CITY

LIMITS
COMMUNITY HOUSING NEWS
Association of Neighborhood
Housing Developers Inc.
29 East 22nd Street New Vork. N.V. 10010 2126747610
JUNE-JULY 1916
Vol. I No.5
MVDC
MANHATTAN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
by Leah Schneider
Manhattan Valley Development Corporation (MVDC). a
community operated not-for-profit housing development
and services organization. was founded in 1968 by a number
of local community groups and political leaders in response
to the fact that Manhattan Valley as a community was
being by-passed by city, state and federal housing develop-
ment and renewal funds. funds that were literally pouring
into immediately adjacent communities. From the begin-
ning. MVDC recognized that government urban renewal and
redevelopment programs too frequently resorted to the
"bulldozer." followed by the erection of lifeless, high-rise
middle-income towers. The vitality of once-strong neighbor-
hoods would be lost. ...
MVDC LOAN CLOSING 931-933 Columbus Avenue Coop
April 3, 1975
(left to right, standing: Seymour and Stewart Alpert,
Contractors; Olga Fernandez, Technical Advisor; Kurt
Schneider, MVDC; Ramona Intriago, MVDC; Judith Spec-
tor, West Side Legislative Center. Left to right, seated :
Felix Velazquez, Pres., MVDC; Woody Lee, former Vice
President, MVDC; Jacob Gelfand, HDA; Jose Acuna,
MVDC Director; Leah Schneider, MVDC Board.)
(Jeft to right: Diego Cruz, Atahualpa Dominguez, Danny
Villaronga, and Jose Acuna_)
Accordingly, MVDC began to focus its energies and
limited resources on tackling the housing problems of
neighborhood families living in the existing housing stock_
Rehabilitation, building maintenance, relocation within the
community, and tailoring rehabilitation to rent levels
community residents could afford, represents MVDC's basic
approach to preserving the Manhattan Valley neighbor-
hood.
The Manhattan Valley Community
Manhattan Valley is a 40-square block neighborhood on
Manhattan's Upper West Side adjacent to Central Park
between West 1000h and West 1I0th Streets, Central Park
West and Broadway.
The buildings in Manhattan Valley are expressive of the
rich architectural diversity of the Upper West Side com-
munities. Large, elegantly designed elevator buildings,
housing many affluent families, line Central Park West_ The
brownstones on and around Manhattan Avenue are unique
in the City's brownstone housing stock, and most are
owner-occupied_ The side streets are built up with a
mixture of apartment houses erected between 1900 and
1920 - so-called early and late new-law tenement buildings.
OVER
2
mvdc Comjoued
Many are in excellent condition structurally, but increasing-
ly show signs of age and hard use, not to mention deferred
maintenance. Old-law tenements built before the turn of
the century are concentrated along Columbus Avenue,
where the old 9th Avenue EI ran until the early 1940's, and
along Amsterdam Avenue. Old-laws are also interspersed
among the new-laws on the side streets.
The Frederick Douglass Houses, a public housing de-
velopment housing approximately 2,200 low-income fami-
lies, occupies an 8-square block area of Manhattan Valley.
On Cathedral Parkway (West 1I0th Street), Cathedral
Parkway Towers was opened for occupancy in the fall of
1975. It is a mixed-income housing development. Park West
Village and the many new housing developments of the
West Side Urban Renewal Area lie just to the south of
Manhattan Valley and extend to West 87th Street.
Surrounded by communities of relative affluence
Morningside Heights to the north, the Riverside Drive/West
End Avenue community to the west, and the moderate and
middle income development communities emerging in the
West Side Urban Renewal Area - Manhattan Valley remains
a vital, but neglected, community of mainly low-income
people.
From many viewpoims, Manhattan Valley is the last
"plum" to be picked by the real estate operators who are
increasingly dominating the economics of the housing
market on the Upper West Side. Several buildings in
Manhattan Valley have already been converted by private
landlords into comparatively high rent housing and several
others would have been, had it not been for the vigilance of
MVDC along with other neighborhood groups in insisting
that private rehabilitation efforts provide apartments for
low-income families.
Accompanying the speculative pressures is the alarming
rate of abandonment by private owners who have neither
the capital nor the know-how to undertake the renovation
of their aging buildings. In scores of buildings, services have
been completely withdrawn. And following housing aban-
donment often come suspicious fires.
Against adverse conditions, MVDC has for the last seven
years attempted to create a viable housing services and
rehabilitation capability within the community to check
neighborhood decline while bringing much needed improve-
ments to Manhattan Valley buildings in a manner that
would preserve the basic integrity of the community as a
viable neighborhood for low- and moderate-income fami-
lies.
Who Lives in Manhattan Valley?
The 1970 census enumerated just under 27,000 persons
in Manhattan Valley, approximately one-half of whom are
of Spanish-speaking origin. Puerto Ricans are the predom-
inant Spanish groups, although large numbers of Domini-
" cans have settled in Manhattan Valley in recent years. Over
one-third of the residents are Black, with the balance of the
population being Whites and Orientals who reside mainly
on Central Park West and on the side streets near
Broadway. The proportion of minority residents in the
neighborhood has remained approximately the same in the
last ten years.
The typical family in Manhattan Valley had a 1970
income equal to approximately three-fourths of the median
income for families in Manhattan, a disparity that has
remained about constant during the last ten years. Over
20% of the families in Manhattan Valley receive some form
of public assistance. Manhattan Valley is predominantly a
community of low wage earners with limited skills. Given
the grim employment prospects in New York City - a
problem exaggerated in communities like Manhattan Valley
- the economic prognosis for Manhattan Valley families in
coming years is not good. These are the families who need
low-rent housing - families who cannot afford to spend the
major portion of their incomes on shelter, when food,
clothing, and other necessities are already so difficult to
afford.
Manhattan Valley Development Corporation
MVDC was organized in 1968 and has emerged in the last
three years as the community group in the neighborhood
most effective in housing action. While housing has been
MVDC's major emphasis, MVDC realizes that housing
cannot be divorced from the other problems and needs in
the neighborhood. Accordingly, MVDC has become in-
volved in a wide range of neighborhood issues.
MVDC has a Board of II members, nine of whom" are
elected by a vote held among all bona fide community
organizations in Manhattan Valley. Two technical advisors
serve at the pleasure of the nine other directors. The Board
meets on a monthly basis - more often when necessary. The
present officers and board members are:
Felix Velazquez, President; Alvin Peart, Vice President;
Leah Schneider, Secretary; Olga Perez-Martinez, Treasurer;
Rosita Flores, Ramona Intriago, Kurt Schneider, Jose
Valentin and Eddie Williams, Jr_, members-at-Iarge; Olga
Fernandez and Leonard Lerner, Technical Advisors; and
Jose Acuna, Director. All of these individuals are residents
of Manhattan Valley and they truly reflect the diversity of
the neighborhood. They are identical in one respect,
however. As Jose Acuna puts it, "What I do for Manhattan
Valley is never a job. It's a committment and one that is
shared by everyone else here."
MVDC is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization with
storefront offices located at 927 Columbus Avenue, a
city-owned building. MVDC has never received any city,
state or federal grants or any funding from poverty
programs. Small grants and donations have been received
from time to time from local institutions to cover office
overhead and sporadic payments to MVDC's only paid staff
member, the Director_ MVDC is, in the main, a volunteer
organization. (When MVDC was first established, initial
grants of approximately $35,000 were received from
foundations to cover consulting fees over a period of about
three years.)
Continued on page 15
4
NEWS UPDATES QQQQQQQQQQQ

NATIONAL PEOPLE'S ACTION WASHINGTON
CONFERENCE A ROUSING SUCCESS
1,000 Attend, Testify and
Demonstrate for
"Neighborhoods First"
On Sunday and Monday, June 13th and 14th, over 1,000
men and women, blacks, whites, Chicanos, Hispanics and
others, from all over the USA, gathered in Washington, D.C.
for the Fifth Annual Conference of National People's
Action. Stressing the theme of "Neighborhoods First." the
participants heard representatives of community organi
zations demand better government responses to neighbor
hood issues in the areas of redlining and reinvestment,
community development, senior citizens, FHA mortgage
practices, crime and public utilities.
The second day of the conference was given over to
meetings with FHA and CDA officials, testimony at
congressional hearings and before the Democratic Party
platform committee, tieing a "redlining" ribbon around the
Washington Hilton Hotel where a convention of the
American Bankers Association was in progress and present
ing a "Bicentennial Monument" to HUD . consisting of bits
and pieces taken from FHA foreclosed and abandoned
buildings around the country.
The conference received nationwide newspaper and
television coverage, including stories in the New York
Times and Post. Our city had a goodly number of
participants, among whom were Bob Schur, Executive
Director and Rabbit Nazario, President, of ANHD, Ron
Shiffman and Brian Sullivan from Pratt, Dan Meunier and
Tamara Reed of Housing Conservation Coordinators, Roger
Hayes of Morris Heights Neighborhood Improvement As
sociation, Kathy Herman and Erica Foreman of St. Nicho
las Housing Corp. of Williamsburg, Martin Young of
Consumer Farmer Foundation, an entire delegation of
Northwest Bronx Clergy Coalition members, Dave Hepin
stall of Sunset Park, Ruth Nazario and Emilie San Clemente
of AdoptaBuilding, Michael Freedberg of East 11th Street,
Chuck Laven of UHAB, Mike McKee of the New York
State Tenants Coalition, and at least two persons still from
the "establishment" . Henry Lanier of HDA and Sharon
Cohen from Chase Manhattan Bank although it is reported
that both are soon to switch to academic life, Henry to
Yale and Sharon to the University of Pennsylvania.
NAZAR lOS AWAROED GRANT
FOR LOWER EAST SIDE PRESERVATION
It is with special gratification that we announce the
award of a grant of 520,000 by the John Hay Whitney
Foundation to Roberto and Ruth Nazario, which they will
use to continue and expand their efforts to organize and
assist the Lower East Side community to obtain funding
from the city and private sources to preserve and improve
their neighborhood.
For several years, "Rabbit" and Ruthie have worked
against incredible odds and have accomplished impossible
feats on the "Loisaida." They, and their fellow workers ,
have made AdoptaBuilding into an exemplary neighbor
hood housing organization.
At the same time, Rabbit has given his unstinting
services and leadership as President of ANHD since 1974
and Ruthie has, for the past year, served as a VicePresident
and member of ANHD' s Operations Committee.
ASSOCIATION HOSTS TOUR FOR
UNITED KINGDOM HOUSING OFFICIALS
As part of the US/UK Housing Exchange Program,
funded by the Ford Foundation (US), the Department of
Environment (UK) and the Rowntree Foundation (UK) and
coordinated by Columbia University's Graduate School of
Architecture and Planning, nineteen British housing experts
toured a variety of housing programs in New York City, St.
Louis, Missouri and Washington, D.C., from June 4th to
June 18th.
While in New York, the group of Britishers spent June
8th meeting some ANHD member/affiliate groups in
Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn.
After an informal discussion at ANHD headquarters, the
visitors divided into three groups for the day. Group No. I
observed the activities and met with the staff of the
Renigades in East Harlem, the South Bronx Community
Housing Corporation and the Morris Heights Neighborhood
Improvement Association, both in the Bronx. Group No.2
visited construction sites on East 11th Street under the
sponsorship of AdoptaBuilding on the Lower East Side of
Manhattan and the tenantmanagement operations of Los
Sures in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. Group No.3
met with the staffs of the National Tenant Management
Demonstration Project, the Office of Evaluation and
Compliance and toured Oceanhill Brownsville Tenants As
sociation's Community Management operations in Brook
Iyn.
ANHD, along with Pmfessor Robert Kolodney of
Columbia University, would like to thank everyone who
helped make the day a valuable experience for the
Britishers.
OVER
NAMES IN THE NEWS
In an article appearing in the June 4th edition of the
New York Post, entitled "Why Morris Heights Has Hope,"
ANHD member, Morris Heights Neighborhood Improve-
ment . Association, was cited as successfully turning the
neighborhood around through its "preventitive abandon-
ment" program_
The article, written by Post correspondent Peter
Freiberg, discussed the effectiveness of tenant organizing
and leadership development. Well deserved credit was given
to Mildred Zucker, Roger Hayes, Andrew Heath and the
entire MHN IA staff.
..
..
..
..
..
TOWN OF FLATBUSH GIVES TOUR
5
The Flatbush Development Corporation, a new member
of ANHD, held a neighborhood tour on Sunday, June 13th.
Assisted by a small grant from the Human Rights Commis-
sion to defray the costs of advertising, FDC enabled visitors
to the area to sample hospitality while viewing architectur-
ally distinctive apartments houses and private homes.
Unique among neighborhood tours, it featured spacious ,
reasonably priced vacant apartments as well as beautifully
furnished occupied apartments and homes.
The aim of the tour was to attract new people,
particularly young families, to the neighborhood and from
the large turnout on Sunday Flatbush may get its wish_
COLLEGE INTERNS JOIN ANHD STAFF
ANHD is proud to announce that it was one of only ten
agencies in New York City to be selected for the Morgan
Guaranty Trust Company's Summer Internship Program_
Under the program, the bank hires a graduate student for
ten weeks and the student is assigned to a selected agency.
Gini Sherry, our Intern, comes to ANHD well qualified
for her job, which will be to prepare a quantitative report
on the accomplishments and activities of ANHD member
organizations. Gini is a graduate of New York University,
where she majored in political science and is now pursuing a
Master of Urban Planning degree at Hunter College. She has
been an Intern with Suburban Action Institute and had a
teaching at Hunter this academic year,
working With an undergraduate urban affairs seminar.
ANHD is delighted to have Gini's assistance and we have
promised her a very challenging ten weeks.
GIN I SHERRY
.-
WILFRED CHABRIER
ANHD has again received a grant under the First
City Bank's Summer Internship Program, enabling
us to hire a Summer Intern to develop a bi-lingual manual
for tenants on emergency management or "What to do
your landlord has walked and Con Ed presents you
With a $900 bill and a shut-off notice."
Wilfred our Intern, will answer these and many
other questions related to emergency management. This
be Willie's second summer with ANHD, but his
much further back_ After leaving college
In 197-2, Willie worked in the Williamsburg section of
Brooklyn - first for Catholic Charities and later as Assistant
Administrator of Los Sures, a founding member of ANHD.
During ANHD's first year, Willie served on ANHD's
Operations Committee until he resumed his college career.
Willie will be a Senior at Williams College in Massachusetts
where he is majoring in political science.
END
6
announcements
2 2 : J 3 3 ~ a 2 2 2 3 3 : : : : J : : : : : J a : J 3 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 3 : : J ~ ~ : J : : : 2 ~ : : : : J 2 3 3 3 2 ~ 3 2 3 J J J 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 a : : : ~ 3 ~ 3 3 3 3 2 : : J 3 3 2 2 3 : 2 a ~
ADOPT-A-BUILDING
SPONSORS SCHOOL FOR ORGANIZERS
Adopt-a-Building has made sure that no one's Tuesday
evenings need be dull this summer. Whether you're new to
the housing movement and working as a volunteer, or an
experienced organizer, the Training School for Organizers
will prove valuable and informative. An outline of the
topics to be covered follows:
I. BUILDING ORGANIZING: Coordinating role, ana-
lyzing the situation, tenant organization, tenant commit
tees.
2. OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: Research on owner,
taxes, liens . . .followed with a trip downtown.
3. BUILDING REPAIRS/TENANT MANAGEMENT:
Examples of tenant-run buildings, contacts in Emergency
Repairs Program, suppliers, repairmen.
4. BOOKKEEPING: Recording rents, budgets, monthly
reports.
5. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: Dispossess, litigation, 7A,
19A, Article XI, other laws that can be used.
6. HOUSING PROGRAMS: Who's who in various city
agencies, processing techniques ... plus a tour of the bureau-
cracy.
7. CITY OWNED PROPERTIES: The law, Department
of Real Estate, alternatives.
8. VACANT BUILDINGS: UB's, structural inspections,
demolition, seal-up.
9. DEVELOPING PROPOSALS AND PROCESSING
FOR LOANS: Programs available, scope of work, plans.
10. BUILDING RENOVATIONS: Film, construction
tips ... plus a day of sweat equity.
II. ENERGY CONSERVATION: Solar ener9'(, winteriza-
tion techniques.
12. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZING:
Examples, role of organizer, "Loisaida."
13. POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES: Who's who, how
decisions are made.
14. GROUP PLANNING METHODS: Meetings, goals,
evaluation, long-term program.
15. 'EVALUATION: Questions, suggestions, dinner.
Sessionswill be held every Tuesday, beginning July 13th
and will be held at EI Teatro Ambulante, 433 East 6th
Street. There will be 15 sessions and people from all
neighborhoods are welcome. Because the best training takes
place ON THE JOB, we will also work with each person
from the Lower East Side on an on-going basis during the
summer to provide advice.
A fee of S75.00 will be charged to housing workers
employed by an agency in a community_ A contribution of
$5.00 (for materials) would be appreciated from people
working as un-paid volunteers.
For more information, call Adopt-a-Building, 677-8700.
CITY LIMITS ADVERTISING POLICY
The Operations Committee of ANHD has decided to
accept limited advertising to help defray the cost of
publication.
Advertisements will be accepted from bona-fide busi-
nesses upon recommendation by an ANHD member and/or
staff person. Only reputable businesses with prior satisfac-
tory relationships with an ANHD member organization or
staff person will be accepted.
Rates are as follows :
For Camera-Ready Copy -
525 - 1/4 page
545 - 1/2 page
S85 - full page
A fee of SIO per hour will be charged for layout and
typesetting if not provided by advertiser.
"FREE SPEECH" ON 99X
As a public service, Radio Station WXLO (99X) is
providing the opportunity for representatives of the com-
munity to make a "FREE SPEECH MESSAGE."
A "FREE SPEECH MESSAGE" allows you to take a
position on a subject you feel strongly about. The message
should take no longer than 45 seconds to read.
Application forms are available from Denise Richardson,
Public Affairs Coordinator, WXLO Radio Station, 1440
Broadway, New York, New York 100lB, (212) 764-7000.
NEWS ABOUT THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAWSUIT
Association Joins in Petition to HUD to Set Aside
C.D.2 Programs Which Ignore Poor and Minorities
On Wednesday, June 2, 1976, one day after New York
City officially filed its Second Year Community Develop
ment Plan, a Petition was filed with the U. S. Housing and
Urban Development Department's New York Area Admin-
istrator, Mr. Joseph Monticiollo, and served upon Mayor
Abraham D. Beame, calling upon HUD to review and
amend the City's Plan. The Petition bears the signatures of
the New York Housing and Community Development
Coalition (the new name for what used to be called the
Pratt Conference Coalition), the Association of Neighbor-
hood Housing Developers, Inc., and about -a' dozen other
city-wide and community organizations.
Basically, the Petition asks that a number of the
programs included in the City's Plan be disallowed as not
complying with the requirements of the 1974 Housing and
Community Development Act for maximum feasible prior-
ity for programs designed to meet the needs of the poor
and minorities and to combat slums and blight. Petitioners
specifically attack such allocations as $10.7 million for HDA
administrative costs as well as large sums for privately-
owned shopping centers on Fordham Road in the Bronx,
Fulton Street in downtown Brooklyn and in Jamaica,
Queens.
Also criticized are over $5 million for sewers in
middle-income neighborhoods of Queens and Staten Island
and $3.5 million for new elevators in a Brooklyn public
housing project. The Petition contends that funds are
available in other federal programs for at least the most
urgent of these needs.
At the same time, the Petition points out, the City's Plan
virtually ignores the housing needs of the lowest income
residents. Even those programs, such-as rehabilitation loans
which could assist low-income housing, are being used to
promote HDA Administrator Roger Starr's policy of
" planned shrinkage" of low-income neighborhoods. Other
programs, such as Emergency Repairs and sealing of
buildings are given starvation allowances. The Petition
makes it clear that programs which are not objected to
should be funded, as is specifically authorized by HUD
regulations. Thus, there should be no interruption in
funding for Model Cities or Community Management, for
example.
Court Appeal to Follow if Necessary
The Petitioners are determined to fight this case to the
finish. "If we do not obtain reasonable satisfaction from
HUD we intend to file suit against HUD and the City in
court," Robert Schur, ANHD Executive Director,
said. "The Petition to HUD is merely the first stage in what
may turn out to be a long and bitter struggle."
7
HUD Area Director Monticiollo has already acknow-
ledged receipt of the Petition and has called on Mayor
Beame to respond to each and every point raised by the
Petitioners. A ruling is expected to be issued from HUD
quite soon.
MORE ORGANIZATIONS NEEDED
"This action is an open-ended thing," said Ron Shiffman
of the N. Y. Housing and Community Development
Coalition. "We welcome participation by all concerned
community organizations."
If you want to consider joining in the Petition and in
any legal action that may follow, call the Association at
674-7610 for a copy of the Petition and for information as
to how you can join.
Getting to Know Our Community Development Lawyers
About: Judy Tumoc:k and Kellis E. Parker
In our last issue, we promised to tell you more about
Judy Turnock and Kellis Parker, the attorneys representing
the New York City Housing and Community Development
Coalition and other city-wide and community-based organi-
zations in a lawsuit challenging the City's proposed use of
federal community development funds. Judy and Kellis
bring an impressive array of skills, eXRerience, qualifications
and dedication to the task they have undertaken.
Kellis Parker grew up in Kinston, North Carolina, a rural,
segregated black community. Kellis left Kinston in 1960 to
attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
During his undergraduate years, he spent a good deal of
time working in the Civil Rights Movement and was one of
five college students named to represent the United States
at a "mock" United Nations Conference in Greece.
In 1965 Kellis entered Howard University's taw School ,
where he Editor-in-Chief of the Law Journal. Working
part-time during the school year and part-time the
summers, Kellis gained valuable experience at the National
Labor Relations Board, the State Department and as an
assistant to Judge Spottswood W. Robinson, III of the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Upon graduating from Howard University c:um .Iaude,
Kellis accepted a teaching position at the of
California at Davis. Always keenly concerned With legal
rights of the poor and minorities, Kellis concentrated on
teaching clinical courses to train students how to represent
such groups and individuals effectively. Three.
Kellis was appointed to the faculty of University
Law School in New York City, where he IS now a full
Professor.
Continued on page 8
8

os ...
JOB OPENING
Bathgate Community Housing Development Corporation
has an immediate opening for the position of Tenant
Relations Specialist. An experienced, bi-li ngual tenant
organizer is preferred, but a highly-motivated beginner will
be considered. As well as tenant relations duties, the
Specialist will also be responsible for rent projections, some
budgeting, etc. Will train.
Call and/or send resume to: Max Jacobs, Director,
Bathgate Community Housing Development Corporation,
1660 Bathgate Avenue, Bronx, New York 10457, (212)
294-3720.
JOB OPENING
ASSOCIATION COMPTROLLER
DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES: Reports directly to Execu-
tive Director. In charge of all Association fiscal, accounting
and bookkeeping matters, including all special programs
and projects (e.g. CETA and CJCC). Prepares accounting
and fiscal monitoring systems, budgets, financial reports
(except annual audit). Supervises Administrative Manager
and Chief Bookkeeper, including liaison and technical
assistance in accounting, bookkeeping and office manage-
ment to member groups, and relations with government
agencies requiring fiscal reporting by community groups,
preparation of manuals, systems, workshops and other aids.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: B.B.A. or equivalent
degree with major in accounting, plus at least five (5) years
experience in a supervisory capacity in the accounting or
business management office of a private organization or
public agency, preferably including experience with a
non-profit, tax-exempt organization dealing with govern-
ment-financed programs_
SALARY: $19,000-$21,000, depending upon experience
and qualifications.
Send resume, including previous salary history to: Ms.
Judy Flynn, Director of Operations, Association of Neigh-
borhood Housing Developers, Inc., 29 East 22nd Street,
New York, New York 10010.
c.d. continued
During the past several years, Kellis has written numer-
ous articles relating to problems of minorities, legal
education and housing, and has authored a Case Book for
law students, "Modern Judicial Remedies." This year,
Professor Parker has conducted seminars on Community
Development and Urban Development Control among
others.
Professor Parker's activities have not been confined to
the academic world. He has been consultant to the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund, CALS (Community Action Legal
Services!. the Ford Foundation and the National Commit-
tee Against Discrimination in Housing.
Judy Turnock's early life was also spent in a segregated
neighborhood - the exclusive, white, upper middle class
Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights. In 1967, Ms. Turnock
graduated from Smith College and spent the next five years
working in Cleveland and Washington, D. C. in a variety of
programs, including the Neighborhood Youth Corps, a
public interest law firm representing citizen groups against
major broadcasters, the National Organization of Women
and the Prison Reform Project of the American Bar
Association. This last job entailed an enormous amount of
traveling throughout the United States. Judy saw, first
hand, the living conditions on Indian reservations, the rural
south and the major urban ghettos.
In 1972, Judy entered Howard University Law School.
During her first two years, Judy worked on the Law
Journal and with the Public Defense Service. In her third
year, Judy practiced criminal law, representing indigent
persons, under a special court ruling which made Judy a
provisional member of the District of Columbia Bar. Judy
then came to New York, where she worked on a number of
research projects. Presently, she is working on a book on
redlining that will analyze the entire housing discrimination
field and offer some strategies for rebuilding cities. In
addition, Judy is also studying the effects of federal
regulatory agencies on the problems of consumers. Judy
feels that it is important to build broad coalitions of
consumers on all vital issues such as housing, health and
education, in the hope that by bringing people together
around common problems, racial polarity can be .broken
down.
Kellis Parler has equally strong views on the role of
coalitions. As he told us, "This broad-based coalition
challenging New York City's manipulation of federal funds
represents an important advance toward making govern-
ment truly responsive to the needs of the people. We'll keep
on fighting until HDA and HUD realize that it must do
what Congress demands - that is, give maximum feasible
priority to the needs of low- and moderate income people."
END
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN
FEDERAL HOUSING LEGISLATION
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives Pass,
Hud Opposes Bills Calling for Significant Expansions
of Public Housing and Rehabilitation Programs
by Robert Schur
A major housing policy confrontation may be brewing
between Congress and the Ford Administration over federal
housing programs. The outcome of this battle will have very
significant impact on how much and what kinds of housing
funds will become available for New York City over the
next two to three years at least.
At the outset, it should be noted that this legislation is
slated to be in addition to and not as a substitute or
replacement for the Community Development Act Block
Grants and Housing Assistance (Section 8) Programs -
although in some respects the bills will affect the com-
munity development programs.
At the end of April, the Senate, by a vote of 55-24,
passed a bill (5.3295) entitled the "Housing Amendments
of 1976." On May 26th, the House of Representatives, after
making major changes in the bill voted by its Banking,
Currency and Housing Committee, passed by a vote of
33227 the "Housing Authorizations Act of 1976"
(H. R.l2945). The Senate and House bills are substantially
different from one another and both bills will now go to a
Senate-House Conference where an effort will be made to
secure agreement on a uniform bill which can be approved
by both houses. Observers expect that the conference "will
be long and acrimonious."
While the Ford administration succeeded in getting the
House of Representatives to remove some of the features of
its bill which the administration deemed to be most
objectionable, both bills (especially the Senate's) have a
number of provisions which the President and his Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development do not like. A
Presidential veto may well be in the making of whatever bill
may come out of the twohouse conference and at this
writing, it is impossible to predict whether Congress will
override. Recall the recent fate of legislation for public
works employment and day care, both of which initially
passed Congress by wide margins but which could not
muster the required two-thirds vote of each house to
override the President's vetoes.
Because of the importance of this pending legislation, we
are summarizing some of the major provisions of each of
the bills and indicating the most significant differences.
LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING
The Senate bill authorizes $696 million in new contract
authority for public housing. Of this amount, $200 million
would go exclusively for traditional public housing, $465
million for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of
either Section 8 assisted or traditional public housing, and
$60 million a year for two years for public housing
modernization. Further sums are authorized for assistance
to FHA-insured projects in financial trouble and for
operating subsidies to local public housing authorities.
The House bill, as finally passed, merely authorizes $850
million in new contract authority for public housing and
Section 8. All specific allocations were killed, which means
that the administration (HUD) could allocate this money as
it pleases.
The administration obviously prefers the House version
and has reiterated its opposition to any resumption of the
previous program (in effect from 1936to 1973) under which
the great bulk of our existing public housing was built. In
short, HUD and the President want to continue the present
Section 8 program as the exclusive vehicle for providing
new and substantially rehabilitated low-rent multifamily
housing. Many members of Congress feel that Section 8
isn't working and that a return to direct funding for public
housing projects is the only way to get that program
moving again.
As for the proposed upping of federal funds for public
housing modernization in the Senate bill , HUD claims that
the local authorities would not be able to utilize the $60
million proposed by Congress. Against this, supporters of
the legislation point out that HUD itself testified before
Congress last year that there was a backlog of $2.8 million
in capital cost requirements for public housing moderniza-
tion needs.
We might also mention that New York City plans to use
over $10 million of its community development block
grants for the first two years of the community develop-
ment program for modernization of its own public housing
projects - funds which could be released for other urgent
housing needs if the federal government's funding for
modernization is increased.
SECTION 235 HOME OWNERSHIP
Both bills propose to assist, through FHA mortgage
insurance, the financing of about 450,000 homes for
moderate income families over a two-to-three year period.
The administration claims that this level of funding is too
costly. Others point out that HUD's housing goals for the
next fiscal year call for the total production of only
300,000 units of publiclyassisted housing, which is only
one-half of the National Housing Goal of 600,000 units per
year established in the 1968 Federal Housing Act.
9
Continued on page 10
10
FEDERAL LEGISLATION Continued
The Section 235 program has, in the past, provided
mortgage insurance which has enabled low-income inner-
city residents to buy their own one- and two-family homes.
A great many 235 mortgages were the subject of well-
publicized scandals involving FHA employees, private real
estate brokers and mortgage lenders. So much so that the
program was virtually shut down as part of the Nixon
housing freeze in 1973. Section 235 mortgage insurance is
now becoming available again, so far on a limited basis, and
it has been restructured to reach moderate ($9-16,000)
income rather than poor families. The House bill raises
current income limits which could make the program even
more of a "moderate-to-middle" than a "low-income"
housing program.
SECTION 518(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR
HOUSING DEFECTS
This is an important protection for purchasers of
FHA-insured homes. The law permits owners to apply to
the federal government for reimbursement for serious
structural defects present when they purchased their homes
- defects which SHOULD have been found and required to
be corrected by FHA inspectors before the houses were
purchased. Under present law, the protection is available
only to owners who purchased their homes between 1968
and 1973. The Senate bill would cover houses insured after
1973, including future FHA-insured sales. Ms. Hills claims
that this would "add a new element to FHA insurance."
The bill's proponents state that this would merely expand
an already existing program and that, if FHA corrects the
evils and corruption which pervaded its small home
insurance program, there should be very few claims for
homes purchased in the future.
HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
Both bills, although not identical, authorize sufficient
funds for direct federal loans for approximately 100,000
units of housing for elderly and handicapped persons.
HUD's present plans call for only 15,000 units.
Loans under Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as
amended by the 1974 Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act, are for 50 year terms and carry an interest rate
based on the interest paid by the federal government on
U.S. Treasury obligations (currently around 7 1/2%).
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOANS
We have described and criticized the federal section 312
rehabilitation loan program in previous issues of this
Newsletter, where we pointed out that current funding for
this program will expire in August of this year.
The House now proposes to continue and expand the
program at a level of $100 million for the next year; the
Senate bill authorizes $150 million, or double the current
rate of funding. The Senate would continue the present
interest rate of 3% only for low-income borrowers; those
with higher incomes would still be eligible for loans but
would be charged higher interest rates, ranging up to
around 7 1/2%.
The Ford administration opposes this program, contend-
ing that funding for housing rehabilitation should come
solely from allocations of community development block
grant funds. Ms. Hills notes that municipalities around the
country have already targetted $230 million of such funds
(9% of their total community development grants) for
rehabilitation loans. She would limit 312 funds only to areas
that do not receive block grants.
Supporters of the program state that the demands on
local levels for rehab loan funds far exceed what can be
made available from community development block grants.
They also note that state constitutions in at least 24 states
limit or prohibit communities from using block grant funds
for rehab loans. (New York City, for example, contends
that our state's constitution does not allow its community
development grant to be used for loans to owners of one- or
two-family dwellings. )
Community housing groups will be well-advised to
follow closely the further developments in what may shape
up as another major battle between the Democratically-con-
trolled Congress and the Republican Presidential adminis-
tration. This controversy may well ' provide fuel for the
up-coming Presidential election, although candidates of
both parties have been conspicuously silent on housing
issues thus far.
Another thought which comes to mind from this
legislation is that it suggests that Congress is not too happy
with the results of the 1974 Community Development Act .
There may be some strong hints of a desire to return to
categorical housing programs. The public housing provisions
in the Senate bill and the sections 202 and 312 extensions in
both bills certainly point in that direction.
END
11
Part 2
GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS

by Robert Schur and Richard Zeitler
BINDER I. A written document. signed by a seller (or
h is or her agent) and a buyer of real estate usually
acknowledging the payment by the buyer of a sum of
money as a down payment on account of the purchase
price of the property. It generally precedes the preparation
and signing of a more formal and detailed contract of sale.
Whether a binder is a binding contract which can be
enforced in a court of law by one party against the other or
is merely a receipt for a deposit, in which case the seller can
back out of the deal by refunding the deposit to the buyer
and the buyer can back out by forfeiting the deposit, is
often a tricky and difficult question. The general rule is
that if the binder mentions all of the essential terms of the
deal it is a contract; otherwise it is not.
2. In insurance, a written statement issued by the
insurance company, agent or broker, which makes the
coverage effective (whether or not the insured party pays
any money) pending the issuance and delivery of the actual
insurance policy. If you are purchasing fire, liability or
other insurance and you are given a binder by the company
agent or broker, be sure that it is signed and ~ h a t it specifies
the location of the property, the kind and amount of
insurance and the date on which the insurance becomes
effective.
BLOCK A portion of a city or urban area bounded by
four or less neighboring streets which is not crossed by any
roadway meant for through traffic. Blocks can be any size
and are not always shaped like rectangles. A block may be
an area bounded by one street (a circle or oval I. two curved
streets that meet twice or three streets creating a triangle.
Records of deeds, mortgages, real estate tax payments,
etc. are often kept by blocks. That is, each block in the city
(or Borough) is assigned a number and all of the separate
parcels of real property in the block will carry the block
number for purposes of reference. Where this is done, one
number may be assigned to two adjoining blocks rather
than one.
BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER A common method used
by local government authorities to identify each separate
parcel of real estate within a city or borough. Each separate
block is assigned a number (see def. Block) and, within each
block, each parcel of property is given a separate number.
Thus, in the illustration shown below, the shaded property
is designated : Block 1242, Lot 3.
BLOCK BUSTING The term used to describe a practice
often employed by unscrupulous real estate brokers to
effect quick and profitable sales of houses by existing
residents. The usual tactic is to circulate rumors that
members of an ethnic minority are buying or renting, or
about to buy or rent houses on the block. Sometimes a sale
is first arranged to a minority family (the first sale being
made by a white owner to the broker or a standin for the
broker who immediately resells to a minority purchaser).
The idea is to panic the white owners into putting their
properties up for sale, usually at lowerthannormal prices,
which the broker buys and then resells, at a much higher
price to minority families.
BOILER INSURANCE see, "Insurance"
BOND . A written instrument, signed by a borrower
(called the "issuer" or "debtor" or "surety") which
contains a promise to pay a sum of money at a future time
or upon the happening of a specified event. There are
many different kinds of bonds, issued for all kinds of
purp.oses, which are common in real estate transactions.
Some of the most common types of bonds are :
- Mortgage Bonds issued by an owner of real property
to one who lends money to the owner. Such bonds are
usually issued together with a mortgage (see def. "Mort
gage") which secures the repayment of the amount bor
rowed.
- Public Bonds . issued by a government or a govern-
mental agency (such as the United States, the State of New
York, the City of New York or the New York State Urban
Development Corporation) to individuals or corporations
who lend money to the government or agency. Where the
issuer is a state, state agency, county, city or other local
government or local public agency. the bond is called a
MUNICIPAL BOND. A special feature of such bonds is that
the interest received by the holder of the bond from the
issuer is exempt from federal (and often from state and
local) income tax.
- Surety Bonds . issued as a guarantee that someone
else, called a "principal" will do, perform or complete a
specified action or agreement. The issuer of such a bond is
called a "surety" and may be an individual, but usually is
an insurance or surety company specializing in the business
of issuing surety bonds (these companies charge fees, called
"premiums" paid by the principal , for issuing their bonds) .
The bond states that in case the act or agreement is not
performed by the principal, the surety will pay a sum of
money to the holder of the bond. Surety bonds, in turn, are
of different types. Among them are:
- Completion Bonds a bond guaranteeing an owner of
property that the named contractor will complete a
building or other project according to the agreement with
the owner.
Continued on page 12
12
- Performance Bonds - a bond guaranteeing that one
party to a contract will perform a specified act or series of
acts which that party has agreed to perform_
- Bail Bonds - a bond guaranteeing to the government
that a defendant charged with the commission of a crime
will appear in court for trial.
BROKER - One who, usually for a fee, arranges a sale or
a lease or a mortgage of property _ The job of a broker
ordinarily is to locate a buyer or tenant or lender for an
owner of property who wants to sell or lease it or borrow
money. A broker can also act for one who wants to
purchase or rent property, or lend money, in which case the
broker's job will be to find an owner of a suitable property
who wants to sell or lease or a lender desiring to make a
loan.
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION - An organiza-
tion (usually a corporation) consisting of members (wh.o are
sometimes called shareholders) who deposit money (called
savings) with the association, which in turn lends money to
its members to help them purchase or improve homes or
other property. Members who borrow from the association
give either mortgages on their property or deposit their
shares in the association, as security for the repayment of
their loans. The association charges interest on the loans it
makes to members (usually at a higher rate than savings
banks or savings and loan associations - to whom building
and loan associations have a close resemblance). Profits
resulting from interest charges (less expenses and losses
from loans which are not repaid) are distributed to
members as dividends.
BUILDING CODE - The compilation of laws which
regulate and establish standards of engineering, design and
safety for buildings which may be constructed. These laws
relate to such things as the types of materials and
equipment which mayor must be installed in buildings, the
required means of egress, sizes of rooms, sanitary facilities,
locations of doors and windows, widths of halls and
stairways, placement of lighting and electrical fixtures and
outlets, and a host of other details. In New York City, a
permit to construct or alter a building will not be issued
unless the plans and specifications conform to the require-
ment of the New York City Building Code, nor will a
certificate of occupancy be issued unless the building, as
actually constructed or altered, conforms to the Building
Code.
BUILDING LINE - A line established at a specified
distance from a boundary (front, rear or sides) of a lot
beyond which a building may not be lawfully erected.
Building lines are often established in zoning ordinances
(see def. "Zoning") enacted by local governments, but they
may also be fixed by a real estate developer who owns and
sells off parcels of land or by agreement among adjoining
land owners (see, further, def. "Restrictive Covenants").
BUILDING LOAN - Also called a "construction" or
"building improvement loan_" A temporary and usually
short-term loan to an owner of property given to provide
funds for the erection of a building or for the improvement
or rehabilitation of an existing building. It is usually made
with the expectation that, after construction is completed,
the owner will obtain a longer-term (or "permanent") loan
to replace the building loan. Building loans usually are
secured by mortgages on the real property and are often
made in stages, as the building construction or rehabilita-
tion takes place. (See def. "Progress Payments") . Building
loans normally are made at higher interest rates than
long-term mortgage loans because of the risk that the owner
may not complete the work and because the security of an
unfinished building is worth less than a completed struc-
ture.
BUILDING RESTRIC:rIONS - Limitations which re-
strict the freedom of a property owner to erect any kind of
building on his land. They may be made in laws (see defs.
"Building Code" and "Zoning Ordinance") in deeds to the
property, by agreement among adjoining owners or by
declarations filed by a previous owner of the property with
an appropriate public agency.
There are a great many different kinds of building
restrictions, including those which limit the height, .width
or bulk of the building, its distance from the street or other
boundary line of the property (see def. "Building Line"),
the type of style of architecture which may be used, the
materials from which the building must be constructed, the
purpose or purposes for which the building may be used, its
cost, etc. , etc.
BULK REGULATIONS - Usually found in Zoning
Ordinances (see def. "Zoning Ordinances"), restrictions
that control the total mass or volume of a building that
may be lawfully erected on a particular plot of land. One
way of establishing and measuring the permissible bulk of a
building is by fixing a maximum ratio of the total floor area
of the building to the area of the land on which it is to be
built (see def. "Floor Area Ratio").
END
Government Housing
13
Programs
NEW YORK CITY'S ARTICLE a-A,
MINI-LOAN PROGRAM EXPLAINED
by Robert Schur
With the long-awaited publication of the official Rules
and Regulations, the city's program of small loans for
housing rehabilitation (known as the Article 8-A or
Mini-loan Program) is at last about to get under way. Or
we should say, revived, for there once was, for a brief time,
an actual mini-loan program, but it made few loans and was
quietly "impounded" when the present city administration
took office.
However we characterize it, the present program has $4
million of community development block grant funds
appropriated to it and it would be well for housing people
to understand its basic guidelines and procedures.
The program is authorized by Article 8-A of the New
York State Private Housing Finance law. It was originally
enacted in 1970, but was amended in 1974.
Basically, the statute and the Regulations authorize New
York City to make direct loans to owners of multiple
dwellings situated anywhere within the city limits, for the
purposes of eliminating any substandard or insanitary
conditions which violate the Multiple Dwelling law or the
Housing Maintenance Code, or to provide for I'8placement
and rehabilitation of heating, plumbing, electrical and
related systems as shall be reasonably necessary to prolong
the useful life of the building.
loans are limited in amount to $3,000 per dwelling unit
or $75,000 per building, whichever is less. The maximum
period for repayment of the loan is fifteen years. The
newly-issued Regulations establish an interest rate of 3%
per annum. Based on a fifteen year repayment period and
3% interest on unpaid principal, the level annual debt
service payment comes to 8.3%. On a maximum allowable
loan of $3,000 per dwelling unit, the debt service cost per
dwelling unit would be $249 per year, or $20.75 per
month.
Where loans are made for very small amounts (not more
than $15,000 for the entire building) and where the
repayment period is short (seven years or less). a mortgage
on the property need not be required. Instead, the
borrower will have only to sign a financing statement,
which is filed . in the County Clerk's Office pursuant to the
Uniform Commercial Code (it's similar to the document
signed when an automobile is purchased on time or when
. an apartment house buys some new stoves or refrigerators
and finances the payment of the purchase price). Where the
amount borrowed exceeds $15,000 or the repayment period
is to be longer than seven years, the borrower will have to
execute a mortgage on the building. The mortgage to be
given may be subordinate to an existing mortgage or
mqrtgages filed by a bank or other institutional lender and
existing mortgages may thereafter be refinanced.
APPLICATION AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES
Any owner or anyone having a contract to purchase a
multiple dwelling may apply for an Article 8-A loan_ The
program is administered by HDA's Office of Evaluation and
Compliance, and applications are to be made on forms
obtainable from that office, whose address is 2 lafayette
Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10007. The
application must be accompanied by:
- A non-refundable filing fee of $75. If an application
covers two or more contiguous buildings, the fee is $75 for
the first building plus $50 for each additional building.
- A sworn affidavit stating that. within the preceeding
six months, the owner attempted to obtain private finan-
cing for the proposed rehabilitation or improvement from
at least two lending institutions that 'normally provide this
type of financing, but was unsuccessful.
Processing of loan applications will be handled by the
Office of Evaluation and Compliance, similar to the HDA
procedures for Article 8 loans. That is to say: OEC will
review scope of work, specifications and cost estimates as
well as the current and projected income and expenses of
the building. In general, the rehabilitation will have to bring
the building into "substantial" code compliance within one
year after the date for commencement of payment of debt
service. Thus, the scope of work for which the loan is
applied will not have to correct all violations, but where
violations will remain after the work is completed, the
borrower will have to provide a program for their total
removal within a year thereafter.
Commit ments will be issued directly by OEC; the
Regulations have no provision for any formal loan commit-
tee approval.
COVERAGE OF LOAN PROCEEDS
Article 8-A loans will be handled, like Article 8 loans, on
a progress payment basis, with the usual retainages until
completion (i.e. 10% until 50% completion; 5% thereafter) .
OEC may require establishment of an escrow account for
taxes, water and sewer rents, insurance and debt service
payments, as well as an escrow account for loan proceeds,
subject to joint signatures of the city and the borrower.
Loan proceeds will cover "brick and mortar" costs, filing
fees and taxes (if a mortgage is required). and cost of a 10%
payment and performance bond.
loan proceeds are not available to cover either past
(accrued but unpaid) or future taxes. Note that Article 8-A
loans will normally involve occupied buildings, so on-going
expenses of operation during the rehabilitation will be
expected to be paid from the existing rent roll. If there are
tax arrears, they will have to be reduced to no more than
one year of unpaid real estate taxes, water and sewer rents
before the loan closes and arrangements will have to be
made to pay up all arrears within one year thereafter.
Continued on page 14
14
ARTICLE 8-A Continued
TENANTS' INTERESTS, RENT CONTROL,
RENT RESTRUCTURING AND MANAGEMENT
The Regulations contain several provIsions to insure
tenant involvement and utilization of the building for "low-
income" families.
Every applicant -for an Article 8-A loan will be required
to notify the tenants, in writing, of the proposed rehabilita-
tion or improvement and to hold at least one meeting with
the tenants "or their representatives." OEC is also required
to determine "that there is not substantial reasonable
objection by the tenants to any new rents to be estab
lished" as a result of the loan.
Apartments within the building will not have their rent
control status affected by the loan. They will remain under
the same status as being rent controlled or rent stabilized as
they had before the loan is made.
Rents may be "restructured," however, in order to
assure economic viability of the building after the rehabili-
tation is completed and debt services commences. Rent
restructuring will be in accordance with recently published
Rules and Regulations of the Office of Rent Control. (In
our next issue August-September, 1976 - we shall describe
the city's rent restructuring regulations to be used in
connection with Article 8 and 8A rehabilitation loans.) In
general, any rent increases will become effective after
completion of the work and when payment of debt service
begins. As a further condition for a loan, owners will have
to covenant in writing to make vacant apartments available
solely for "persons or families of low income," which the
Regulations defines as persons paying rentals not in excess
of the average city Mitchell-Lama rentals. Removal of
tenants in occupancy is prohibited, except "temporarily
during the course of construction."
OEC may also require submission of a satisfactory
building management plan as a prerequisite for making an
Article 8-A loan.
APPLICABILITY OF OTHER GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Buildings obtaining Article 8-A loans will be eligible for
Section J-51 real estate tax exemption and abatement
(although in view of the maximum loan limits, the amount
after abatement is not apt to be very large).
Si nce federal funds are to be used for the loans, the
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements will presumably
apply in all projects where the building or buildings contain
more than eight dwelling units. The usual federal and city
nondiscrimination standards will also be applicable.
We might_ suggest here that the city ought to apply for
DavisBacon exemption where "sweat equity" or job
training program labor will be used.
INCONSISTENCY OF THE REGULATIONS WITH
CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As a final comment, and without casting aspersions on
OEC, which designed the Regulations, it should be noted
that the Regulations themselves purport to make the
Article 8-A loan program available on a city-wide basis.
Indeed, it is probable, especially where tenant selfhelp is to
be involved, that 8-A loans can prove to be excellent
financing devices for buildings such as those acquired via
"direct sales" from the city or otherwise, by their tenants
or by a local community group. And these building will of
course tend to be situated in the lowest income neighbor-
hoods of the city.
How does this analysis square with the city's statement
in its Second Year Community Development Plan that the
8-A program "will operate primarily in transitional areas,
where private ownership is viable, where the tenants can
afford to pay economic rents and where private financing is
not available,"? And why are both the Regulations and the
Community Development Plan silent on the use of Section
8 existing housing subsidies where needed in connection
with Article 8A rehabilitation loans?
The resolution of these issues by OEC and the higher
echelons of HDA may provide important clues as to
whether this, on the whole well-conceived, Mini-Loan
Program will be put to the service of truly low-income
residents or whether it will be perverted to the service of a
"neighborhood shrinkage" or "triage" philosophy.
Ed_Note: For statutory authority, see New York State
Private Housing Finance Law, Article a-A (McKinney's,
Consolidated Laws of New York, volume 41.) The Mini-
Loan Regulations were published in the City Record on
May 13, 1976_ For copies, as well as application forms and
other information, contact HDA, Office of Evaluation and
Compliance, 2 Lafayette Street, New York, New York
10007, telephone: 566-0751.
END
M V D'C .Continued
Rehabilitation
MVDC's first rehabilitation project, 63-65-67 West
107th Street, was completed in 1973. The 57-unit project
includes three new-law buildings that were moderately
renovated with tenants in occupancy. The project was
financed with a $538,000 Municipal Loan and federal rent
supplements were secured for the entire project. The
housing is owned by the 63-65-67 Tenants CorpOration
which has 15 80ard members, nine elected by the tenants
and six appointed by MVDC. The Corporation has estab-
lished an excellent track record including the payment of
monthly debt service on the mortgage to the City in the
amount of $3,530.68 per month.
MVDC's second rehabilitation project (a cooperative
conversion), started in April, 1975, and was financed with a
Municipal Loan for S258,263. It was completed in Febru-
ary, 1976. The project consists of two old-law tenements
located at 931-933 Columbus Avenue. The properties were
vacant and burned-out City-owned buildings. They were
rehabilitated into 16 beautiful apartments. Seed money for
the project was secured from Morningside Heights institu-
t ions in the amount of $6,800. Local labor was trained on
the job and the services of local sub-contractors were
secured. MVDC sponsored the project and was the first
community operated organization in the City to receive a
sponsor's fee under the Municipal Loan Program for
development services.
The third rehabilitation project of MVDC (the second
coop conversion) will be developed at 927 Columbus
Avenue under a program devised by the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council, HDA, and the Association of Neigh-
borhood Housing Developers, Inc. Ex-offenders will be
trained on the job, their wages paid by CJCC. A Municipal
Loan for $185,716 will cover the cost of construction
materials, architectural fees, building acquisition and super-
vision_ Seed money willi be forthcoming from the Con-
sumer-Farmer Foundation. Construction is to begin im-
mediately after a loan closing tentatively scheduled for
early summer, 1976.
Another training program, utilizing CETA funds,is also
in the works. MVDC will train 19 unemployed area residents
in building maintenance skills.
Under the Block Grant Program of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, two blocks in
Manhattan Valley, 59 to 73 West 104th Street between
Manhattan Avenue and Columbus Avenue, prus 20 West
104th Street on the south-east corner of Manhattan Avenue,
and 156 to 164 Manhattan Avenue between West 107th
Street and West 108th Street, plus 19 West 107th Street,
were approved for acquisition for rehabilitation_ Since the
City has frozen all rehabilitation funds, MVDC entered into
a partnership with a private developer and submitted an
FHA 221 (d)(4) application for mortgage insurance and
Section 8 set asides in November, 1975. Just last week, 54
units of housing in one of the blocks were approved by
FHA.
Three additional blocks are proposed for acquisition and
rehabilitation under the second year Housing and Com-
munity Development Act as well as studies for the
utilization of two vacant senior citizens homes, and a plan
for the revitalization of Central Park between West 100th
and West 1I0th Streets.
15
New Housing
In 1971 the City acquired the Manhattan Day School on
Manhattan Avenue between West l04th Street and West
105th Street_ The site was vacated in June, 1972 and the
community went through a prolonged and successful
struggle, in and out of court, against some real estate
speculators who tried to prevent the demolition for the fear
that a Public Housing project, for which the site was
designated, would devalue their nearby properties. Archi-
tects were hired and,with full community participation, a
most attractive and unique low-rise L-shaped design evolved
that was geared to blend in with the surrounding neighbor-
hood. The housing is to consist of 175 low-income units and
a daycare center for 100 children. Additional community
facilities and parking space will also be included. The design
is completed, the site is clear and ready to go. However, this
desperately needed housing is held up because of lack of
funds. It is presently utilized as a Peoples' Park with a
basketball court and a children's playground. MVDC efforts
continue for the development of this site for low-rent
housing.
Housing Services/Management
MVDC works closely with the City's Office of Evalua-
tion and Compliance. Tenants are assisted in compiling lists
of complaints which are then validated by a city code
inspector. When appropriate, the landlord or agent is
brought to Housing Court, and the tenants, with MVDC
assistance, attempt to negotiate for improved services and
repairs in the buildings. MVDC is currently working in
approximately 10 buildings on this basis. For three build-
ings, 153-161 Manhattan Avenue (72 units) and possibly
several others, a Receivership management contract is being
negotiated with the Office of Evaluation and Compliance.
MVDC is also working with individual tenants_ Tenants
are being assisted in eviction problems as well as general
problems of inadequate repairs and services. MVDC also
helps to relocate tenants in emergency cases into MVDC-
operated or privately owned buildings in the neighborhood.
Relationships with Private Developers
MVDC has been active in negotiating with private
developers rehabilitating buildings in the Manhattan Valley
neighborhood_ Four such projects, originally intended as
middle-income rental developments, are now mixed rental
developments (through the use of Rent Supplements) as a
result of MVDC's intervention. MVDC has provided tenant
recruiting, screening and selection for these projects.
In another project. a building on Central Park West and
West 103rd Street, MVDC and the Area IV Committee of
the Morningside Renewal Council were instrumental in
securing 20% of the units for low-income families, as well as
organizing and developing a daycare center for 70 children
in the building.
Continued on page 16
16
MVDC
Continued
Community Services
MVDC is active in a wide range of communitv. services
and activities, including:
- supporting the initial efforts of the 948 Columbus
Avenue Sweat Equity group for the rehabilitation of the
building which is now a completed project.
- supervising 30 youth corps workers on various
community projects (including the Peoples' Park and a
communitybuilt vest pocket park on Manhattan Avenue
and West 106th Street) during the summer months.
- providing 160 free lunches each day during the
summer.
- organizing informal workshops and exhibits on com
munity involvement in planning and neighborhood develop-
ment.
- preventing, with active backing of Community Board
No_ 7, the auction sales of several buildings in Manhattan
Valley which are part of community development plans.
- organizing a seal-up campaign of vacant buildings
which are a hazard to the community residents, especially
children.
- conducting a serious effort to convince the Sanitation
Department to provide some of the now little-used Demp
sey Dumpsters to be placed in the most strategic places to
aid the residents with keeping the sidewalks and streets free
of garbage, especially in front of abandoned and vacant
buildings.
- negotiating with the City to fence in vacant lots and
beautify some of the otherwise dismal looking streets.
- supporting, actively, drug free and health programs.
Through its wide range of community activities and its
productive relationships with such organizations as Morn-
ingside Renewal Council, Manhattan Community Board No.
7, the Mid-Westside Community Corporation -and other
civic, ethnic and issue-oriented groups, MVDC is a vital
member of the community housing movement.
END
URBAN PIONEERS Continued
take-off of the nation's most depressed communities. For
these communities the past few years have not been a
recession, but rather a sustained and ravaging depression
where wage and price controls meant no wages and high
prices. "Sweat Equity" and a full employment program
translate into more than a decent home and a decent job,
but extends the promise of equality of opportunity upon
which our democratic tradition is based, and against which
it shall always be measured.
PDC's rehabilitation program truly resembles an old-
fashioned barn-raising, where neighbors and friends join
together to bring something new into the community and
to push the hostile wilderness back a little further.
Among the many who have assisted and supported its
efforts, PDC singles out for special mention Bronx Borough
President Robert Abrams, Manhattan Borough President
Percy Sutton and Congressperson Herman Badillo of the
21st District (Bronx). each of whom has helped PDC to
overcome the many obstacles to the achievement of this
truly innovative and daring p-oject_
The officers of PDC who have played leading roles in its
program development are: George Rodriguez, Chairperson;
David Fonsica, Vice-01airperson; Ramon Rueda, Executive
Director; Joe Cruz, Project Director for 1186 Washington
Avenue; Patria Rodriguez, Communications Officer; Mi-
chael Garrison, Summer Program Coordinator; and Project
Coordinators Victor Merced (Mini-Block Plan) , Robert
Rios, Danny Soto, Jerry Gonzalez and Eladio Velez.
END
FREE DESKS
The Association has, on a first-come, first-served basis, a
limited number of used, metal and wood desks that can be
had for the "asking' and hauling," by ANHD member
organizations. If your group could use an extra desk, call
Willie Chabrier at 674-7610.
YOUR
AD
COULD BE
HERE
call
674-7610
17
JAMES A. FENNIMAN
1 1 0 FULTON STRE ET
NEW YORI< . N Y 10 038
212 . 267 8080
A MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS SERVING NEW YORK CITY
SPECIALISTS IN PROVIDING SECURITY SERVICES
FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS
CLIENTS INCLUDE:
LINDSEY PARK HOUSING CORPORATION
BORINQUEN PLAZA
CLEMENTE PLAZA
BARUCH HOUSES
WOODHULL MEDICAL CENTER
66 Court Street (Suite 1405)
Brooklyn, New York 11201
212875-0663
Pedro Perez, President
Val Feliciano, Vice President
"
;,""'"
._-......... _--cy .. $ 4 """'4 __ -"_'. L
Association of Neighborhood
Housing Developers Inc.
29 E t 22nd Street N_ York, N.Y. 10010
Parodneck .
Consumer Farmer
101 East 15th Street t
New York, NY 10003 "
t
J
V
)'
I ,