls from rewiring done the previous November, an unlocked frontdoor, no mailboxes, no intercom and no finished apartments. There were only 17 tenants, the same as in 1978.

590 Parkside is now in the Management in Partnership Program. I t has been for about a year. I t spent oneuseless year in the Community Management Program.Crown Heights Management and Maintenance Corporation, the community group hired to manage the building, neglected it and, after one year, its contract withHP D was not renewed. 590 became an interim resourceand seemed assured of further decline.

In June, 1979, Coalition Management Training Corporation (CMTC) agreed to take 590 into its newlyformed Management in Partnership (MIP) Program,with Crown Heights Management as the junior partner.HP D agreed after Crown Heights changed its entirestaff.

Since then, the roof and the boiler have been satisfactorily repaired. The piles of garbage in the basementhave been cleaned out.

But the work which was termed "completed" seemedcheap and shabby. Months after the apartment doorswere installed the workmen returned to line them upwith the locks and doorjambs. Some new windows wereinstalled, bu t not completely secured while the management waited for weatherization program information.

In some apartments new paint jobs had to be destroyedbecause of renovation work which followed the painting.

In June, three newly completed apartments needed tobe replastered. Rusty appliances were being installed inkitchens. Workers needed to wait hours or days fornecessary materials to arrive.

Two years ago 590 Parkside Ave. was one of the fortunate city-owned buildings being given a chance tocome back from neglect and deterioration. But for 590,entry into an alternative management program was justthe beginning. The promise is yet to be fulfilled.

Carol SmolenskiProspect LeffertsGardens Neighborhood Assn.

DECADE Continued from p. 2

19

In the 1980's we see hunger; we see our friends andneighbors stripped of pride and self - respect as a result of

cutbacks in social programs. We see a city administration which does not recognize minority and low incomeneighborhoods; a U.S. Congress which says it is no tconcerned with providing jobs for the unemployed; athreatened cutoff of food stamps; elected officials whovote against our interest, We see the closing of hospitalsand of basic health services. We see our homes becomedeterioriated and abandoned; a welfare system whichties the cord of dependence while decreasing its aid forrecipients. We see all this with a justification for moremilitary spending and increasing giveaways for big business, large corporations, and the upper class. Basichuman needs must no t continue to be issues for publiccompromise .

The ingredients for massive unrest are here. The levelof hunger and rage will be the deciding factor onwhether the rage will explode. We hope it does not; pastexplosions have deeply injured the victims without producing meaningful change.

I t is time, however, for close examination and assessment of the situation and action to correct the injusticeswhich created it. There must be a reshaping of prioritiesso that government can serve all of its citizens, not just achosen few. There must be a recognition tha t a government is only as stable as its foundation-its citizens.There must be an acceptance that all of the foreign aidand military allocations cannot make a difference if thesocial needs of citizens remain unmet. 0

If You Are In Housing . . .Think about advertising your product/services in CITY LIMITS.

CITY li MITS/June-July 1980


20/24

URBABABBLE -A Practitioner's Tale

Urbababble, a dialect native to most urban affairs of-fices, has recently been isolated and analyzed by a prac-titioner, Robert Fichter o f the Parkman Center fo r Ur-

ban Affairs in Boston. Like many urban lingos, Urba-babble loses a good deal in translation, and Fichter haschosen to display the tongue in its full flavor via a shortstory followed by a lexicon of usage in his booklet "Ur-babble."

Fichter's tale revolves around Henry, a local govern-ment offic ial "working his way up the CD ladder" who,while still in planning school the phrase " 'a decenthome and suitable living environment' had been, as itwere, xeroxed on his sou/''' An abridged version o f thetale appears below.

"Henry," the CD director said to him recently, "W ehave to gear up for some concentrated decision-making.Our mandate is to choose one more impacted area as anNSA, and we could be in a bind on this one. We've gotto show a good faith low/mod effort, but the mayor'sho t to have us step up our capture rate on these youngprofessional "back to the city" types. I' m willing to pullout all the stops for you, bu t I want to see you hit theground running. You've got two days, kiddo."

Henry's boldest initiative to date-his reputation wasbased on i t -had been to abort the bail-out of a troubled 221(d)(3) project. He had taken a good look at it,come to grips with the problem, and had decided that,given the social balance sheet, throwing money at it justwouldn't do the job. The bottom line on that particularblack hole (black hole as in outer space rather than Calcutta) was that it was going down the tubes without evena mid-range hope of viability.

Henry had gone way out on a limb on that one. Theissue was hotly debated. There were a lot of people whowanted to dump the City's whole Sec 8 allocation intoFreedom Acres, even if they also knew that it had gonecritical.

"Sorry," Henry had said. " I know the politicalrealities, bu t there's no way we can retrofit any kind ofrationale for this one, I don't care what kind of cost!

benefit bundles you bring in. What the Feds have put inplace here is a real disaster. I f we don't want to get locked in with them, we've got to cut our losses and pull theplug."

"The jury isn't in yet," they argued."Look," Henry replied, "I've laid it all out for you.

I f you want to deal with this in any kind of serious wayyou won't signoff on their game plan. Let them take thehigh road, bu t I promise you they don't have amechanism in place that will get at the question of thebasic match/mismatch parameters here."


So here is Henry, being asked to head a task force (thetask force idea was a late stage buy-off to keep the craziesfrom pulling a sit-in) on the thi rd NSA and facing a severetime crunch.

What Henry figures he's got to do is get input frompeople who have special expertise in manipulating smallarea data and cranking out what the Feds will be willingto buy in terms of an upgrading strategy with a low/

mod hold harmless factor built in. What you'd need forthat would be real time indices of neighborhooddynamics showing slack demand with fine grained selective marketing potential. Laying it out- le t alone operationalizing i t -could be a tough task. Henry feels a realstraight jacket lurking in this one.

What Henry needs is a fast track approach. The longterm is fine for researchers, bu t Henry has to operate inthe real world where "results-oriented" is the name ofthe game and timing is all important. So Henry sendsof f yet another action memo to his director, telling himthe project will never be up to speed unless the agencystaffs it up to at least a threshold level.

The boss sends Fred.Fred is a good kid, bright, just out of planning

school, still wet behind the ears but eager to learn. Oncethe tough decisions are made at a command level, Fredshould be able to take the situation and m

city limits magazine, june/july 1980 issue

Documents