CITY LIMITS

COMMUNITY HOUSING NEWS

FEBRUARY 1979 VOL. 4 NO.2
WELFARE TENANTS FACE
FORCED RENT PAYMENTS
TAINO:"DREAM" HOUSING
FOR POOR SET TO OPEN
by Susan Baldwin
"It's like a dream, and I'm going to be in there. I just know it," says
Dorca Santiago, who, along with her husband Pedro, is the last tenant in a
tinned-up, squalid building around the corner on Second Avenue (rom
Taino Towers, the majestic 35-story glass and concrete Federal project in
East Harlem that she expects to call home in a few weeks .
Born out of rent strikes and City Hall promises in the early 1960's for
better housing and health care for the poor, Taino Towers has become a
reality to 656 low income fam-
ilies who will be vacating their
substandard, often overcrowd-
ed, housing to move into this
four-tower complex. Federal
subsidies will keep the rents
they pay at no more than one-
quarter of their income.
The complex, which occu-
pies the square block bounded
by Second and Third Avenues
between 122nd and 123rd
Streets, has non-residential
space for a supermarket, a
bank, and several other shops.
Future plans call for the com-
pletion of a swimming pool,
greenhouse, ampitheatre, vo-
cational space and classrooms
that will be open to community use.
The first families will move into Tower I which, except for some super-
ficial clean-up, is ready for occupancy. The other three towers will be
opened at three-month intervals until the project is fully occupied, possibly
within a year's time. Each of the four towers is named for prominent
leaders of the Taino Indians, descendants of the Arawaks who first
populated Puerto Rico.
continued on page J 5
by Timothy J. Casey
Each month, some middle and
upper income tenants withhold rent
to pay for repairs or services that
landlords have failed to provide.
Newspaper and television editorials
do not attack them for destroying
the city. Politicians do not petition
the federal government to step in
and make it impossible for them to
do so. Mayor Koch does not accuse
them of theft.
Yet over the past year there has
been a concerted campaign
involving landlords, the mayor and
some Bronx politicians on behalf of
a policy, and a particular project
implementing this policy, to deprive
many poor tenants of 'the' a b i l i ~ y to
withhold rent and to use it for
needed repairs and services.
The city has asked the federal
government to waive two laws in
favor of "demonstration" to put
thousands of welfare tenants in the
West Bronx on a system that
provides for automatic payment of
their rent to the landlord.
In support of this policy, land-
lords and politicians, supported by
editorial writers from the New York
Times and local television stations,
have blamed slum housing
conditions and deteriorating neigh-
borhoods on the failure of tenants
to pay rent. The mayor has charac-
terized non-payment of rent as theft
and suggested that the assertion of
tenants' legal rights is inconsistent
with neighborhood preservation.
continued on page 2
The silence of public officials and commentators
when middle and upper income tenants withhold their
rents, and their vocal support of a policy which would
deprive some poor tenants of the right to do so is not
difficult to explain. The tenants who would be affected
by this policy and who have been berated and attacked
are welfare recipients who receive public assistance
from the Home Relief (HR) and Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. Although the
number of AFDC and HR recipients in New York City
is substantial-about 250,000 AFDC families, including
555,000 children, and about 105,000 HR families and
single persons-as welfare recipients they are not a
popular or a politically powerful group. They are poor,
mostly children, and disproportionately female and
minority group members.
Because of their political weakness and their depen-
dence on the government for their income, welfare
recipients have been a traditional target of landlord
attacks. For decades landlords have claimed that
indecent housing conditions are the result of welfare
recipients' failure to pay rent and have sought to have
the city's welfare agency either pay welfare recipients'
rents directly to them (vendor checks) or to issue welfare
recipients benefits checks that can be used only to pay
rent. (two-party checks)
This landlord claim has reaped some success. More
than 50,000 welfare families and individuals currently
receive restricted checks, 40,000 under AFDC and 10,500
under HR, according to the city's figures.
The claim is also false and the policies advocated
harmful. Thousands of welfare recipients who do pay
their rent live in intolerable housing. When the city has
stepped in and guaranteed rent payment by welfare
recipients it has removed the only real incentive land-
lords have to provide services-the knowledge that rent
can be withheld if they do not-and has deprived wel-
fare recipients of their most effective tenant remedies
when services are not provided-using the rent money
either singly or collectively to pay for repairs and services,
such as heat and hot water, which landlords have not
provided. These policies have therefore provided a
direct incentive to the milking of buildings, have resulted
in a deterioration of housing conditions, and have injur-
ed many tenants and tenant groups. As a result of these
policies the city has assured rent payments to landlords
for some of the worst slum housing in the City.
Despite the extensive evidence of the failure of these
policies, the city has long been responsive to landlord
pressures. In recent years, perhaps because of the growth
in its own economic interest as a landlord for thousands
of buildings, the city has completely surrendered. It is
Timothy J. Casey is a staff attorney at the Center on
Social Welfare Policy and Law, counsel for the Down-
town Welfare Advocate Center in its opposition to the
Demonstration project.
2
now clear that the goal of current city officials is the
creation of a separate system of landlord-tenant law for
welfare recipients to be administered by the city's wel-
fare agency. Its central principle would be that welfare
recipients must pay their rent whether or not their land-
lords meet their obligations.
The city has already taken major steps toward the
implementation of this system. In 1977 the New York
State legislature eliminated from the Home Relief pro-
gram the last remnants of the principle of recipient
control over welfare benefits. The city's welfare agency
therefore now issues HR recipients a two-party check
for rent-a check made out to both the recipient and the
landlord and which only the landlord can cash-when-
ever a landlord, including the city in the case of its own
buildings, requests such a check. If two-party checks are
not turned over to the landlord by the recipient, the city
then makes direct "vendor" rent payments to the land-
lord. There is no requirement that landlords provide
decent housing in order to receive these rent guarantees.
Federal law, which is not applicable to the HR pro-
gram because no federal funds are involved, creates two
obstacles to the full extension of this policy to AFDC
recipients. First, because Congress believed that poor
people should have the same right to control their
incomes as other Americans, recipient control of how
AFDC benefits are spent may only be restricted when
there has been a finding by the public assistance agency
that the adult AFDC recipient has not managed the
family's benefits consistently with the welfare of the
children in the family. Second, to prevent improper
findings of "mismanagement" of benefits by agencies
overly responsive to landlord demands, there is a ceiling,
currently 20070, on the number of AFDC recipients
whose control over benefits may be restricted. New
York City is very close to that ceiling now.
Over the last two years, New York City landlords and
politicians have mounted an intensive effort to eliminate
and evade these two federal AFDC requirements. In
1977 Congress rejected a provision vigorously
supported by New York landlords which would have
permitted public assistance agencies and landlords to
coerce AFDC recipients into "requesting" two-party
checks for rent. At the same time, however, Congress
did approve provisions sought by the City doubling the
ceiling on the number of AFDC cases in which restricted
checks can be used from the then 10% to the present
20%, as well as forgiving the city and the state for their
massive past violations of the AFDC recipient control
of benefits requirements.
In direct response to this legislation, the city's welfare
agency restored its policy defining failure to pay rent as
"mismanagement" of benefits. As a result of this defi-
nition, the city now issues AFDC recipients two-party
checks for rent whenever their landlords, including the
city, claim that rent has not been paid, and without even
asking recipients if the rent has been paid and, if not,
why not. As with HR recipients, if these checks are not
turned over to the landlord, direct rent payments to the
landlord are then made.
The city would like to go further. It has now seized
upon the idea of "demonstration projects" as a means
of evading federal requirements.
Since the representatives of West Bronx landlords
have been the most politically active, the city is asking
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to
approve a demonstration project to be run in
Community Planning Districts 5 and 7 in the West
Bronx in which compliance with the "mismanagement"
determination and the 200/0 ceiling would be waived.
AFDC recipients in those areas whose landlords enrolled
in the project would be issued two-party checks for rent
-even if they were completely current in their rent-if
their landlord said they had paid rent late for whatever
reason in any of the preceding six months, if the city
said they did not return a form which would be sent to
them explaining the project, or if, responding to the
inevitable pressures from the city and their landlords,
they "voluntarily" agreed to participate.
In return, their landlords would "promise" the city to
remove housing code violations. Rent guarantees would
be provided even for housing with major code violations
and continued unless the city decided the landlord had
"absolutely failed" to keep his or her promises.
HEW Secretary Joseph Califano has authority to
waive compliance with federal AFDC requirements in
connection with demonstration projects designed to
obtain important information otherwise unavailable.
The ostensible purpose of the West Bronx demonstra-
tion is to study the effect of guaranteed rent payment on
housing conditions. With more than 50,000 welfare
families and individuals already living on restricted
checks, there is certainly sufficient information avail-
able from which to conduct a study.
The Department of Housing Preservation and
Development is launching a study of rent payment by
welfare tenants in Boards 5 and 7. City Council Presi-
dent Carol Bellamy's office has asked the Human
Resources Administration for a list of all buildings with
welfare tenants currently on two-party checks.
The city's plans for the demonstration project were
discovered last summer by the Downtown Welfare
Advocate Center (DWAC). Organizing in opposition to
the project, DW AC contacted welfare rights groups,
tenant groups, elected officials, and social welfare agen-
cies throughout the City. DWAC has been joined in its
opposition to the project by Congressman Rangel,
Council President Bellamy, Council Members Messin-
ger, Friedlander, Gerena-Vaientin, Pinkett and Samuels,
the Welfare Action Coalition, the Metropolitan Council
on Housing, the Northwest Bronx Community and
Clergy Coalition (Housing Committee), United Neigh-
borhood Houses of New York, the Community Service
Society, the National Association of Social Workers
3
(N.Y.C. Chapter), Casa Nuestra, the Task Force on the
New York City Crisis, the New York State Tenant and
Neighborhood Coalition, and the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund.
Those who believe that tenant rights are important
and that welfare recipients should have the same rights
as other tenants are urged to communicate their opposi-
tion to Califano. Address letters or telegrams to Secre-
tary Joseph Califano, HEW, Wahsington, D.C. 20201.
Whatever action is taken by Secretary Califano con-
cerning this project, the city will undoubtedly continue
its efforts to extend the use of two-party rent checks and
direct rent payments to landlords. The Mayor has
already announced plans for developing a demonstra-
tion project for AFDC recipients in city-owned housing.
It is also possible that the city will go to Congress again.
o
On February 5, the New York State Department of
Social Services (NYSDSS) issued proposed regulations
concerning restricted rent checks for welfare recipients
which would be much better for tenants than the current
NYSDSS regulations. NYSDSS will consider the com-
ments people send in on the proposed regulations in
deciding whether it should adopt them as law. It is there-
fore important that NYSDSS hear from tenants and
tenant groups.
The Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 95
Madison Avenue, N.Y.C., N.Y. 10016, Tel. (212) 679-
3709, is preparing a memorandum analyzing the pro-
posed regulations and explaining how comments should
be submitted. Persons who wish to receive copies of this
memorandum should call or write Timothy Casey at the
Center. Questions al.>out the general subject of restricted
rent checks may also be addressed to the Center.
NO HEAT, HOT WATER
Some 33,000 tenants of city-owned buildings are now
entitled to use the citywide 24-hour Central Compaint
telephone number to report lack of heat and hot water
as well as any other emergency complaints.
The 24-hour, seven day a week telephone number,
formerly restricted to tenants in privately-owned build-
ings, is 960-4800.
In addition to extending the complaint services to the
city-owned dwellings, HPD has also formed 24 special
boiler-burner repair teams trained and organized under
HPD's Office of Property Management under Deputy
Commissioner Charles Raymond. These teams will be
dispatched citywide as heating emergencies occur. Other
handymen will continue to be available at each local In
Rem site office to perform non-emergency repairs.
Prior to the changes in the Central Complaint Bureau,
residents of city-owned buildings were limited to com-
plaint telephones which operated only during normal
weekday business hours. 0
CHARLOTTE STREET HOUSING PROJECT
LACKED SOLID PLANNING FOUNDATION
by Bernard Cohen
"We are proceeding to build on Charlotte Street, the
area where the President stood, because of the fact that
we have adequate community facilities; we have across
the street a park; we have subway stops; we have an
elementary school and junior high school and we have a
welfare center nearby. We have shopping facilities and
all that is required in order to provide for a total com-
munity." Deputy Mayor Herman Badillo, Nov. 16,
1978.
"The Crotona Park area presently lacks adequate
community facilities, commercial enterprises, developed
open space and job opportunities. The housing there is
abandoned or seriously deteriorated." City Planning
Commission, Oct. 16, 1978.
"It was to get something started in this community.
Board 3 in the last 10 or 15 years has been last man on
line in the South Bronx to receive housing assistance.
It's about time we got our fair share." Paul Muscillo,
president, Neighborhood Community Renewal Corp.
and member of Bronx Community Board 3.
Charlotte Street was too many things to too many
people. Caught in the crossfire of politics and planning,
and lacking a strong identity of its own, Charlotte Street
caved in like a celebrity pulled apart by the manipula-
tion of others.
Charlotte Street was to have been the first housing
outpost in the new settlement of the South Bronx. It was
where President Carter's crash course in urban pathol-
ogy took place 16 months ago, where he raised new
hopes that the South would rise again.
The plan called for construction by the New York
City Housing Authority of 732 units of two and three-
story cooperative apartments on what is now 18 sloping
acres of overgrown lots, abandoned buildings and very
few people.
By February 8, when the Board of Estimate voted no,
the Charlotte Street housing project was being defined
and analyzed by people with such widely-differing per-
ceptions, motives and criteria that it is no wonder that it
perished.
Shouldn't there be a comprehensive plan? Shouldn't
economic development come first? Is the South Bronx
going to take money away from the rest of the city?
Don't we need a clearer commitment from Washington?
Is Charlotte Street the right location? Why new con-
4
"I resented using Charlotte Street as a priority just
because Carter stood there. I resented the fact that our
priorities were not given preference or even discussed.
Badillo was the main pusher of Charlotte Street. We felt
he was doing it for political motives, to get brick and
mortar up here by 1980 and look good for Mr. Carter.
Charlotte Street was never a priority in this community. "
June Salters, member, Bronx Community Board 3, Jan.
5,1979.
"Charlotte Street is an appropriate site for a low-rise
and low-density housing project. It is quite defensible.
The federal government is interested in having early
action projects, not just a plan. This project by itself
will strongly add to the health and welfare of the South
Bronx and is worth doing by itself." Edward Logue,
executive director, South Bronx planning, Feb. 9, 1979.
"There used to be a strip area along Wilkins Street
with a cleaners, a drug store, other businesses. Now
everything is out of the neighborhood. I feel sorry for
people who don't have cars. You need a car." Claud-
ette Phipps, a 14-year resident of the Charlotte Street
neighborhood, Dec. 15, 1978.
struction when there is so much deteriorated housing in
need of rehabilitation? Isn't it important to get some-
thing started quickly as a sign of good faith to the people
of the South Bronx?
No consensus ever developed around Charlotte Street
because no one could agree on the questions, not to
mention the answers.
At this writing, Mayor Koch has asked the Board of
Estimate to reconsider its vote, and he appears to be
backing away from his dug-in stance that there will be
no more special planning for the South Bronx.
In the event that planning does go on, it might be
instructive to look at the Charlotte Street project in light
of two principles that public officials have maintained
would guide all efforts for the South Bronx. One was
that projects would be anchored to areas of existing
strength, locations where there has already been public
and private investment and where there are institutions,
jobs and good housing. The second was that decisions
would be made through a working "partnership" of
federal, state, city and community opinion about the
best way to match resources with needs. Jack Watson,
Carter's assistant assigned to the South Bronx planning
effort, has gone out of his way to stress meaningful
partnership.
It is hard to see how Charlotte Street fits either princi-
ple too comfortably. It is easier to s.ee how it emerged as
the priority of one man who saw its value in symbolic
terms and convinced many people that Charlotte Street
was a test of New York City's own will to rebuild the
South Bronx.
Areas of Strength
Charlotte Street is a "short dump" in the inelegant
language of the New York City Sanitation Department.
Dozens of tank-like sweepers rumble down its three
blocks daily to drop their cargos of cans and bottles and
paper and dirt, vacuumed from the gutters of the sur-
rounding streets. The trash is bulldozed into neat piles,
then sprinkled with water to batten it down against the
wind. Later it is hauled away in trucks, except for what
blows across and sticks to the acres of rubble.
Miguel Perez, owner of the Spanish-American
grocery just around the corner from Charlotte Street,
would love to have seen the new housing go up. "It's
unbelievable. This place is like a ghost town," said
Perez, who has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years.
Two years ago, Perez did about $3,000 worth of busi-
ness a week. He ordered 350 pounds of meat alone.
Today, despite the fact that his store is open three hours
a day longer, business is down to $1,200 a week, and 150
pounds of meat is enough for his customers.
There is but a single occupied building in the ten
blocks that make up the triangle-shaped site for the
proposed housing. The view is dominated by abandoned
structures and large tracts of empty space where the
land was cleared years ago for schools that were never
built. Hardly anyone traverses the area on foot or by
car. Children living on the fringes say they cannot get
friends from other neighborhoods to come visit them.
Many of the stores that lined the streets two years ago
are boarded up. The only medium-sized supermarket,
Food Pageant, closed many months ago. An inventory
of human services in the area, prepared for Deputy
Mayor Herman Badillo, is practically blank on the page
entitled "shopping area." Residents take buses, drive
cars or walk a hefty distance for clothes, food, appli-
ances, medicine and other.necessities.
At the crest of Charlotte Street, P .S. 61, now the
Francisco Oller School, was nearly shuttered two years
ago to save money. The school has a capacity of 988
students and a current enrollment of 440. There were
35,000 students in the school district five years ago.
Now there are 15,000. There were 150,000 people living
in the community district in 1970. Nearly one-third were
gone by 1975 and the population loss has undoubtedly
continued.
Police presence has also declined. The 42nd Precinct
has been cut by 21 per cent (26 officers) in the past year
as a result, according to police, of redrawn boundaries
that transferred several high crime sectors to other
precincts.
Charlotte Street is stark, even by South Bronx stan-
dards. Still, appearances can deceive. There are a lot
more human services-schools, associations and clubs,
child care facilities, churches, employment and training
continued on page J 7
Scavenging for wire amid the rubble of Charlotte Street.
5
CETA HOUSING JOBS THREATENED
A decision to eliminate or vastly reduce the CET A
programs of many community housing organizations in
New York Ctiy is being reconsidered following a noisy
protest by about 200 people at the office of Housing
Commissioner Nathan LeventhaL
The demonstration January 29 won an immediate
meeting with Leventhal, Stanley Brezenoff, commis-
sioner of the Department of Employment and seven
negotiators representing 38 housing groups with CET A
Title VI (public service employment) programs.
The 38 groups, which are linked together under the
Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers,
have a total of 375 CET A jobs this year and had applied
for 335 jobs for the next contract, beginning in March.
The negotiators learned that HPD intended to reduce
the groups' allocation to 80 jobs under the ANHD con-
tract and to 23 jobs under a separate contract with the
College of Human Services.
The Manhattan Valley Development Corp., for
example, which had 21 CET A VI jobs this year and
applied for 18 under the new contract, would have been
cut to eight under the city's plan. Jose Acuna, director
of MVDC, said the cut would not only be "disastrous"
for the neighborhood, but "would set the city's housing
program back two or three years" because MVDC uses
many of its CET A workers to maintain and repair city-
owned buildings. "The city would be getting more
phone calls from people who were not getting proper
services," Acuna said.
Among other examples, Kelly Street Block Associa-
tion was to be cut from 26 jobs to 4; West Harlem
Community Organization from 34 to 4 and the Peoples
Housing Network, from 13 to 2.
HPD contended that it had 600 housing jobs to fill,
down from 800 jobs this year, and that it received 155
proposals for a total of 1,700 slots. Although CETA is
an employment program, DOE gave city agencies,
including HPD,decision-making authority this year over
proposals within their program areas. -Many non-profit
organizations had opposed HPD determination of what
constituted valid neighborhood projects.
A nine-page summary of HPD's initial plan, made
available to ANHD organizations by Leventhal, con-
tains the following breakdown of how the CET A housing
jobs were to be allocated: housing rehabilitation (234);
housing maintenance and repair (65); security (69);
energy (26) and In-Rem property treatment (206).
ANHD negotiators said an analysis of the HPD docu-
ment showed that the proposed cutback to .the 38 organ-
izations could be traced to two factors: one was the
inclusion of new housing-related activities, such as
neighborhood security; the other was an apparent redis-
tribution of jobs favoring groups doing housing rehab-
ilitation ("hardwarde"jobs in HPD lingo) and discrim-
6
inating against groups doing tenant organizing and
counseling ("software" jobs) that would be more likely
to create future headaches for the agency.
"It seems to me that HPD and DOE have turned
around the concept of CET A and are using it for their
own purposes," the representative of one hard-hit
community group said.
Leventhal denied that HPD intended to discriminate
against tenant organizing, saying, "I happen to think
tenant organizing is very important." However, he
added that HPD would be "foolish" not to tie the
CET A program in with HPD's priorities and programs.
Other HPD officials acknowledged that rehabilita-
tion does claim a new priority for CET A jobs. A much
greater demand is now being placed on CET A VI for
rehabilitation jobs, particularly from organizations with
federal contracts, because of a recent reduction in the
number of CET A I job training jobs available.
"We had a certain commitment (of CETA VI) to
meet off the top," Deputy Commissioner Marvin
Markus said, referring to a large bloc of 234 jobs going
to organizations with rehabilitation contracts. The irony
is that those groups would prefer to have the jobs under
CETA I. (See November, 1978 City Limits.)
Markus also told City Limits that HPD's ability to
deliver was an important criterion for evaluating pro-
posals. For example, he said, it would not make sense to
funq a level of tenant organizing jobs that would create
a future demand for housing services and programs that
HPD could not meet. "It's a question of raising false
hopes," Markus said.
A major source of confusion has been the ambiguity
over whether organizations could apply for ~ E T A VI
jobs under more than one contract. Months ago, HPD
advised many groups to apply through the College of
Human Services in Manhattan for organizer jobs. Many
did. Now, DOE has stated absolutely that no groups
will be permitted to have CETA jobs under more than
one contract. HPD has said the organizations will be
able to consolidate their proposals.
Markus has indicated that some recapture of jobs is
possible, saying that "in some cases there may have
been a good proposal that did not come through to us."
ANHD negotiators charged that HPD's evaluation of
proposals had been superficial and some of its decisions
arbitrary. They said the small increase in jobs envisioned
by HPD was unacceptable.
Among some of the unanswered questions are who
will determine how individual organizations will be
grouped together for contract purposes-the source of a
lot of the confusion over numbers-and whether exten-
sions will be granted for expiring contracts. 0
J
1
$1 MILLION FOR WEATHERIZATION
UNTOUCHED; FISCAL WOES CITED
by Bernard Cohen
More than $1 million earmarked for housing weather-
ization in New York City has gone unspent because of
questions about the fiscal accountability of the city
agency that was to administer the money, according to
reliable sources.
The original plan was to route the $1.07 million from
two federal agencies, the Department of Energy and the
Community Service Administration, through the state
to the city's Community Development Agency.
CDA was to funnel the money to community action
agencies and neighborhood organizations to pay for
insulation, weather-stripping and other materials to
protect apartments from the cold and conserve energy.
At an estimated cost of $350 to $450 per unit, the
money would have been sufficient to weatherize more
than 2800 apartments.
Sources said the Division of Economic Opportunity
of the New York State Department of State received the
money from the federal agencies last summer and gave
CDA a $105,000 advance. Upon learning that CDA was
having problems with fiscal controls and that the agency
could not obtain a "statement of adequacy" from the
city comptroller's office, DOE and CSA ordered the
funds frozen.
After first denying through a spokeswoman that
CDA had been having fiscal problems, Commissioner
Roger Alvarez admitted that CDA lacked a "statement
of adequacy" but said it stemmed from accounting
difficulties during the period of October, 1976 through
September, 1977.
Since then, CDA has undergone a major reorgan-
ization and the problems have been cleared up, Alvarez
said through his aide, adding that he expected the
formal clearance from the comptroller's office within a
few weeks.
Meanwhile, the weatherization money has been idle.
"It's been a very difficult situation, because we wanted
to get the money out as soon as possible," one state
official said.
With other funds coming in from DOE, the state now
has $2.15 million for weatherization for New York City.
Another $18 million is expected. It is not yet known how
much of that $18 million will go to New York City,
although one estimate is $5 million to $8 million.
Adding to the dilemma was that with CDA closed off,
the state was unable to turn to Operation Open City,
which has weatherized 8,000 units for some 20,000
residents through its Weatherization and Energy Con-
servation Program. The reason was that Open City was
having fiscal and organizational problems of its own.
Ironically, it was CDA that blew the whistle on Open
City when it announced last October that it was termin-
ating the weatherization program at Open City because
of alleged fiscal irregularities there. Open City, too, has
undergone reorganization, its contract has been rein-
stated and its role in weatherization expanded, accord-
ing to CDA officials.
Haskell Ward, then commissioner of CDA and now a
deputy mayor, criticized city audits at the time for not
detecting Operation Open City's alleged problems and
said, "CDA's findings . .. suggest serious shortcomings
in the city's fiscal oversight mechanisms."
7
State officials said they are now actively soliciting
proposals and ideas from community organizations. At
the same time, they said it is still possible the money
could be routed through CDA if its problems are re-
solved.
"We want to get the money out into the communi-
ties," said one state official. "We are trying to get infor-
mation out to all groups in New York City. We are
trying to assess the capacity of everyone and are in the
process now of evaluating and putting together a total
weatherization plan."
While the money will pay for materials, it does not
cover the cost of labor. The possibility of combining the
funds with CET A (Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act) jobs is being explored. 0
ANNOUNCEMENT
There is more than $2.1 million available for weather-
ization, and the State is anxious to get community
programs started. For further information contact:
New York State Department of State
Division of Economic Opportunity
270 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10007
The Ad Hoc Weatherization Task Force has been
working on this issue. The task force, a coalition of
community organizations and the Energy Task Force, is
now developing proposals to fund weatherization.
Others who are interested are welcome to join. Contact:
Ad Hoc Weatherization Task Force
c/o Len Rodberg
515 West 1l0th St.
New York, N.Y. 10025
Housing Conservation Coordinators
Richard Marans
777 Tenth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10019
541-5996
COUNCIL, TENANTS EYE FIGHT
TO TIGHTEN FORECLOSURE LAW
by Susan Baldwin
Community groups and City Councilmembers are
showing signs of wear and growing distrust of each
other as the time draws closer for the Council to take its
closely watched vote on the amended bill that would
tighten up the loopholes and the timetable for land-
lords to recover their buildings from foreclosure.
The bill, known as Intro. 492A, passed the Govern-
mental Operations Committee of the Council January
24 by a vote of six to three after disgruntled Council-
members and their aides had spent weeks lobbying city
agencies to tighten up the prevailing easy installment
agreements for redeeming properties.
The full Council meeting, originally scheduled for
February 20, was put off to February 27 because of
Councilmembers' vacation schedules.
Under 492A, an owner who defaults on any quart-
erly installment agreement will lose through fast fore-
closure procedures both his property and the money he
had already paid.
The quick foreclosure aspect of 492A was one of the
major amendments proposed by Councilmembers Ruth
Messinger (D, Man.), Stanley Michels (D-L, Man.), and
Jane Trichter (D-L, Man.) prior to the January 24
committee session and incorporated into the Koch
Administration's amended version of Intro. 492.
This is critical because, under the old law, an owner
could enter into an installment agreement with the city,
make a down payment, and pay no more until the next
foreclosure list the following year. Meanwhile, he could
continue to collect rents on his property.
Critics of 492A protest that it requires a landlord only
to make a down payment of 20 per cent on his arrears,
but not to correct any major violations on his building,
They have also charged that the bill addresses itself to
fiscal accountability rather than to people's needs.
Supporters, on the other hand, see 492A as the first
step toward arriving at major changes and improve-
ments in the city's housing policy.
"I am not worried about being criticized," said
Councilwoman Messinger. "I plan to vote for 492A
because I think it is a very good bilL"
"I know everybody is confused about the January 24
vote on 492A, but I think we actually won, " said Joan
Brinton, a Brooklyn tenant leader who serves on that
borough's citizens' task force on city-owned property.
"492A isn't everything we wanted, but it certainly is
half the package. As far as I know, this is the first time
this Administration has responded to community
pressure and is respecting tenants' views."
Jane Benedict, head of the Metropolitan Council on
8
Housing, gave a different interpretation of 492A.
"It simply shortened the amount of time from eight
years to four years that a landlord has to pay," she said.
"Also, all he has to do is put 20 per cent up front.
That's even less than the 25 per cent from before ...
It deals with finances, not people, and it's a clear indica-
tion that the Koch Administration knows it has a hot
potato that it wants to get rid of as soon as it can."
Under the city's permanent law known as Section
D.17 of the Administrative Code, a landlord had to pay
25 per cent down of the arrears owed and was allowed
only the same number of calendar quarters that he was
in arrears to pay up the balance, up to a maximum of
four years. With Local Law 34, passed in September,
1978, and the original Intro. 492, proposed as a com-
panion law to 34, a landlord could redeem his building
by paying as little as 15 per cent down on the taxes owed
and by agreeing to pay up the balance over a period as
long as eight years.
The January 24 committee hearing attracted some 300
attentive and sometimes boisterous citizens. They told
Councilmembers about unattended and unserviced
buildings, strengthening the case for legislation to re-
quire that landlords correct major building code vio-
lations, and to screen out landlords whose record
indicates they will not honor such commitments.
A series of amendments that called for the correction
of the major building code violations, notification of
tenants of the landlord's intention to redeem his build-
ing, and prohibition of redemption of buildings already
enrolled in the city's alternative management programs
were narrowly defeated by a vote of four to five.
In the roll call on 492A, Councilwoman Miriam
Friedlander (D-L, Man.), one of the dissenters,
explained her vote against 492A. "I am appalled that
landlords should be allowed to redeem buildings, par-
ticularly in a community where I have seen the break-
down of buildings and management." She asserted that
only when tenants run the buildings are code require-
ments met and taxes paid. Friedlander represents the
Lower East Side where large numbers of buildings have
been redeemed by landlords who for years have not
corrected maior building violations.
Committee Chairman Leon Katz led the vote in favor
of 492A, asserting, "Whether we want to face it or not,
this city has a revenue problem. We have to pay people
their salaries. We have to put these properties on the tax
rolls. "
His yes vote was answered by derisive shouts from the
audieoce, and was quickly followed by a vote of no
from Councilman Robert Rodriguez (D, Man.-Bx.),
who said that he had mixed feelings about Intro. 492
and 492A, and that he agreed with forces that were
opposed to easy redemption. He, in turn, was chastized
during the roll call by Chairman Katz.
After the session, Rodriguez explained his position.
"They thought I was going to go along, that I was in the
tank. They think they can take you for granted, but I
usually apply my votes by following my people and
what they say. This is why I voted no."
Prepared testimony from Chairman Isaiah Robinson,
Jr., of the City Commission on Human Rights was
rejected by Mayor Koch's aides who reviewed it prior to
the hearing because it supported restrictions on owners
attempting to redeem property.
In his suggestions for reform Robinson was to have
spoken out for "a screening process ... which would dis-
qualify landlords with a history of either tax arrearage
or failure to provide services."
Certain Council members and their aides are currently
mustering support for two amendments that would call
for the screening of landlords and the proviso that
landlords redeeming their buildings sign installment
agreements to correct major violations on their proper-
ties. These amendments will be raised, along with 492A,
at the February 27 Council meeting.
Messinger said that she and her other Council
colleagues will support an all-out floor fight for the two
amendments. She reported that a city workers' union,
District Council 37 (AFSCME), is lobbying Council-
members to vote for 492A and the amendments.
A negative opinion of 492A was voiced by Mark
Goldowitz of the Bronx Coalition on City-Owned
Property. "Three provisions help the landlords, one
helps the city collect taxes, and nothing helps the
tenants," he said.
Another opponent expressed a similar view. "We
would like to see all pro-tenants Councilmembers vote
against 492Aso that the Koch Administration could see
that this movement is not divided," said Tom Gogan of
the In Rem Tenants (IRT), a city-wide coalition that is
organizing tenants in city-owned buildings.
"It's not enough just to have this quick foreclosure,"
he said. "We believe that the tenants deserve more from
the city and that if all forces stay united, they will
receive it ... The Koch Administration has simply
adopted this 492A position because it makes it look
good with Washington and the banks. We are still
calling for programs for the people." 0
CD FUNDS FOR IN REM UNCERTAIN
New York City's hopes for receiving continued
Community Development (CD) funding to maintain its
ever increasing number of tax-foreclosed (In Rem)
properties in the upcoming budget year could be dashed
if a strict interpretation of the federal guidelines prevails.
The city is calling on Washington for approval of
some $100 million in CD funds to operate its expanding
In Rem program in the 1979-80 CD V year. At the same
time it has agreed to kick in $30 million from its own tax
levy funds to maintain these properties which presently
number some 10,220 parcels. Each year New York
receives a total of between $240 million to $260 million
in CD funds.
In an interview with City Limits, an aide to Sen.
William Proxmire, chairman of the Senate Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, painted a dim
view of New York's prospects for receiving this special
funding.
"The use of federal funds to maintain and operate
these In Rem properties is not envisioned in the CD
act," the aide declared. "Of course, New York has a lot
of problems that it tries to get accepted that were not
envisioned byCD, and, of course, I am giving a strict
constructionist interpretation" of the federal regula-
tions.
Stressing the importance of "looking closely at the
law," he added, "The rules do speak quite specifically in
terms of rehabilitation, an eligible activity. In the con-
text of a CD-approved program, they do not allow for
9
operating costs and maintenance, nor do they permit
new construction . . . But, of course, all proposals are
subject to interpretation. And that application [New
York's] has yet to be approved."
City sources, however, said that there appears to be a
more conciliatory attitude toward New York on HUD's
part. And the White House is known to have expressed
a willingness to help the city in its request for continued
use of possibly up to $100 million in CD funds to run its
In Rem properties. There are also discussions going on
now about asking HUD to increase New York's normal
share of CD funds.
Late in August, 1978, HUD gave conditional approval
to the city's $41.1 million plan for CD IV to manage and
repair its tax-foreclosed buildings despite questions over
whether this use of CD funds was eligible under the
federal guidelines. At that time, the city was given six
months to develop a self-sufficiency plan for operating
this program. HPD and area HUD officials are cur-
rently engaged in preliminary talks aimed at developing
this plan.
According to John Garrity, a community develop-
ment specialist in HUD Assistant Secretary for Com-
munity Planning and Development Robert C. Embry's
office, New York's request last year was funded only as
an "urgent CD request" with stipulations that the city
"come up with a plan for the future."
"Our area office has been working with the city, and
we know that they are trying to incorporate an even
continued on page 11
BANKS TESTED ON eRA
TN I
lANK
Anna Marie Reinthaler of Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy
Coalition.
More than 60 anti-redlining activists convened recent-
ly in front of the Rockefeller Center branch of the Dime
Savings Bank of New York to inaugurate a new stage in
the fight to increase the flow of credit into neighbor-
hoods.
The members of the Coalition Against Redlining.and
National People's Action came together after testing
more than 30 banks to see if they were in compliance
with recent federal regulations intended to "encourage"
financial institutions to meet the borrowing needs of
low and moderate income neighborhoods within their
lending areas.
Under the law, called the Community Reinvestment
Act, federal regulatory agencies are required to take
lending record "into account" when evaluating a bank's
application for a charter, deposit insurance, new
branch, merger or other step to expand or relocate.
Since most banks have little desire to help the rebuild-
ing of communities in which they are located, they use
their right to open new branches as a way of gaining
access to deposits from more affluent suburban areas.
Tim O'Hanlon of South Brooklyn A.I.D. calls this
"leaving the scene of the crime." Anti-redlining groups
assert that banks have an obligation to strengthen the
neighborhoods and boroughs in which they are located.
In visiting the banks, the neighborhood groups were
looking to see if they had on file as required CRA state-
ments describing what the banks define as their "com-
munity" and lisiting the various types of credit they
offer. Most banks had such statements, although the
quality varied.
Without doubt, CRA is a boon to anti-redlining
efforts. Community groups have been given a tremen-
dous opportunity to influence their local banks if they
10
monitor them vigilantly. Not a lot of research is required.
Although the regulatory agencies maintain that the
examination process will be subjective, they must take
many specific factors into account when assessing the
banks' records, including:
*What effort did the bank make to reach out and
determine the actual credit needs of the community?
*How has the lender marketed or advertised loan
availability?
*Has the bank discouraged loan applications by not
making forms available, by charging non-refundable
application fees, by requiring excessively high down-
payments or by granting very short loan terms?
*Do the bank's loans favor wealthier sections within
the community? Has it opened branches in the suburbs
or wealthy sections of Manhattan and closed branches
in low-income areas?
It is important to know that CRA requires every bank
to maintain a public file for comments that you or your
organization want to bring to the attention of the bank's
officers.
Banks are now required to disclose by zip code or
census tract where they hold mortgages and where they
granted loans last year. The main branch will have the
information.
A CRA examination will be conducted about every 18
months, even if a bank has not applied for permission to
expand. If your local bank has a poor loan record, you
are within your rights under CRA to demand an investi-
gation by the regulatory agency even if the bank has not
filed an application.
You can also contact the regulatory agency cited in
the bank's CRA public notice to request notification of
any applications the institution submits to the agency.
Already, Bank on Brooklyn and South Brooklyn
A.I.D. have won a significant victory. The Greater New
York Savings Bank, which had an almost non-existent
record in originating mortgages, has been ordered by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to design an equi-
table lending strategy before the regulatory agency will
consider its application to open a new branch. 0
Cathy Herman
SALES POLICY TAKES SHAPE
A proposal to sell New York City-owned property to
non-profit buyers for $250-a-unit reportedly has the
support of Mayor Koch.
Following submission to the Housing Policy Board,
composed of representatives of several city agencies, the
plan has to be approved by the Board of Estimate.
The $250 price tag refers to all units, vacant and
occupied, and was developed by HPD in an effort to
create for the first time a volume sales program.
HPD's goal is to sell 100 buildings to non-profit buy-
ers this year and 200 buildings in 1980. 0
INSURANCE DEADLINE
New York State is racing a federal deadline for
reducing FAIR Plan property insuranct:. rates with no
visible sign that the Legislature is going to comply.
Under federal law signed by President Carter last
October, states had until Jan. 31 to make their FAIR
Plan rates equivalent to those charged in the private
market of face loss of federal riot reinsurance.
When that date passed with no action by the Legis-
lature, the Federal Insurance Administration notified
New York State insurance companies that their riot
reinsurance was being terminated. The termination is
subject to a 30-day notice, so that action by the Legis-
lature before March 3 would permit continuation of the
insurance.
The federal law was passed because of the FAIR Plan
-a pool set up to provide "last resort" property
insurance in neighborhoods that have been redlined by
insurance companies-charges rates that are up to five
times higher than are paid in the private market.
Known as the Holtzman Amendment after Rep.
Elizabeth Holtzman of Brooklyn, the law also requires
that one-third of the FAIR Plan's governing board be
public members with no ties to the insurance industry.
In New York State, all 13 board members have insur-
ance industry connections.
There has been a growing public awareness of the
harmful impact on neighborhoods of the blanket denial
of fire and homeowners insurance.
A report last year by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development said that "insurance redlining is
widely practiced" and that "risks are rejected not on the
basis of objective underwriting standards but rather on
highly subjective perceptions of risks assumed for
general locations. "
State Farm and Casualty, the nation's largest proper-
ty insurer, has withdrawn 85 per cent of its business from
older urban neighborhoods, according to the National
Training and Information Center in Chicago.
The State Assembly has passed a bill that would
equalize FAIR Plan rates with those in the private
market. A bill in the Senate would reduce the rates but
allow them to remain 30 per cent higher than private
market rates, which would not comply with the federal
law. Pressure is being mounted on senators by anti-red-
lining groups to support a bill that would conform to
the Holtzman amendment.
Failure to do so will mean the loss of riot reinsurance
that the federal government now supplies at a cost of
two cents per $100 of premium. It provides that the
federal government will share with private insurers the
risks posed by urban disorders.
I t would also mean the loss of a $15 million credit that
New York has built up and the loss of access to a $28
million nationwide reserve, to cover losses from riots or
civil commotion.
11
There are presently 75 insurance contracts providing
riot reinsurance to 263 insurance companies in New
York State. 0
In Rem continued
larger amount of CD money into the 1979-80 budget,"
he said, adding, "We are trying to work with the city
and also meet the intent of the statute." He mentioned
$70 million as the city's requested amount for the In
Rem funding.
Garrity also pointed out that New York City is the
"only place in the country where they [city officials]
have requested block grant money to maintain property."
The final application to HUD in Washington is not
due until June or July.
"We are not going out and encouraging the city to
put in this application, but we do understand that New
York does have a serious problem," he concluded.
"Within the law, we want to help them. I think you can
say that that is our position at this time."
Meanwhile, Congressman S. William Green (R-Man.)
conducted public fact finding sessions to gather more
information on the city's critical In Rem housing con-
dition, and area HUD officials have submitted a detailed
questionnaire to HPD seeking specific data about the
city's massive property holdings. Rep. Green is a
member of the House Subcommittee on Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs. 0
The Rent Guidlines Board will hold a public meeting
on March 7 at 10:30 a.m. at One Police Plaza in Man-
hattan to decide on rent increase ceilings for 800,000
stabilized apartments from July 1, 1978 to June 30,
1979.
_CITY LIMITS.
published monthly by the Associatioll of Neighborhood Housing
Developers Inc., Pratt Center for Community and Envfronmental
Development, and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board.
Editorial Office: 115 East 2Jrd Street, New York, New York 10010
(212) 674-7610
Editor ............ .... . .. ........... . . .. .. . ... . Bernard Cohen
Assistant Editor ..... . .. . ........ . .. . .. . ..... . . .. Susan Baldwin
Design and Layout . . .......... . ..... . .. . .. . .. . ... Louis Fulgoni
Copyright 1979. All rights reserved. No portion or portions of this
journal may be reprinted without the express written permission of the
publishers.
This issue was funded by grants from: Fund for the City
of New York, Citibank and the Arlen Trusts.
POOR PEOPLE:
THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
by John Douw
In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled out
New York City's plan to build 160 units of public hous-
ing on a vacant site along Columbus Avenue and West
91st Street in the West Side Urban Renewal Area.
The West Side Urban Renewal Area has been the
scene of a struggle for adequate low and moderate
income housing for almost a generation, and the Court's
decision makes it likely that the struggle will continue
for a long time to come.
What is startling about the ruling is that it implicitly
finds low income people to be a threat to the environ-
ment, equating them with the more familiar kinds of
hazards protected against by federal environmental law .
If that viewpoint stands, if fear and opposition in the
community is a "social environmental impact" to be
avoided, and if concentration of public housing alone
violates federal environmental law , it is hard to think of
locating it anywhere that won't be vulnerable to such 'a
lawsuit.
The twenty-block area, running from West 87th to
97th Streets, Amsterdam Avenue to Central Park West,
was first planned for urban renewal in the 1950s. Devel-
opers had good reason to be interested in the area-the
proximity of Central Park, adequate public transporta-
tion, the prestigious luxury apartment buildings along
Central Park West and brownstones, suitable for reno-
vation, along the side streets. A number of tenements,
however, lined Columbus Avenue. These, along with
the brownstones, housed the poor black and Hispanic
population. So in the urban renewal plan, fashioned for
middle class needs, the luxury buildings were to be
"conserved," the brownstones rehabilitated, and
Columbus Avenue tenements demolished.
The community was quick to respond to these plans
and won certain concessions from the City when the
Wagner Administration was determined to go forward
with an urban renewal plan in 1962. In particular, the
city made a commitment to provide at least 2,500 units
of low-income housing within the Area and to insure
that those displaced by redevelopment would have
priority for all new housing built under the plan.
The city's commitment to a minimum of 2,500 low
income units was inadequate to begin with. Some 12,000
low income families were displaced from the area by
urban renewal. But the realization of the commitment
has eluded the community over the many years that
development of the West Side Urban Renewal Area has
taken place. The best estimate is about 2,060 low
12
Site 30
income units there now, but as many as 900 could be
phased out over a period of time.
A number of methods have been tried to produce the
units. Four Housing Authority projects were completed
in the 196Os. In addition, the city attempted to reserve a
certain number of units (at first 20 per cent, then 30 per
cent) for low income families in the new middle income
buildings.
The idea of economically integrated buildings is
appealing, but it has proved to present some severe
problems. In the first place the middle income develop-
ments, mostly Mitchell-Lamas, have very few large
apartments. Large families who were displaced have
had the most difficult time finding new housing within
the Area. The programs designed to provide the low
income units have not been secure and permanent. In
particular, the Capital Grant Program, a state rent assis-
tance program similar to Federal Section 8, provided a
number of low income units but is being phased out.
All things considered, conventional public housing
proved to be the soundest low rent program. Federal
law requires that tenants in public housing pay no more
than 25 per cent of their income for rent. Public housing
accommodates large families. It is decent and safe hous-
ing, and it is generally well managed.
Consequently, in 1970 and 1971, two sites on Colum-
bus Avenue were redesignated for public housing by the
City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate.
They were Site 30, a 150-foot by 200-foot lot between
90th and 91st Streets, and Site 4, between 95th and 96th
Streets.
The Trinity School, a private Episcopal school on
Columbus Avenue, brought suit against the city and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to bar
any further public housing in the Urban Renewal Area.
The Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council intervened
as a defendant early in the case. Trinity has since with-
drawn as a plaintiff, leaving two brownstone owners
and a loose-knit organization primarily of middle class
homeowners called CONTINUE (Committee of Neigh-
bors to Insure a Normal Urban Environment) to carry
on the fight.
Among the allegations were that by converting Sites
30 and 4 to public housing the city had fundamentally
altered the plan from its original conception and that
further public housing would "tip" the area, causing
middle and upper income residents to leave.
In fact, there has never been any sign of "tipping."
Brownstones are purchased or rented by upper income
'Jeople. The new buildings along Columbus have waiting
ists. Rents are going up drastically, and owners seem to
have no trouble finding tenants at the increased rents.
Far from the middle class fleeing the community, the
poor are being squeezed out.
The case had been narrowed down to the issue of
whether HUD complied with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEP A) in agreeing to fund the low
income project for Site 30.
NEPA, since its enactment into law in 1970, has
provided the basis for hundreds of lawsuits by conserva-
tion and environmental groups to challenge federal
projects-highways, military bases, nuclear power
plants, and the like-which are destructive of the
natural environment. However, NEPA's coverage is not
limited to the natural environment. It also deals with the
human or "social" environment, and it was the social
environmental impact which the Court of Appeals
focused on to prohibit public housing from being built
on Site 30.
The project is bound to have a certain impact, whether
one wants to call it environmental or not, in terms of
traffic congestion, air pollution, an additional number
of children sent to the local schools, increased demands
on City services, among many examples. Matters such
as these are fairly easy to gauge, and HUD's environ-
mental clearance did not find any problem with the Site
30 in this respect.
But HUD's environmental guidelines also require
consideration of impact on the "social fabric" of the
community, and here evaluation is more subjective and
laden with value judgments. HUD considered a num-
ber of alternatives to the proposal, particularly alterna-
tive sites, as it was required to do after the first appeal in
1975. When HUD commented favorably on an alterna-
tive site, Site 9, which would locate the project away
from existing Housing Authority projects in the Area as
an alternative which might reduce opposition to the
project and thus lessen "social environmental impact,"
the court in the second appeal found sufficient reason to
bar the project on Site 30.
The Court found that because other public housing
was located in the immediate vicinity of Site 30, partic-
ularly the 4OO-unit Stephen Wise Houses on the same
block, there was an increase of racial and economic
concentration which violClted NEPA. It ignored the fact
that there is also a great deal of middle-income housing
and brownstones in. the saine proximity, that high
income limits at Stephen Wise Houses have brought in
moderate income families, and that there is a high
degree of racial integration in Housing Authority
projects in the Urban Renewal Area.
13
Calculations by a community organization, the
United Tenants Association, based on income levels of
existing and planned buildings in the immediate area of
Site 30, show 785 low income units and 794 middle or
upper income units, a 50-50 split that suggests economic
integration rather than concentration.
The courts have rejected most of the plaintiffs' allega-
tions on the more technical question of adherence to the
original plan.
Not only did the court say no to Site 30 because it
concluded that another site away from this supposed
"concentration" along 91st Street would have less
"social environmental impact," but it required HUD to
give further thought to low-rise and mixed income hous-
ing, regarding it as "folly not to heed the most modern
thinking on the subject where a major undertaking is
involved. After all," the court continued, "what doctor
would fail to use the most recently discovered curative
medicine merely because the patient had become ill
prior to the discovery. "
The court's allusion to disease is revealing: poor and
working class people are a plague; best not to concen-
trate too many of them in one place; there would be
some improvement by spacing the projects out, but low-
rise and mixed income housing might reduce the hazards
further.
The defendants, HUD, the city and Strycker's Bay
Neighborhood Council have filed a petition for a re-
hearing before the full Court of Appeals. On February
6, Community Board 7 voted 32 to 2 to file a "friend of
the court" brief in support of the defendants.
The decision has seriously limited the possibilities of
achieving the commitment for 2,500 units of low income
housing in the urban renewal area. Moreover, it has
added a new element of peril to any plans for public
housing anywhere. 0
John Douw, an attorney with Community Action for
Legal Services, Inc., is counsel to Strycker's Bay Neigh-
borhood Council as defendant in this case.
MANAGEMENT GROUPS
GET $7.8 M FOR SIX MONTHS
The Board of Estimate approved applications for two
new Community Management groups and renewed con-
tracts for 13 existing groups at its February 8 meeting
for a total funding of $7.8 million.
The 15 contracts, effective March I, run for six
months.
Contracts for three groups, including a new applicant,
were laid over until a later date.
And, at its March 8 meeting the board will consider
awarding a new $2 million contract to the New York
Urban Coalition to train smaller neighborhood groups
in self-management.
The three new groups that submitted CM contracts
are: Sunset Park Redevelopment Committee in Brook-
lyn for a total of 200 units; the Upper Park Avenue
Community Association (UPACA) in Manhattan, 100
units; and the Urban Renewal Committee of South
Jamaica, 100 units. Consideration of South Jamaica's
application was postponed.
According to Sandra Moore, director of the Com-
munity Management unit at HPD, the South Jamaica
application qualifies as a pilot project in that the 100
units identified for management are located in one and
two-family homes, not in multiple dwellings.
Each group, Moore explained, will start managing a
much smaller number of units than the total allotted to
each neighborhood for the life of the contract.
The board will consider awarding the $2 million con-
tract to a non-profit company set up by the New York
Urban Coalition to oversee management of properties
around the city by smaller groups which lack the experi-
ence to enter the regular Community Management
program.
The program, known as the Management in Partner-
ship Program (MIPP), runs for two years and includes
classroom instruction on management and bookkeeping
skills as well as supervised on-the-job experience in
running neighborhood buildings from a community
office under the close scrutiny of the larger
tion, in this case, the Urban Coalition.
The $2 million budget will cover classroom expenses,
maintenance and operational costs, and payment of
both the Urban Coalition and the local community
groups staffs for the two year period.
Asked to explain the rationale behind the MIPP
program, Bruce Dale, an architect and the head of this
new program, said, "The city has found that the Com-
munity Management program takes a great deal of
surveillance on its part. It just can't keep taking new
groups into that program. But with MIPP, all the city
has to do is oversee the larger management group, while
this 'Big Brother' organization is responsible for the
smaller ones."
14
At the present time, HPD has more than 50 requests
for entrance into the CM program. It plans to accept
only a few more this year, bringing the total to 25 by
June 1. A total of 30 CM groups are planned by June,
1980.
Under the MIPP program, Dale explained, the larger
organization can take on supervision of nine or ten
smaller groups a year, thus maximizing the number of
city-owned properties in alternative management
programs.
After the two-year training program is completed, he
added, it is expected that community groups or tenant
associations that have been managing the properties for
the trial period may be ready to buy their building or
enter into the interim lease program.
Groups tentatively scheduled for the MIPP program
for a total of 600 units are the Elmhurst-Corona Neigh-
borhood Association (Elm-Cor) in Queens, the Minis-
terial Interfaith Association in Harlem, Alliance for
Progress in the Highbridge section of the Bronx, and the
Crown Heights Management and Maintenance Corp-
oration in Brooklyn.
The approved CM contracts were as follows:
Contract Amount
Contractors
Clinton Housing Development
Corp., Inc ..................... . ... .
Interfaith Adopt-A-Building, Inc ........ .
Inter-Neighborhood Housing Corp ...... .
Kelly Street Block Association .. ... . .... .
Manhattan Valley Development Corp .... .
Morris Heights Neighborhood
Improvement Association ........... .
Nuevo EI Barrio Para La Rehabilitation de
la Vivienda Y La Economia Inc.
(N.E. R.V.E.) . . ...... . ....... . . .. .. .
Oceanhill-Brownsville Tenants Assoc .... .
St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation
and Housing Rehabilitation
Committee . . ..... .. ...... . ........ .
Southside United Housing Development
Fund Corporation ....... : . . ... . ... . .
South Bronx Community
Housing Corp . ... ... . ... .. . ...... . . .
Sunset Park Redevelopment Committee .. .
Upper Park Avenue Community
Association Council ......... . ...... .
West Harlem Community
Organization, Inc ......... . . . ....... .
West Harlem Group Assistance ......... .
(CD Cost)
$ 409,956
500,036
543,605
657,030
621,506
220,812
351,026
689,139
249,039
951,537
1,029,536
174,596
110,377
668,528
614,653
Total............ . .... . ........... . $7,791,376
Groups whose contracts were laid over were Neigh-
borhood Community Renewal Corp., $201,331; United
Block Association, $179,164; and Urban Renewal
Committee of South Jamaica, $110,377. D
Taino Towers continued
First priority for the apartments goes to the 350
families that were displaced to construct the buildings.
Neighborhood residents who have been on waiting lists
since the early 1970's will also be given priority. Accord-
ing to Taino Tower officials, more than 7,000 people
are on the list.
"If you're going to be living here, you'll have to learn
how to sew your own curtains because of all the glass,"
Carmen Cruz, director of public relations and research
for the Taino Towers project, said to Dorca during a
recent apartment tour, as the frail, but wiry 34-year-old
woman raced through the model apartment checking
out the "amenities" that many critics have called too
luxurious for "poor people's housing. "
"I don't care," Dorca answered. "I'm just happy
that I'm going to be in here. This is just wonderful.
What a big bath tub. I am just going to be very happy
here. And I'm not even going to change the walls. I'll
leave them just the way they are."
The 656 units include 113 efficiency, 130 one-, 184
two-, 201 three-, and 28 six-bedroom apartments. The
"fair market" rental for equivalent housing in New
York City is $560 per month for the efficiency; $646 for
the one-bedroom; $779 for the two-bedroom; and $900
to $990 for the three-bedrooms and up. According to
Alexander Naclerio, director of housing for HUD's area
office, "There really is no price tag for the six-bedroom
apartment because this is unheard of in public
housing."
Construction on Taino Towers began in September,
1972, after the community sponsor, the East Harlem
Council for Human Services (then the East Harlem
Tenants Council), received a federal commitment for
$39 million in the form of a FHA mortgage guarantee
and a construction loan from a group of nine banks led
by Chemical Bank. The project was built without the
benefit of tax shelters.
In November, 1975, construction on the project came
to a halt when the general contractor, S.S. Silber blatt,
refused to continue work unless HUD granted a
mortgage increase.
According to Yolanda Sanchez, former chairwoman
of the East Harlem Redevelopment Project, Inc., the
owner of the project,the Silberblatt firm stopped work,
claiming that the six per cent profit built into the
original mortgage agreement with HUD did not keep up
with national inflation.
The project stood vacant and work ceased until
August 18, 1977, when the sponsors signed an agree-
ment with HUD secretary Patricia Harris, who author-
ized an advance of $10 million to finish the project.
Construction started up again in September, 1977, with
Lasker Goldman Corporation, the HUD-appointed
general contractor, assuming the work.
15
At present there are about 35 lawsuits pending on
Taino Towers. According to Joseph Burstein, a HUD
assistant secretary who is project manager for the
Towers development, HUD has won back at least $18
million against Silberblatt and "expects to recoup
everything.' ,
Bruce Silberblatt acknowledged that the lawsuits were
contil'\uing but refused to discuss any details of what he
called "quite an interesting story."
The total cost of building Taino Towers has still not
been added up, but estimates run from about $46
million to $62 million. And estimates for the per unit
cost for the residential space, if all commercial and
community space is leased, run from $22,500 to $33,000
each.
The major problem facing Taino Towers at this time
is renting up the community space.
"We are not worried about the commercial space,"
Julio Vasquez, administrator of , the project, told City
Limits recently. "I know everybody is talking about the
non-residential part of the Towers, but I am not
worried. We have signed up Fedco for most of the
commercial space, and we expect to bring in Chemical
Bank, a travel agency, and possibly a franchise restau-
rant like Burger King." Fedco is a minority-owned
supermarket chain.
Vasquez also said that he is negotiating with the state
to open a group home for mentally retarded patients
and that two organizations with Headstart programs
have shown interest in the day care facility, equipped to
handle 260 children.
The East Harlem Council for Human Services Neigh-
borhood Health Center has been operating its
community facility in the complex since October, 1978.
Its annual rent is $120,000.
The hope, Vasquez and Cruz said, is that the com-
mercial and human resource spaces will generate enough
rent to offset a significant part of the mortgage
expenses. Management is seeking to revive interest in
relocating to Taino Towers that was expressed prior to
the two-year construction delay by the Boys Club, Ballet
Hispanico, Jazz Mobile, EI Museo del Barrio, and
Malcolm-King College. Fiscal constraints have forced
many of the programs to reconsider earlier plans for the
move.
Gerard Silverman of Silverman and Cika, the archi-
tect for the project, expressed pleasure at the imminent
opening of Taino Towers. "We've been looking for-
ward to this housing and the joy it will bring the neigh-
borhood people since this vision began in 1965, " he
said. "A lot of community people worked very hard for
this. It has been a long hard time. I feel a certain sadness
that the economy turned the way it did, but I still
maintain the the project would not have happened if the
people hadn't had the confidence to make it happen. It
seems a very long time ago that we were talking about
the rent strikes in East Harlem, but here we are. We
continued on page 17
LANDLORD MINISTER UNDER FIRE
by Jay Flavin
The Jekyll-and-Hyde case of Daniel Potter the minis-
ter and Daniel Potter the "slumlord" has led to sharp
divisions within the New York City Council of
Churches, the Protestant umbrella group of which
Potter is executive director. On February 15 the Council
met but apparently did not make a decision on whether
to terminate Potter. The major denominations belong-
ing to the Council had been threatening to abandon ship
and leave Reverend Potter as shepherd without a flock.
Potter has served for 26 years on the Council, most of
them as its director and chief fund-raiser. His critics
concede that his efforts as fund-raiser (in particular, the
annual "Family of Man" dinner which he organizes)
have kept the Council financially afloat. But recent
revelations that Potter is owner of numerous deterior-
ating tenements in Albany-where he is known to city
officials, neighborhood associations, tenants and the
media as "the Reverend Slumlord"-has led to a move-
ment within the Council to unseat him.
Two recent votes of the Council's Board of Directors
failed to remove Potter, despite an internal investigation
that raised questions not only about his rental properties
but about his finances as well. The most recent vote, on
January 18, was 29 to 22 against replacing Potter as
executive director. One board member, Reverend
Lawrence H. Alexander of the United Church of Christ,
has already resigned in protest, and others have stated
that they will pull out if Potter is not removed.
"Unless there is some plan announced on the 15th for
the redevelopment of the Council's leadership, with a
timetable, we are preparing to recommend to our
respective constituencies a withdrawal from the Council
and a formation of a new organization," declared
Reverend Carl E. Flemister of the American Baptists.
"Reverend Potter has been a real embarrassment to
us for years," Flemister continued. "With over 170,000
Baptists in New York City, we don't have a credible
Protestant witness like the Catholic Diocese or the
Rabbinical Council. They don't even send a representa-
tive to our meetings. Can you imagine sending Potter
into a community to speak on any of the social issues?"
Reverend T. Thomas Boates, Jr. is president of the
executive Denominational Committee, which he
described as "a committee of all the denominations,
independent of the Council." According to Boates,
"We all agreed that we would withdraw unless the
Council prepares to search for new leadership. [Episco-
pal] Bishop [Paul] Moore was at the meeting and agreed
Jay Flavin is a member of United Tenants of Albany
and Northern Region secretary of the New York State
Tenant and Neighborhood Coalition.
16
with our intention to form a new organization."
"The Council as now structured has not been respon-
sive to the needs of its members," claimed Boates. He
cited Potter's continued and successful emphasis on
fund-raising while social problems such as housing and
youth lacked leadership.
Other ministers contacted called Potter a "disgrace"
and a "liability."
Alexander was a member of the investigative com-
mission set up the the Council last fall to look into the
charges against Potter. "There were serious questions
about Dan Potter's management of personal income
from the Albany properties and Council of Churches
income which were not answered by the Commission's
investigation," he asserted. Potter's attorney, George
Duff, has prevented the committee from seein!5 Potter's
financial records, despite the statement of a Certified
Public Accountant that he could not certify the veracity
of financial statements provided by Potter to the com-
mittee. Duff also serves as attorney for the Council, to
which position he was appointed by Potter, and is a
member of the Council's Board of Directors who voted
against the firing of the director.
"Potter's current troubles began last fall with a
survey of his tenements by the Albany Urban Ministry.
Results of the survey and research by United Tenants of
Albany produced a litany of complaints and serious
violations which spilled over into the Albany news-
papers. This publicity caught the eye of New York City
clergy, notably State Senator (and Minister) Carl
McCall of Manhattan. McCall demanded Potter's resig-
nation, as did a delegation from United Tenants of
Albany who traveled to New York City to attend a
Council board meeting. A motion to remove Potter at
that time failed by a wide margin, but the investigative
committee was established.
Committee members traveled to Albany, accompan-
ied by Potter, on November 1st. An on-site inspection
of Potter's tenements was followed by a meeting with
members of the Albany Urban Ministry, United
Tenants representatives, Albany Code Enforcement
Director Arthur Phinney, and some of Potter's tenants.
Phinney brought with him 18 to 20 files of violations
placed on Potter's buildings; these were stacked over
one foot high. Nearly every Potter property had severe
violations repeatedly logged, month after month, year
after year, uncorrected since 1972. Phinney later labeled
Potter "the worst slumlord in Albany."
Potter got heavily into real estate in 1963 with the
purchase of eight Clinton A venue properties for
$26,000. Throughout the 60's and early 70's Potter
increased his Albany land holdings to 20 rental proper-
ties. By last fall he was down to 16. All of these
buildings are in the Arbor Hill neighborhood, a poor,
85 percent black area adjacent to the state government
complex.
With over 50 apartments, Potter's gross take is
estimated conservatively at $60,000 a year. As director
of the Council, his salary is reported over $70,000
annually. He currently owes in excess of $50,000 in
unpaid real estate taxes to Albany County, while collect-
ing over $10,000 a year from the county's Department
of Social Services, through direct rent voucher checks,
for his tenants who are public assistance recipients.
Though Potter claimed $48,000 in repairs on his tax
forms the investigative committee agreed with rehab-
ilitation specialist Virginia Worthington-Pac that "what
little there was of Reverend Potter's handiwork was
shoddy and not meeting even the most minimal
standards of workmanship." The committee report
stated: "Most of the buildings which the Commission
members saw were in deplorable condition. Without
exception, the opinion among those of us who saw the
buildings was that these were not dwellings we would
recommend for human habitation."
Potter's most recent arrest occurred on October 8, for
failing to have an apartment inspected prior to rental, as
required under Albany's code. He pleaded guilty in
Police Court and was fined $200, the maximum. "Shop-
lifters have been fined more," charged Roger Marko-
vics of United Tenants of Albany.
While the fight over Potter's tenure with the Council
rages, the tenants of Arbor Hill properties only know
that they are subjected to indecent living conditions.
They pray for relief. 0
Taino Towers continued
have the health care facility, and now we have the
housing."
Asked if he ever worried that the complex would be
reclassified as middle income housing or even demol-
ished because of all the expensive litigation, Silverman
said, "No, because I have confidence in people, even in
bureaucracies, because they are made up of people."
The concept of Taino Towers came under fire during
the early days of the 1976 presidential campaign when
Republican hopeful Ronald Reagan referred to the
complex as luxury housing for the poor.
"The people here were very annoyed by his com-
ments, but there was nothing else to do but plug along,"
said Sanchez, noting that the strong will and determina-
tion of the East Harlem community outlasted Reagan's
criticism.
According to Sanchez, HUD issued a set of demands
in August, 1976, that included a HUD takeover of the
ownership of the project and a conversion of the Towers
17
to middle income housing. "They tried to take the
project away from us because of the default on the
mortgage," she recalled. "This is when we had to tell
Washington it was ours and we wouldn't give it up. I
think they saw we really meant business. Then we had
the change in the Administration. And then Secretary
Harris listened to us."
Dorca Santiago lingered with another visitor after her
tour of the model apartment. "I really h ~ v e to go home
now, but I am hoping that after three weeks or so, I'll
never have to go back there," she said.
"I am going to have to change my furniture and
everything, but I can't wait," Santiago added. "Even
though it's cold in my apartment, I won't be cold
because I'll be thinking of the new place."
Dorca and her husband have been living in a building
that has been virtually without heat since 1971. The
landlord abandoned the building in 1975, and the city
took title in 1976. The Santiagos became the sole tenants
of the building after the city attempted to vacate the
premises last summer.
"The city is trying to move us right now, but I don't
want to have two movings in three weeks," Dorca
concluded. "I have asked them to leave us alone
because I am sure we.'ll be moving to Taino."
In the meantime, the Santiagos continue to pay the
city $77 a month and to walk to the basement each day
with gallon milk jugs to store their water supply. The
water line was cut off some time ago because it was
deemed unsafe. 0
Charlotte Street continued
centers, health facilities, housing offices, recreational
t:enters and transportation lines-than are immediately
apparent. (Although the inventory by the city did not
take place until long after Charlotte Street wa:s desig-
nated.)
Charlotte Street is also an ideal location for new con-
struction since much of the land is owned by the city and
has already been cleared, requiring relatively less dis-
location. The city estimated that 141 families, six small
businesses and one church would have to have been re-
located.
Still, because one would be hard pressed to label
Charlotte Street an area of strength, the proposed site
was the subject of heated debate and disagreement
among city officials and Bronx residents.
The fact is that Charlotte Street was never a priority
of the community. It was championed by Deputy Mayor
Herman Badillo, whose authority over planning was so
single-handed that some were calling him the "God-
father" of the South Bronx. "He came on as 'Little
Caesar,' " said Lincoln Chinnery, a member of Com-
munity Board 3.
Badillo effectively persuaded Board 3, the City Plan-
ning and Commission and the Board of Estimate (the
first time around) that it was necessary to make an early
start and that future federal aid hinged on approval of
Charlotte Street, a linkage that was later denied by the
White House and HUD.
"Carter was there and this makes it easier to get the
next piete. That's how the world works," a member of
Badillo's staff quoted him as having said. It almost
worked.
In defending the City Planning Commission's approv-
al of Charlotte Street, despite obvious misgivings, Chair-
man Robert Wagner lr. told a public forum in Decem-
ber, "If the commission had voted down Charlotte
Street it would have given Washington an excuse to
walk away from the South Bronx. It is our one hope of
pinning him (Carter) down to a commitment."
Partnership
Housing plans developed over the years by four coali-
tions in Board 3 were passed over to clear the way for
Charlotte Street. "Charlotte Street was not our first
choice or anywhere near it," said Dana Driskell, the
district manager of Board 3. "We have had other priori-
ties over the years. This was given to us as a 'fait
accompli' for us to accept or reject." Rev. William 1.
Smith said Board 3 had been "isolated" from the plan-
ning phase.
Although Board 3 approved the housing project 28 to
7 on August 11, there were a lot of unanswered ques-
tions . Did the housing meet the real needs of the area?
How much would it cost and who would live there?
What was meant by cooperative low income apart-
ments? Would the construction create jobs for local
people? What other housing improvements were being
planned to support the project?
Although preference was to be given to residents of
the immediate area, living in the new housing would
have required an annual income of $11,000 to $17,000,
or six to ten times the $1,676 average per capita income
for the 23 census tracts in Board 3, according to 1974
figures. Few area residents, then would have been
served by the project, raising further questions about
where the new residents would have come from and
what the impact would have been on the areas they
vacated.
Although the project was billed as a co-op, the resi-
dents would not have been true owners. The Housing
Authority would have controlled the project for the
entire 40 years of its indebtedness. It could have vetoed
cooperative decisions and terminated leases at any time.
"The equity contribution has no relation to the actual
financing of the project and guarantees no rights of
ownership," the City Planning Commission said.
The project would probably not have created many
jobs fqr local people. One educated guess by the Hous-
ing Authority was about 85 jobs under a formula that
instructed the developer to employ "to the greatest
extent feasible" South Bronx residents for 66 per cent of
18
all unskilled jobs and 20 per cent of skilled jobs. Com-
munity organizations had pushed hard for a higher
ratio. Anticipating that the issue might have heated up
once the project was started, the Police Department
took aerial photographs of the site to determine the best
location for a temporary post.
Finally, the city planners said that at least 3,000 hous-
ing units would need to be rehabilitated. Ideas for up-
grading the units were on various drawing boards, but
no one had any idea where the money would come
from. One city planner said that other neighborhoods,
Bathgate in particular, would have been preferable for a
one-shot investment.
Even if the money had been found, it is questionable
whether it would have been spent around Charlotte
Street. Ramon Rueda, head of Board 3's housing com-
mittee, said, "We will not continue to reinforce that
project at the expense of other areas. There are other
parts of the board that are living, sustainable areas with
a moderate amount of dollars."
With all of the questions, then, why did Board 3
approve Charlotte Street? The major reason has to be
Badillo's strong advocacy and an impatience on every-
body's part to see something started. Interviews with 14
members of Board 3 show that many of those who voted
for the project believed that if they rejected Charlotte
Street, the housing would have been built somewhere
else, further starving their district. "It's very simple.
We're in bad shape in this area. It doesn't matter who
starts to do something as long as it starts," said Rev.
Kenneth Folkes, a board member. George Abarca, also
a board member, said, "It is better to have something
than nothing," adding that without a beachhead such as
Charlotte Street, "We'll never get on our feet."
Self-interest undoubtedly also played a role. Many
board members were probably very reluctant to oppose
Badillo for fear that their own housing plans would be
banished to a desk drawer.
As a result, many community residents who were not
thrilled with the site, the cost and the fact that the
Housing Authority would build it, supported the
housing development. They tended to see it as merely
the first turn of the federal aid faucet, more important
for what it would lead to than for what it would be.
Wagner may have made the most prescient observa-
tion of the whole agony over Charlotte Street when he
said that the South Bronx "could become New York
City's Vietnam" by claiming "to do something we can-
not do and serving least well the very people we claim to
be helping." 0
32 CD NSA'S PICKED
The City Planning Commission has identified 32
neighborhoods for designation as Neighborhood
Strategy Areas over the next three years. Ten were
selected as demonstration projects for the first year.
NSA's are areas in which federal Community Devel-
opment funds will be concentrated and coordinated
with other government and private sector programs.
There are no extra CD funds for the NSA program. It
will be funded out of the $242 million fifth year alloca-
tion for the city, starting in September.
The Planning Commission initially proposed to name
five NSA's for this year. Following two public hearings
at which more than 130 people testified, the commission
doubled the number to 10 and said 32 neighborhoods
would qualify over three years.
The neighborhoods designated for this year were:
Bronx - Kingsbridge, Bronx River/ Soundview; Brook-
lyn - Bedfore Stuyvesant, Sunset Park and Flatbush;
Manhattan - Washington Heights/ Inwood, Manhattan
Valley; Queens - Corona, Jamaica; Staten Island -
North Shore.
The remaining neighborhoods are: Bronx - Aldus
Green/ Longwood, Belmont, Bronx Park South/ West
Farms. Highbridge/East Concourse, Morris Heights/
University Heights/West Tremont, Morrisania, St.
Mark's Park; Brooklyn - Brownsville, Bushwick,
Crown Heights, East New York, Fifth Avenue/ South
Brooklyn, St. Nicholas, Southside; Manhattan - Central
Harlem, East Harlem, Hamilton Heights, Lower East
Side; Queens - Astoria, Long Island City, Far Rocka-
way, Ridgewood, Woodside/ Sunnyside. D
Advertisement
SITUATION WANTED: Registered architect,
heavy experience in all types of rehab work and
programs. Seeks position with community group.
Commission or consulting basis or staff position.
Feasibility studies, design, production, site super-
vision, estimating. All size projects. Contact City
Limits. 674-7610
RENT COLLECTION
Rent collection is far higher in tenant and community-
managed buildings than it is in city-owned buildings in
general, HPD Commissioner Nathan Leventhal told a
legal forum recently.
According to Leventhal, the rate of rent payment is
95 per cent in buildings managed by tenants under the
interim lease program; 80 per cent in community-man-
aged buildings and 45 per cent in city-owned buildings
as a whole.
Leventhal produced another interesting statistic,
which is that welfare recipients make up less than 30 per
cent of the tenants of city-owned buildings.
Speaking at the same gathering, Roger Starr, former
head of the Housing and Development Administration
(HPD's predecessor) and now a member of the editorial
board of the New York Times, said the city's attempts
to deal with its housing crisis "cannot possibly succeed."
Starr said a decline in the city's economy had made it
impossible for a large segment of the population to
afford decent housing. He called the In Rem program a
waste of money and said the city should operate on a
reduced scale.
Sounding none to confident himself, Leventhal said,
"I'm not convinced that we're going to succeed," but
he reaffirmed a commitment to exploring all available
options. D
NYSTNC AGENDA
The New York State Tenant and Neighborhood
Coalition elecredoff icers and adopted its 1979 legislative
program at a statewide membership meeting held in
Albany on January 28.
The delegates voted to support an increase in benefits
for welfare recipients, and to oppose New York City's
proposed demonstration project to place West Bronx
recipients on restricted two-party checks. Strategies
were developed to achieve enactment by the State Legis-
lature of legislation to protect tenants from retaliatory
evictions, and to reduce FAIR Plan insurance rates for
homeowners in so-called high-risk neighborhoods.
To: The Editors, CITY LIMITS, Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers, Inc.
115 East 23rd Street, New York, New York 10010
Please enter my subscription for one year (10 Issues) to CITY LIMITS.
o Private businesses, foundations, banks, government agencies and officials, city-
wide groups - $20.00
o Individuals and community-based organizations - $6.00
Enclosed Is my check for $ _______ , payable to ANHD / CITY LIMITS.
Name: _________________________________ _
Address: ______________________________ __
19
City Limits
115 East 23rd Street New York, N.Y. 10010
IN THIS ISSUE
Two-Party Checks
Taino Towers
Chariotte"Street
Redemption
Site 30
Landlord Minister
Have You Sent Us Your Subscription?