City Limits Magazine, March 1987 Issue

S L E A Z E A T T H E M E T : I' '
A N O R G A N I Z E R ' S C A L L T O 110
~200L ~N ~~OA M3N
3A~ W~O~31SW~ L ~ O L
3snOH 1~~03Hl~J/E~Hn
~3HJI3~ AON'I1
66J + J 0 2
_ _ IM P
$2 March1987
2 CITY LIMITS . March 1987
Ciry, L i m i ~ 5
Volume XU Number 3
City Limits is published ten times per
year, monthly except double issues in
June/July and August/September, by the
City Limits Community Information Ser-
vice, Inc., a nonprofit organization de-
voted to disseminating information con-
cerning neighborhood revitalization. The
publication is sponsored by three organi -
zations. The sponsors are:
Association for Neighborhood and Hous-
ing Development , Inc., an association of
40 community-based, nonprofit housing
development groups, developing and ad-
vocating programs for low and moderate
income housing and neighborhood
stabilization.
Pratt Institute Center for Community and
Environmental Development , a technical
assistance and advocacy office offering
professional planning and architectural
services to low and moderate income
community groups. The Center also
analyzes and monitors government pol-
icy and performance.
Urban Homesteading Assistance Board,
a technical assistance organization pro-
viding assistance to low income tenant
cooperatives in management and sweat
equity rehabilitation.
Subscription rates are: for individuals
and community groups, $15/0ne Year,
$25/1Wo Years; for businesses, founda-
tions, b,llnks, government agencies and
libraries, $35/0ne Year, $5011\vo Years.
Low income, unemployed, $9/0ne Year.
City Limits welcomes comments and arti-
cle contributions. Please include a '
stamped, self-addressed envelope for re-
turn manuscripts. Material in City Limits
does not necessarily reflect the opinion
of the sponsoring organizations. Send
correspondence to: CITY LIMITS, 424
West 33rd SI., New York, NY 10001.
Second class postage paid
New York, NY 10001
City Limits (ISSN 0199-0330)
(212) 239-6440
Editor: Annette Fuentes
Associate Editor: Doug Thretsky
Contributing Editors: Peter Marcuse,
Peggy Moberg, Tom Robbins
Production: Chip Cliffe
Photographers: Beverly Cheuvront , Bill
Goidell
Copyright <\:) 1967. All Rights Reserved.
No portion or portions of this journal may
be reprinted without the express permis-
sion of the p.ublishers.
City Limits is indexed in the Alternative
Press Index and the Avery Index to Ar-
chitectural Periodicals.
Cover drawing by Tom Keough
FROM THE EDITOR
Horror Hotels
The so-called hotels that have become holding tanks for the
homeless are veritable powder kegs waiting for a spark to make
an explosion that will make the Fourth of July seem like child's
play. Anyone who doubts that can take a look at the week of
February 9-15 and the incidents that, three in a row, are ample
evidence of the unhealthy, unwholesome and dangerous condi-
tions brewing in the hotels. Ed Koch thinks he's buying housing
there, buying time while he figures out what to do for a real
housing policy. But what he's really buying is more trouble than
any of us can possibly cope with.
First there was the murder February 9 at the Holland Hotel of
a former security guard by a current one. It was reportedly over
money and if you have eVer chanced by that establishment, you
know that it is a magnet for hustlers and schemers. Daily survival
itself is a challenge for the women living there, trying to make a
home out of a shoe-box sized room for themselves and their kids.
And then there were the shootings at the Normandy and Mar-
tinique Hotels on the 15th. That Sunday was certainly a banner
day for violence in Koch's homeless housing system. At the Nor-
mandy on West 45th St., one male resident shot another in a drug
related murder. At the Martinique on 32nd St., a young security
guard was shot and killed by a man visiting his wife and kids
who live there. A fight broke out between the two when the guard
tried to intercede in the couple's own altercation and the husband
brought out a shotgun.
What all this means is that women, children and men seeking
shelter from New York City because they've been evicted, burned
out or priced out of their homes are being locked up in institutions
that more and more resemble prisons. They are the unwanted,
unsightly human rubble that Koch '\s trying to sweep under the
carpet. All the prison guards in the world are not going to make
it better, either.
But the worst part is what is happening to a generation of young-
sters who are being dragged through this filth on their way to
adulthood. Pat Ebron spent two and a half years as a homeless
resident of the Holland Hotel and she says the violence is getting
worse all the time and the kids are bearing the brunt. "Then you
wonder whr kids can't function in school," she says. "Without a
decent mea and a nice home to sleep in, how can they succeed?
And you wonder why kids grow up like that."
Robert Hayes of the Coalition for the Homeless has called on
Koch to use the city's powers of eminent domain to take over the
hotels from the homelessness pimps who profit from others mis-
ery. Seems like everyone in Koch's homeless housing system
profits except the folks without homes. The Mets Motel in Queens,
profiled in this issue by Doug Thretsky, is a perfect example of
this sickening combination of profiteering and abuse of homeless
women and children. The mayor still has time to leave a lasting
positive legacy to counter the corruption still gushing out of his
administration. Take back the hotels, Ed.OA.F.
INSIDE
FEATURES
Can Communities Shape Development 12
A special review of developments by Community
Boards is supposed to insure resident input. But
does the ULURP process really work or is it a
bureaucratic nightmare?
DEPARTMENTS
From the Editor
Horror Hotels ................... .. .... 2
Short Term Notes
Tong Wars ............... . ......... .. . 4
Vouching for Housing ............. ...... 4
Tax Reform Hurts Housing ............... 5
Beating an Eviction .................... 5
Neighborhood Notes
Bronx ................................ 6
Brooklyn ............................. 6
Manhattan ............................ 7
Queens .... . ....... . .. .. ... .... ... .... 7
Legislation
Rent Report to the Governor
Awaits Action ...... .... ....... ......... 8
Pipeline
The Need for Daycare:
A Community Responds ... .. ............. 9
Program Focus
The Mets Motel
Strikes It Rich Off the Homeless. . . . . . . . . . . 16
Organize
Back to Basics ..... . .................. 18
Building Blocks
Understanding an Electrical System ...... 22
Letters ................................. 22
Wlrksbop ............................... 23
March 1987 CITY LIMITS 3
Communities and
ULURPI Page 12
The Mets Motel! P
4 CITY LIMITS March 1987
SHORT TERM NOTES
TONG WARS
A senior citizen housing
development planned for
Chinatown is facing another
delay after the city filed a suitto
remove six new organizational
members from the projects
board of directors. Three of the
organizations are suspected of
criminal activities and one is
part of a Taiwanese political
party. The Chung Pak housing
project has endured long-
running controversy in
Chinatown.
The 88-unit housing project
first was proposed to appease
community outrage over plans
to erect a new jail at White and
Walker streets on the western
edge of Chinatown. The
Everlasting Pines Housing
Development Fund Corporation
Inc. was formed to develop the
project.
Trouble began when
grassroots leaders in Chinatown
objected to the appointment of
mostly pro-Koch representatives
on the board, including
members of the Chinatown
Planning Council.
They argued over the use of
three floors of commercial
space in the $10 million project,
demanding that it be used for
shops and a daycare center.
They also complained that the
proposed $35-per-square-foot
rent for stores would shut out
local businesses and further
gentrification in Chinatown.
last spring city officials were
pushing for a quick resolution to
the bitter confrontations
erupting over Chung Pak,
fearing that federal housing and
urban development funds
would be lost if delays
continued.
Just as those concerns were
being resolved, a board
election was held and the six
new organizations joined the
board.
The city claims that the
election is invalid, and its suit
seeks to remove the Hip Sing
Association, the Chinese
Merchants Association, the
Chinese Free Masons
Associations, the Kuo Min Tang
Site of the future White St. jail:
The Chinatown community has been ripped by a series of controversies over
the jail.
Eastern Regional Office, the
ling Sing Association and the
Hoy Sun Ning Yeung Assocation
from the housing project's
board.
The Hip Sing and Yeung
associations and the Chinese
Free Masons are tied to criminal
activities, city official charged at
the time of the election. The Kuo
Min Tang is the political party
that governs Taiwan, and city
officials question its role on a
local development corporation.
"The reason for our contesting
the purported election is that the
organization's [the Everlasting
Pines Housing Development
Corp.) bylaws call for a majority
of eight to elect new board
members. There were only
seven at the meeting where
these groups were nominated,"
says Barbara Perkins, a
spokeswoman for the
Department of General
Services.
'We are going ahead with
our plans for the building," she
adds. "The money is being held
in abeyance, and we have
asked for an extension of the
federal grant."DBeverly
Cheuvront
VOUCHING FOR
HOUSING
Despite being barely into the
second year of a five-year
experiment, the Department of
Housing and Urban
Development is forgeing ahead
with its voucher program. The
Fiscal Year 1988 budget
recently proposed by HUD
Secretary Samuel Pierce Jr. calls
for authorizing funds for
79,000 vouchers in each of the
next five years, which would
make voucher's the nation's
primary form of rental housing
assistnce. No new funds are
requested for the Section 8
Certificate program, the
15-year-old subsidy program
that insures recipients pay no
more than 30 percent of their
incomes for rent.
HUD contends the vouchers
will help cut federal housing
costs while giving low income
famil ies more freedom to find
suitable apartments. "It allows
tenants a greater degree of
choice," says HUD spokesman
Jack Flynn, who adds that
vouchers inspire "a shopping
incentive" among recipients. But
housing experts criticize the
voucher program, claiming the
Section 8 Certificates are far
superior.
Frank DeStefano, a staff
member of the House of
Representatives subcommittee
on housing and community
development, contends HUD is
playing with the numbers. Each
voucher issued will be funded
for five years as opposed to the
15 year funding for a certificate.
He also argues that the only
additional freedom vouchers
give over certificates is the
freedom for families to pay
more than 30 percent of their
incomes for rent. "It's just a
mirror game to get out of the
housing business," says
DeStefano.
New York City is one of the
places in which HUD has been
testing the voucher program.
Harold Sole, director of the
leased Housing department in
the city's public housing
authority, oversees both
vouchers and Section 8
Certificates issued in the city. He
says the certificate program is
$41 per month cheaper for
HUD "even though in all the
literature the government says
the voucher program is
cheaper."
Sole says there are many
other problems with vouchers.
In the certificate program, local
housing authorities check the
"rent reasonableness" of an
apartment a family plans to take
and can use its influence to help
a family negotiate the rent. No
such rent reasonableness check
is part ofthe voucher program.
Families rent an apartment at
whatever rate the landlord asks
and the voucher covers a
portion. Each voucher also
covers just two rent increases in
the course of its five-year life.
Says Sole, "Now that we're
doing lease renewals I' m
positive that over 50 percent of
the tenants will pay more than
30 percent of their incomes."
The 1988 HUD budget also
calls for more reductions in
housing construction programs.
Secretary Pierce says the
number of vacant low income
units is at its highest level in
years, making affordability, not
availability the key issue. But the
National low Income Housing
Information Service disagrees.
Their figures indicate a "housing
gap" for low income families of
four million units nationwide.
Rental subsidies will not
create new affordable units.
Says Harold Sole, "HUD has
sold Congress a bill of
goods.HOD. T.
TAX REFORM
HURTS HOUSING
low income housing projects
will be harder to finance under
the new federal tax lows,
according to a study funded by
the UJA Federation of New
York. With federal monies for
affordable housing slashed by
70 percent since 1981, private
development of low income
housing offers the only viable
possiblity. But as the study by
James Pickman and Benson
Roberts finds, tax breaks for low
income housing developers
have been eliminated or
changed, making it more
difficult to raise private equity
for other than market rate
housing.
The study was done last
October by the Washington firm
of James Pickman and
Associates, consultants
specializing in community
development projects.
According to Roberts, "The new
law places lots of restrictions on
private developers. It will be
difficult to get to the traditional
investors, the high income
investors."
Benson says the tax refarm
went after tax shelters, instiMing
"passive activity loss rules" that
eliminate the possibility of using
investment losses or credits for
certain activities, among them
low income housing creation.
He says that the new rules will
make investments in low income
housing more attractive to
individuals with incomes at the
lower end of the high income
bracket-up to $200,000,
which will probably mean
people who haven't invested in
such projects before.
While the new lows impact on
individual investors, Benson soys
many of the restrictions are not
imposed on corporations,
pointing to the possibility of
increased corporate
involvement in low income
housing development. And
though he says it won't be easy,
Benson sees the tax reform as a
mixed bag. "When Section 8
first started, people soid it would
never fly, but they learned how
to do it. People are going to
have to be careful how projects
are put together."
One project utilizing the new
tax credit scheme is on the
drawing board now, says
Benson. The local Initiatives
Support Corporation is
planning to work in conjunction
with 10 nonprofits to build 1,000
units of low income housing
here in the city. But according to
Benson, the tax credit has a
three-year life and then must be
reapproved by Congress, so
any projects that aim to take
advantage of it must move
quickly.OA.F.
BEATING AN
EVICTION
The Gonzalez family faced
eviction from their longtime
home on Woodbine Avenue in
Bushwick, Brooklyn because
their landlord had defaulted on
a Federal Housing
Administration insured
mortgage. But instead of
eviction the Gonzalez were
able to buy the house on
January 9 with the help of the
Community Service Society's
Ownership Transfer Project.
"The OTP was a real fluke that
helped my low income clients
pay for their house," says
Brooldyn legal Services
attorney Martha Copleman,
who referred the family to the
CSS program. After two months
of negotiations, Carteret
Savings and loan sold the
building to the Gonzalez family
rather than evicting them and
collecting insurance money
from the federal agency. The
federal"govemment now
requires banks to convey one to
four family homes to the FHA
unoccupied before paying off
the defaulted mortgage [see
City Limits Dec. 1986].
The unoccupied conveyance
palicy, which forces the eviction
of tenants, is also a barrier to
ownership transfers. "There
have been 20 successful OTP
transfers totaling 600 to 700
units in the past four and a half
years," says Linda Cohen of
CSS. Almost all of these have
involved large buildings. The
Community Service Society is
just beginning to explore one to
four family homes as candidates
for OTP. "Recent changes in the
FHA regulations should make it
easier for third porties to buy
these properties," Cohen says.
The Gonzalez were joined in
the purchase of the three-unit
house by the families of their
two grown daugthers. Cohen
worked up formulas for what
the extended family could
afford to pay for the mortgage,
services and basic repairs. CSS
provided a low interest loan and
the city offered a $30,000
Article 8a loan for the building's
rehabilitation. But what really
made the transfer possible -
where so many others had
failed - was the bank's
willingness to negotiate.
"For some reason the bank
wasn't greedy," says Copleman.
"They just wanted the
indebtedness out of it." With the
face value of the mortgage
$28,000, and the bank willing
to sell for the same amount it
had coming from the FHA and
forgo the usual charges for legal
fees and paperwork, th'" "rice
was right.
Norma Rosario, one of the
Gonzalez' daughters, was
suprised her family could buy
the house. "We were afraid my
mother and father were going
to have to move out into the
street. It's so hard to find a place,
and then with rent nowadays
they can't afford anything on
their social security checks."
"If housing activists are aware
of FHA-insured mortgages in
their communities and know
where these properties are in
the process of being foreclosed,
sometimes the tenants can make
a bid on the building before the
property transfers to the FHA. H
says Cohen. "OTP is another
way to secure housing, a way of
tenants getting control before
another speculative landlord
comes in and starts harassing
them."ORobin Epstein
Riverdale 'Y' featuring Mayor Koch
as a speaker. The mayor quieted the
crowd inside, telling them in no un-
certain terms, "we're gonna
build. "DLois Harr
Brooklyn
The Bronx
The Mayor vs. CARE
In the best tradition of the cartoon
"They'll Do It Every Time," the city
is making plans for the Kingsbridge-
Marble Hill neighborhood. In De-
cember, 1985 the mayor solicited
ideas from developers on how to
build affordable housing. One result,
Kingsbridge-Marble Hill residents
learned last October, is a plan to build
1,000 condominium units on eight
acres of city-owned land adjacent to
JFK High School at W. 230th Street.
Borough President Stanley Simon
called a meeting last December at
which 650 angry community resi-
dents and officials voiced strong op-
position to the proposal to build
apartments costing $80,000 to
$120,000. Speaker after speaker
charged the area's police, fire and edu-
cational services were too overtaxed
to add an additional 5,000 residents
to the community.
In January community residents
formed Community Action for Recre-
ation and Education (CARE) - re-
turning attention to a former plan to
build an educational and recreational
facility on the site. CARE leaders
hope to convince the mayor to shift
plans for the housing to another less
crowded neisiliborhood and build
needed school and recreational cen-
ters in their neighborhood. Commu-
nity leaders say JFK High School,
which reportedly operates at 140 per-
cent of capacity, exemplifies this ur-
gent need. Community Board 8 has
already passed several resolutions op-
posing the plan.
On January 18 about 40 representa-
tives of CARE picketed in the snow
and rain outside a breakfast at the
Bensonhurst Battles Trump
If residents of the Shorehaven
apartment complex in Bensonhurst
win their court case against the
Thump Organization, tenants will no
longer have to pay added charges for
parking garage space they can't use.
Currently, all tenants pay monthly
charges for garage space - whether
they have cars or not. Although this
practice is common in large buildings
throughout the city, the Bensonhurst
Tenants Council says the rule should
be changed.
"We don't think people should have
to pay for services they don't need or
can't use," says Cynthia Copaldo, the
Council's director. "A lot of tenants
are on fixed incomes and those
monthly charges really hurt."
There are over 1,300 Shorehaven re-
sidents but fewer than 400 parking
spaces. Fees for the garage range from
$45 to $60 per month, depending on
the amount of rent each tenant pays.
Copaldo says that even residents who
do have cars complain about poor sec-
urity and vandalism. The garage
leases make tenants responsible for
any damage done to cars on Trump
property.
"My car was broken into four times
in that garage" says one tenant. "I
have to keep my car on the street even
though I pay for the space."
"I took this apartment because I
was desperate," claims another resi-
dent. "I don't even have a driver's
license."
Irving Eskonazi, a Thump represen-
tative, denies that the garage is
dangerous and says management is
following the law in charging for
space. "The law allows the landlord
to charge for a garage regardless of
whether tenants have licenses or
cars," he says. "The tenants do have
the right to refuse these apartments.
They do have that choice."
But Robert Gordon, an attorney
from Assemblyman Frank Barbaro's
office who is representing the
Shorehaven tenants, says the real
issue is fairness. "The choice manage-
ment is offering these people is really
no choice at all," he states. "We think
it is unconscionable for them to be
charging these fees."
Gordon added that there has al-
ready been litigation on this issue
and in one case, a housing judge in
Queens decided in favor of the ten-
ants.
Meanwhile, residents at Shoreha-
ven are continuing to withhold gar-
age rent until the case is decided by
the courts.
City Misses Boat
on Homeless Shelters
Plans by the city administration to
open more homeless shelters in
Brooklyn are being opposed by com-
munity groups. But residents say the
reasons for the opposition are being
overlooked by city officials and the
media.
"We're not against the needs of the
homeless," says Joyce Rhodes of
Bushwick Information Coordination
and Action. "But we want permanent
housing, not the transitional shelter
they are giving us." She said a recent
public meeting about plans to put a
temporary shelter in Bushwick
caused an uproar among local resi-
dents.
The size of some of the proposed
shelters is also a problem for local
communities. A coalition of six
neighborhood groups in North Brook-
lyn has filed a lawsuit to block expan-
sion of a shelter from 800 to 1,000
homeless men at the former Green-
point Hospital. "The size of the plan
is totally out of scale for our area,"
says Gary Hatten, executive director
of the st. Nicholas Neighborhood Pre-
servation and Housing Rehabilitation
Corp. "We want to provide for the
homeless but we want to do it in our
own way."
Community groups also want more
control over who gets placed in neigh-
borhood shelters. Los Sures now
manages two buildings in Will-
iamsburg where half of the available
apartments go to homeless families.
But the selection of tenants is in the
hands of the city. "We have a lot of
families in this area who are doubling
and tripling up in apartments," says
David Pagan of Los Sures. "We'd like
to find homes for families in our area
but we don't have the final word on
that."
Plans to build a homeless shelter
nearer the Steeplechase amusement
park on Coney Island are being chal-
lenged by local community board
members who say the area is already
burdened with large numbers of
homeless families.
Councilman Abe Gerges who re-
cently took over the chairmanship of
the City Council's Committee on the
Homeless, agrees that the city has
"missed the boat" in its approach to
placing homeless shelters in Brook-
lyn communities.
He says a report submitted to the
council earlier this month, which
calls on the city to establish a better
process for neighborhood involve-
ment in choosing sites, was unani-
mously adopted by other Council
members.
"What the city has done is to throw
bombs into these communities with-
out consulting people and then later
on, ask for negotiation," he says.
"Community groups aren't saying
they don't want the homeless. But
they do deserve a process."
Gerges plans to bring the issue up
during budget discussions and hopes
the committee can change the city's
tack on the homeless issue in Brook-
lyn.DBarbara Solow
lVIanhattan
Women in Construction
A victory in behalf of women seek-
ing jobs in the lucrative but male-
dominated construction industry
may be at hand thanks to a settlement
involving the Battery Park City de-
velopment in Lower Manhattan. The
group Nontraditional Employment
for Women, represented by attorneey
Judith Vladeck, sued both the Battery
Park City Authority and the Olympia
& York Battery Park Company, claim-
ing "women were discouraged and
deterred from seeking employ-
ment ... because of alleged discrimi-
nation."
The proposed settlement allows
the defendants to reach an agreement
on the case without admission they
have engaged in any unlawful acts.
Mary Ellen Boyd, director of NEW,
believes "it's miraculous that in less
than two years a settlement was
reached at all." She adds, "We could
have spent years litigating and the
work would be over and no women
hired."
The proposal sets up a $324,000
fund to be distributed in part among
19 women who were plaintiffs in the
suit as well as other eligible women
who can demonstrate they "suffered"
from discriminatory hiring practices
at the building site. The defendants
have also agreed in "good faith" to
hire at least 5 percent of women in
all trades at the development project
scheduled for completion in 1993.
Boyd attributes the early settle-
ment in part to reasonable remedies
in the hiring practices. NEW will also
receive $100,000 for a job training
program. Founded in 1978, the group
trains 300 women annually for jobs
in the construction and technical
trades. Women in the program are
primarily black and Hispanic female
heads of households - more than 85
percent of whom are on public assis-
tance.
NEW continues to help the women
even after they've found their first job.
As Boyd points out, "Unions don't
pay much attention to the
women ... NEW has become like the
hiring hall."
The current settlement is condi-
tional until approved at a federal
hearing on April 3. In the mean time
NEW continues its vigilance. "We
would prefer not to have to litigate
every site in New York City," says
Boyd, hoping contractors and de-
velopers will take steps on their own
to hire women. "But we don't pre-
clude litigation either," she de-
clares.OMary Breen
Queens
Home at Last
"I'm Corrie Tillman and I'm no
longer homeless." I could picture the
grin on the other side of the phone
as Paul Tick described Tillman's self
introduction at the last meeting of the
Queens. Coalition for the Homeless.
Tillman and her four children have
become famous - but that doesn't
mean their story has to be unique.
To understand why the Tillman
family is no longer homeless we have
to go back to the beginning of a pro-
cess that started when the pressures
of hotel living brought Corrie Tillman
and Paul Tick together. Tick is a social
worker helping Jamaica-area families
cope with the stress of homelessness.
In the course of talking with Tillman,
Tick encoraged her to become in-
volved with the Queens Coalition for
the Homeless.
Her involvement led to subtle
harassment in the hotel where she
lived as well as a Daily News article
about her family last November 23.
Dorothy and Thomas Duckett, home-
owners with a vacant apartment, read
the article and offered it to Tillman.
The Ducketts are socially-con-
scious people who wanted to do
something concrete in response to the
housing crisis. But a social consci-
ence doesn't guarantee one can deal
with the city's red tape. Dorothy Duc-
kett approached the Department of
Housing Preservation and Develop-
ment's Emergency Assistance Re-
housing Program, which recruits
landlords to rent empty units to
homeless families [see City Limits
Oct. 1986]. She encountered an in-
comprehensible application proce-
dure that forced her to take days off
from work and make many trips to
HPD offices at 100 Gold Street. Luck-
ily, someone else could wait at the
building for inspectors who rarely
came when they said they would.
Tick and the Ducketts hoped the
Tillman family would be in the apart-
ment by last Christmas. Thanks to a
lot of pressure by Tick and others,
including the involvement of a local
politician, the Tillmans moved into
the apartment in mid-January.
Angered by the process, Dorothy Duc-
kett says she wouldn't recommend
the EARP program to the average
homeowner. And the Ducketts
haven't received the money they're
due from EARP, which promises
$2,500 per family member as an in-
centive to owners to offer 32-month
leases to families whose public assis-
tance rants won't cover market rents.
It wil take some major reforms in
EARP to convince more homeowners
to brave the process and provide
apartments for the homeless.Dlnna
Rodriguez
LEGISLATION
Rent Report to the Governor AVtfaits Action
BY DOUG TURETSKY
IN JANUARY THE STATE'S DIVISION
of Housing and Community Renewal
released its long-awaited report on
New York's rent regulation system.
Authorized by Governor Mario
Cuomo, the report presents nine
major recommendations for altering
the state rent regulation laws. Says
Manuel Mirabel, the state's Rent Ad-
ministrator, "The recommendations
are geared towards bringing more
equitability and manageability" into
the way the state regulates rents.
The 27-page report, "Restructuring
the Rent Regulatory System,"
suggests, among other things, ending
the need to periodically renew the
rent regulation laws in the Legislature
by making regulation tied to the exis-
tence of a housing emergency, anti-
warehousing sanctions for co-op con-
versions, consolidation of the state's
four Rent Guidelines Boards, ceasing
annual rent registration and the crea-
tion of one uniform system of rent
regulation. "We've made an effort to
deal with what we believe are the
major obstacles towards actually
operating the regulatory system," ex-
plains Mirabel, adding that the cur-
rent system has created "unwar-
ranted paper work for owners and ten-
ants."
Tenant activists have responded
with cautious optimism to the report.
Michael McKee, director of the New
York State Tenants and Neighborhood
Coalition, describes the report as
"pro tenant as far as it goes." To
McKee, the thrust of the recommen-
dations are largely administrative,
with only "pro tenant side effects."
Assemblyman Pete Grannis, chair
of the state Assembly's housing com-
mittee, comments, "I was pleasantly
suprised by the report." But he warns
that so far all that has been issued are
recommendations. "We've seen no
program bills from the governor or
DHCR."

All the recommendations in the re-
port would require legislative action.
McKee questions why some of the
measures were not adopted in
DHCR's newly revised rent stabiliza-
tion code, which was released at the
same time as the report to the gover-
nor. Changes in the code don't require
legislative approval. ''At the same
time they come out with this report
they come out with the code," says
McKee. The new code, he complains,
guts some tenant protections while
adding a section on tenant harass-
ment of landlords, a clause he says
will be used to provoke evictions.
Despite these reservations, McKee
acknowledges the report offers some
promising measures for tenants. Rent
stabilized tenants would no longer
need leases, becoming, like those liv-
ing in rent controlled apartments,
statutory tenants. The report also rec-
ommends that landlords should be
required to go to DHCR to get a certifi-
cate before starting eviction proceed-
ings in Housing Court based on non-
payment of disputed rent, refusal to
sign faulty leases or owner's right to
personal occupancy. McKee believes
the certification process "would
deter many landlords" from under-
taking these kind of eviction proceed-
ings.
But tenant activists feel the report
comes up short in other areas. McKee
points to the fact that the report
doesn't deal with rent regulations for
buildings under six units, lets serious
co-op conversion loopholes remain
and doesn't require landlords to open
their books. Mirabel defends the re-
port, saying it wasn't intended to deal
with bringing new units into the reg-
ulatory system. He adds, though, that
one recommendation calls for return-
ing non-owner occupied apartments
deregulated through co-op conver-
sion back into the rent regulation sys-
tem. And while the report doesn't de-
clare owners' books should be open,
Mirabel says he supports the rent
guidelines board's right to solicit this
information. Such specifics, he says,
"are the types of things we'd be doing
and working out with the Legislature
in terms of what provisions exactly
would be included in much of what
we recommend."
Mirabel hails the report's anti-
warehousing component as one of it's
strongest measures. The report calls
for a 10 percent limit on warehoused
apartments until the conversion pro-
cess takes effect - current law limits
warehousing only until the conver-
sion plan is filed with the attorney
general. But housing activists take a
less enthusiastic view, noting the pro-
vision only deals with co-op conver-
sions. Says Assemblyman Grannis,
"During the housing crisis we
shouldn't permit the hoarding of any
apartments."
While both McKee and Grannis
agree the report opens the way for dis-
cussion, legislative action seems a
ways off. Mirabel says DHCR will be
"taking an active approach to this re-
port," lobbying legislators and push-
ing for reforms. Grannis warns that
DHCR efforts are not enough - Gov-
ernor Cuomo will have to take a lead-
ing role to push any bills through a
reluctant state legislature. "ti he were
to embrace these recommendations
and go public and take an active role
it would help our position," declares
Grannis.
Even Mirabel admits there's only a
fifty-fifty chance of getting any of the
measures through the legislature.
"What we're dealing with is making
the current system more equitable,
providing the same level of protec-
tion for everyone in the system and
dealing with what we believe to be
sensible goals that we can reach with
the legislature. "
But Grannis asks, ''Are they willing
to take on the Senate?" which he says
the real estate industry has in its poc-
ket. "The real question is whether any
of these recommendations will even
become bills."D
The Second Annual
Skills and Strategies
of Organiz1 ng :
A Conference for
Tenants and Neighbors
Sponsored by
LENOX Hill NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC.
SATURDAY, MARCH Z8, 1987
9:30am to 4pm
at 331 East 70 Street
NeW' York, NeW' York
Advance registration requested
212-744-5022
PIPELINE
The Need for Daycare Centers:
A COll1l11unity Responds ber.s liye in near the fac-
Jame, Chin instructs kinclerlllarl,an
The Garment 'ndust[J Daycare
of Chinatown 'LGW members.
BY PEG KAMENS
LAI FaNG CHUI IS A SEAMSTRESS
in the Chinatown garment industry,
earning about $100 per week making
women's clothes. Her husband Kim
Lau is a Chinatown restaurant worker
with a weekly wage of about $135.
When their oldest child was born
seven years ago, Lai Fang searched
desperately for a baby sitter so that
she could continue to work. She was
unable to find one until her second
child was born two years later. A
friend's mother recently emmigrated
from mainland China and agreed to
take care of the children for $80 per
week. But Lai Fang was not satisfied.
"The baby sitter just watched the chil-
dren, cooked for them and put them
to sleep," she complains.
The Chius were luckier when their
third child was born. He attends the
Garment Industry Daycare Center,
where he paints, does puzzles and
learns to read and write English. And
the cost is only $2 per week.
Daycare has become an important
issue for families like the Chius,
where two incomes are a matter of
economic survival. But finding af-
fordable care is no easy task for work-
ing class families, especially with
public daycare funds drying up. The
Garment Industry Daycare Center of-
fers a model for stretching public
funds with private dollars from
groups of small employers. It is a
model that works well in neighbor-
hoods like Chinatown, where a
nearby industrial area serves as the
workplace for many community resi-
dents.
The Chinatown Model
The heart of Chinatown's garment
center is located between Broadway
and Allen Street, in the blocks be-
tween East Broadway and Delancey.
Four hundred and fifty small fac-
tories, each employing an average of
40 workers, produce women's
sportswear for the midtown garment
center. These Chinatown factories be-
long to the Greater Blouse, Skirt and
Undergarment Association. The
workers are members of Local 23-25,
the largest local of the International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.
About half of the Local's 18,000 mem-
tones m WhICh they work.
Under an agreement hammered out
by the union, the employers' associa-
tion contributes $60,000 each year to
operate the Garment Industry Day-
care Center. Another $55,000 is
raised through union fundraising ac-
tivities, including an annual fashion
show, a grant from the Foundation for
Child Development and contribu-
tions from midtown manufacturers.
These private contributions cover
$32 of the estimated $106 it costs for
each child in the program. Parents
pay fees based on a sliding scale, with
the average payment an affordable $8
per week. The city's Agency for Child
Development pays the rest, about
two-thirds the cost of the program.
As the costs of the program rise, the
city picks up an increasing share of
the expense.
Open since the fall of 1983, the day-
care center runs from 8am to 6pm five
days a week. A paid staff of 16 cares
for 81 children between the ages of
two-and-a-half and six. None of the
children enrolled have left the prog-
ram except through graduation, and
the graduates have scored exception-
ally well on city-wide tests.
Rising Need
Experts agree that the availability
of childcare is not keeping pace with
the need in most communities. In
1986, 53.5 percent of mothers with
children under six were in the labor
force; by 1990, it is projected that
there will be 12 million kids under
six with working mothers.
Katie Quan, now an organizer with
the ILGWU, learned about the shor-
tage of affordable child care while she
was a seamstress in Chinatown. The
way Quan saw it, working mothers in
the industry had few options. "They
could stay home with their kids,"
Quan observes. "But since their hus-
bands are mostly Chinese restaurant
workers, they needed a second in-
come."
The daycare options were limited.
A shortage of slots in the local centers
resulted in a two to four year waiting
list. There were also sitters who took
in children for the day but the sitters
lived mostly in rundown tenements,
Inside a Chinatown garment factory:
Many workers had to bring their children to the factory.
many without window guards. One
of Quan's friends went to a sitter with
nine cribs crowded into her three
room apartment. "She wondered, if
there was a fire, who would be saved
first," Quan recalls. These thoughts
proved prophetic; in November 1985,
two children were killed and four
seriously injured in a fire in an over-
crowded daycare home in Brooklyn.
Many workers simply took their
kids to the factories. But this was il-
legal and "not exactly the kind of en-
vironment people wanted for their
kids. The factories were not clean and
were not always safe," says Quan. She
recalls an incident where a 13-year-
old girl playing in a factory fell five
flights down an elevator shaft to her
death.
So Quan and several co-workers
formed a committee to address the
daycare dilemma in Chinatown. The
15 members of the committee, most
of whom did not speak English, met
regularly to discuss the problem,
many with small children in tow.
They visited daycare centers and
talked to childcare professionals. At
first they thought they would set up
their own center. "But then it dawned
on us: We pay lots of money to the
union, about $3 million in dues each
year. So we decided to ask the union
if they would do something," Quan
remembers.
The workers drew up a petition,
collecting signatures in the factories
on their lunch breaks and on Mott
Street on weekends. Within two
weeks they had 3,000 signatures.
They took the petition, drafted a press
release and held a press conference
with the local Chinese language
newspapers. The support was over-
whelming. Local manager Jay Mazur,
now president of the ILGWU, met
with the workers' committee and ag-
reed to deal with the problem.
The employers' association also felt
the pressure; the owners were mostly
Chinese, and they'd read the articles
in the local press. When the union
included childcare as one of its de-
mands during the strike-ridden labor
negotiations of 1982, the owners ag-
reed. With the employers committed
to the idea of daycare in principle,
the union began work on the
specifics. Staffer Susan Cowell, now
an assistant to Jay Mazur, took the job
of developing a program.
Surveying the workers' daycare
needs proved an important first step.
"We found out that there was a tre-
mendous unfilled demand for
childcare in the area," says Cowell.
For the 2,300 children of union mem-
bers in Chinatown, there are only a
few hundred daycare slots. This ruled
out an information and referral ser-
vice, since demand far exceeded sup-
ply. "Expanding the supply became
our most important priority," Cowell
states. A nine-page questionnaire
was drafted, and workers were sur-
veyed by phone to find out their
childcare preferences. Cowell was
surprised by the responses. She had
expected working class families to
prefer care by a relative or with a fam-
ily for their child. She found instead
that people wanted a more formal set-
ting.
"The Chinese people are educa-
tion-oriented and have great hope for
upward mobility for their children,"
Cowell notes. Children placed in a
daycare center could learn English
and would be better prepared for
school. ''Also,'' Cowell adds, "many
of the workers are from mainland
China, where a daycare center in the
factory is the norm."
Cowell decided to provide a pre-
school for children two-and-a- half to
five years old (later increased to six).
"We found that with very young chil-
dren, parents were more satisfied
with the type of care provided by re-
latives, the usual form of care," Cow-
ell remembers. Another factor was
the high cost of infant care, which
requires a lot of staff and small groups
of children.
The union avoided the greatest
stumbling block - finding a suitable
building. During the early 1970's, the
city had built a daycare center on
Chrystie Street. The rroject fell vic-
tim to the city's fisca crisis, and the
center never opened. The building
was available, only needing minimal
work to comply with the city's strict
regulations for licensed daycare cen-
ters. Just $50,000 was needed for start
up costs: $10,000 for construction
and $40,000 for supplies.
Cowell convinced the Chinatown
Planning Council to run the center.
CPC already operated several daycare
centers in the area, including an af-
terschool program located in the
building on Chrystie Street. CPC
hired staff, making one of its teachers,
Mee Ling Chin, the director of the
new program. It supervised the con-
struction and made sure the program
complied with all applicable regula-
. including group size and
staffing ratios.
The next step was money. "We
hoped to be privately funded, since
there would be less red tape," Cowell
remembers. "So we drew up a budget
and went to the employers. We found
that all we could raise through com-
mitted contributions was $115,000
each year, and we'd have to struggle
to keep raising that. So we went to
the city."
The city was eager to get involved.
The Agency for Child Development,
which operates 350 daycare centers
in New York, had begun to feel the
effects of Reaganomics. Despite a
growing need for daycare, federal
funding of the agency had been cut.
ACD was looking for private funds to
add to diminshing public dollars. It
agreed to help fund a center reserved
for the children of ILGWU members
if the union could contribute the pri-
vate funding. Heidi Farrar of ACD is
pleased with the results. "It's still $32
less per child than if we funded the
program ourselves," she notes.
The final step was recruiting stu-
dents. Union organizers set up tables
in the factories, put announcements
in local newspapers and placed ad
spots on the Chinese language radio
stations, which broadcast in the fac-
tories. 1\vo hundred applications
were submitted for 70 available slots;
students had to be selected by lottery.
The waiting list now stands at 200.
"The great advantage of the prog-
ram is that no one has to foot the
whole bill," Farrar observes. Because
there are so many members in the em-
ployers' Association, each annual
contribution is less than $100. It pro-
vides a definite advantage to local em-
ployers, who are able to retain skilled
workers. The city happily funds the
program because the cost is far less
than if the city paid the whole freight.
"The program would not have
made it if the union hadn't plugged
in there," Farrar believes. "You need
someone continually pumping
things up and moving things along."
Organizers were able to drum up lots
of community support to keep the
pressure on. And finally, there was
the determination of the rank and file.
"Workers have to start demanding
Cowell asserts. "But most
female workers are reluctant to talk
about it at work because they feel it's
a private problem." For Chinatown,
it's a community problem. And the
community's solution works.D
Peg Kamens is an attorney and a
writer with a special interest in hous-
ing and childcare.
Competitively Priced.lnsurance
LET us DO A FREE EVAWATION OF
YOUR INSURANCE NEEDS
have been pfCNiding Icwv-cost insurance programs and quality service
for HDFC's, COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT and other NONPROFIT
organizations for the past 8 years.
FIRE
Our Coverages Include:
UABIUTY BONDS DIREC1ORS' fa OFFICERS' UABIUTY
SPECIAL BUILDING PACKAGES
"Uberal Payment Terms"

306 FIFTH AVE.
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001
(212) 279-8300
Ask for: Bala Ramanathan
FEATURE
Can Communities Shape
Development?
BY JENNIFER STERN
L
ast month's Board of Estimate
approval of the colossal Co-
lumbus Center project, set for
the New York Coliseum site in Man-
hattan, was a serious blow to the com-
munities around it. Though the Bos-
ton Properties-Salomon Inc. project
will net the city and the MTA $455
million for the land, the three Com-
munity Boards in whose jurisdiction
the project falls voted overwhelm-
ingly to oppose it in its final form.
Yet, it passed the Board of Estimate
sale or lease of city property, other
than the lease of office space. Last
year, the Department of City Planning
processed 540 applications for these
actions as well as 671 applications
for a host of others, such as zoning
text changes, which, while not man-
dated by the charter as ULURP ac-
tions, are processed much in the
same way.
The Wheels Thrn Slowly
ULURP was created to solve a vari-
ety of problems with the previous
patchwork system of land use review
C
ommunity Boards are supposed to
have input on developments on their
turf through the Uniform Land Use Review
Process. But ULURP does not always work
the way it should and developers and
Board members alike have long lists of
complaints about the whole process.
almost unanimously.
That such a huge project - with its
immense potential impact on the
city - can go forward despite such
strong opposition calls into question
the city's whole process for reviewing
land use decisions, in particular,
ULURP-the Uniform Land Use Re-
view Procedure-through which the
Columbus Center project passed.
ULURP was instituted through the
1975 City Charter revision, and some
civic leaders say that at 10 years old,
it's time ULURP itself had a review.
A wide range of actions fall under
the ULURP process, including city
map changes, subdivisions, zoning
map changes, special permits, site
selection for capital projects, housing
and urban renewal projects and the
procedures. Most importantly, it was
intended to speed up the processing
of applications and to ensure, accord-
ing to the Department of City Plan-
ning's guide to ULURP for Commu-
nity Boards, "that communities
scrutinize proposals at an early stage,
therefore helping to shape their final
form." It is on those two standards
that ULURP must be judged.
Does ULURP speed up the land use
review process? The actual charter-
mandated provisions of ULURP do.
The charter drafters created a 180- to
210-day time limit for the approval
of ULURP applications as a way of
guaranteeing to all applicants that
their applications would not lan-
guish on some city agency's back
burner. The time clock gives the local
Model of mammoth Columbus Center, recently approved by tI
The project was opposed by every Community Board, legislatol
Community Board, the City Planning
Commission and the Board of Esti-
mate each 60 days to conduct a public
hearing on an application and to vote
on it. In the case of a project affecting
two or more Community Boards-
like Columbus Center, which falls on
the borders of Manhattan CB4, CB5
and CB7 - ULURP also allows 30
days for the Borough Board, made up
of the borough's president, city coun-
cil representatives and Community
Board chairpeople, to consider it as
well. Only the Board of Estimate's
vote is completely binding. The Com-
munity Board's vote is only advisory,
and though the planning commission
can effectively stop a project, an ap-
plicant can appeal a negative vote to
the mayor and the Board of Estimate.
What slows down the review pro-
cess and most frustrates developers
is not, however, this half-year clock
but the review the Department of City
Planning performs on each applica-
tion before the clock starts running.
(For this the department charges a
ULURP filing fee ranging from $100
up to $10,000.) Although the charter
specifies only that a filed application
must be forwarded to the appropriate
la Board of Elti mata:
r and community group on tile West Side.
Community Board for consideration,
City Planning has interpreted this
phrase as requiring that an applica-
tion must be "complete" before it en-
ters the ULURP review period. But
deciding whether or not an applica-
tion is complete, is left to City Plan-
ning's discretion.
"The definition of what is complete
is difficult for an outsider to under-
stand," says Hardy Adasko, senior
planner at the Public Development
Corporation (PDC) , which helps
develop projects like Columbus
Center on city-owned land. "Most
projects submit what they think is a
complete application and find that
more information is required. Until
[an application] is in hand, it's hard
to judge if it's complete."
Further complicating the "pre-cer-
tification" period (at the end of which
the City Planning Commission must
certify the application as complete)
is the City Environmental Quality Re-
view (CEQR), which was incorpo-
rated into ULURP in 1977 through an
Executive Order by then-Mayor Abe
Bearne. Now for any ULURP applica-
tion for which an Environmental Im-
pact Statement (EIS) is judged neces-
sary, the Draft EIS must be accepted
by City Planning and the Department
of Environmental Protection before
the application can be certified. Be-
tween these sets of requirements, the
pre-certification process can go on lit-
erally for years.
"Clearly there should be a time
limit set on pre-certification," says
Steven Spinola, president of the Real
Estate Board of New York. "For the
small builder, there's almost no way
to get decisions made, due to the lack
of priority for small projects and un-
certainty as to how to deal with the
city."
Debra Allee, president of Allee,
King, Rosen, and Fleming, which pre-
pares EISs for many city projects, says
there is a long delay in the processing
of Draft EISs. "It takes three to four
months to get an EIS done," she says,
"but it can take six months to get it
certified." She says that although the
city is "quite fair-minded" about
evaluating each application, "there is
a scramble as to whose project can
get the most attention, and some can
get lost in the shuffle." She adds that
staff at the Department of City Plan-
ning's office of Environmental Re-
view are both too few and relatively
inexperienced.
Large-scale projects often entail
not one, but many separate ULURP
applications. Columbus Center in-
volved four: for a change to the city
map, for approval of a 20 percent
floor-area ratio (FAR) bonus in ex-
change for $40 million of improve-
ments to the 59th Street subway sta-
tion, for an amendment to the Colum-
bus Circle Urban Renewal Area, of
which the site is a part, and for dis-
position of the City and the
Triborollgh Bridge and Thnnel Au-
thority's interests in the four acres of
land to Boston Properties.
For Boston Properties, pre-certifica-
tion was less frustrating than it has
been for other developers. They were
chosen by the city in July 1985 and
the project certified a year later. Still,
Robert Selsam, Boston Properties
vice president, calls pre-certification
"the hardest part of ULURP from the
developer's view." He says City Plan-
ning sent back the ULURP applica-
tions "many, many times" for revi-
sions.
Frustrated with the long review
process, and particularly pre-certifi-
cation, many in the development
community are calling for a move to
more as-of-right zoning, where pro-
jects can go forward without going
through ULURP. This would elimi-
nate not only the long pre-certifica-
tion process, but community review
along with it. "There should be an
effort to move to more as-of-right pro-
jects and simplify the process," says
Spinola. Negotiating [projects] is ex-
ceptionally dangerous from a good
government point of view."
One such move is City Planning's
Quality Housing proposal, which is
itself currently making its way
through ULURP. Intended to encour-
age development of less expensive
housing in the denser areas of the
city, it would allow as-of-right lower,
bulkier buildings that would other-
wise be the subject of land use review.
Some, including Ruth Kahn, chair-
person of Manhattan CB4, are in-
censed at this attempt "to take away
our ULURP powers." Her board voted
unanimously against the proposal.
"What's happened in a sense,"
agrees John Kowal, chairperson of
Manhattan CB7, "is that the Mayor
and this administration would like to
take away from the powers of the
Community Boards."
Leveraging Control
But does ULURP really enable
Community Boards considering
proposals to "help .. . shape their
final form?" How much power do
Community Boards have when it
comes to ULURP? "What's impres-
sive is that [final decisions] follow the
advice of the boards in well over 80
percent of the cases," says Harold
Nass, deputy director of the Mayor's
Community Assistance Unit. Even
where a decision goes against the re-
commendation of the board, he says,
"the end result is still that informa-
tion provided by the board for mitigat-
ing a project's impact is incorporated
by [the City Planning Commission]
in their recommendations."
Many Community Board members
agree. Jerry Renzini, chairperson of
Brooklyn'S CB2 estimates that City
Planning Commission and Board of
Estimate votes concur with those of
his Community Board 95 percent of
the time or more. "We do a lot of the
initial research on projects and han-
dle them very thoroughly," he ex-
plains.
Many boards say their ULURP pow-
.
1
t
ition, set up over ten years ago to over-
see implementation of the new City
Charter, insists the original Charter
drafters did not mean for pre-certifi-
cation to be such an extensive pro-
cess. The city has extended it, he says,
in an attempt "to solve problems in-
ternally before they go to the commu-
nity." Originally, he says, it was in-
tended that the Community Boards
would be responsible for "the first
framing of issues" regarding each pro-
ject. The incorporation of CEQR into
the ULURP process complicates this
issue to some extent. Were an applica-
tion to go immediately to the Commu-
nity Board when it is first filed, the
boards would not have the benefit of
a finished Draft EIS to help them
evaluate a project.
::::l Technical Difficulties
_ .............. iii Another problem with community
Ruth Kahn, chairp.rsan of ManhaHan'1 Community review is that Community Boards
Board 4,
Sh. lays h.r Board consid.rs an a".rag. of six often lack the technical expertise to
ULU/P applications a month. evaluate complex projects. In an at-
ers give them leverage with develop-
ers. "Developers are beginning to
come to us a couple years before they
finalize their plans," says Kahn. Mari-
lyn Bitterman, assistant district man-
ager of CB7 in Queens, where, she
says, more than 50 percent of the
building permits for the entire city
are filed, cites a recent large-scale de-
velopment on a municipal parking lot
in the district where "the developer
has already met with every conceiva-
ble group that might be affected by
it." Selsam says Boston Properties
contacted the three Community
Boards affected by Columbus Center
soon after it was chosen for the pro-
ject. "We introduced ourselves and
said we wanted to work with them
closely," he explains. "We did not
want to wait until the formal ULURP
process." He says Boston Properties
sought out community representa-
tives so early because "we have a
reputation as a responsible de-
veloper, and we want to keep it that
way."
Yet others find cause for concern
in the procedures for as well as the
quality of community review. The ex-
tensive pre-certification period, some
say, deprives Community Boards of
extensive input into a project "at an
early stage." Robert Alpern, who
chairs the Civic Charter Review Coal-
tempt to overcome this problem,
some boards have hired their own
planning consultants to evaluate ap-
plications and EISs. The problem, of
course, is money: Community Boards
have an annual budget of $121,000 a
year. Together, CB4, CB5 and CB7
raised funds, including $10,000 from
Boston Properties, to hire consultants
to evaluate the Columbus Center pro-
ject. The consultants turned up many
problems with the EIS, including a
failure to address the impact of the
project in conjunction with other
massive projects, including Televis-
ion City, planned for the area, and
neighborhood displacement.
Unfortunately, many Community
Boards do not have the resources to
hire consultants. Sally Goodgold,
president of the City Club and a
member and former chairperson of
Manhattan CB7, suggests that de-
velopers of projects over a certain size
or price should be required through
ULURP to pay a fee to Community
Boards to enable them to hire consul-
tants.
A third problem with ULURP, for
some Community Boards, is the sheer
volume of applications that come
their way. Along with their other re-
sponsibilities, this makes it difficult
for them to address each project
adequately. Kahn of Manhattan CB4
estimates her board considers an aver-
age of six ULURP applications a
month. Currently in the works for her
district are two towers - one in
Chelsea and one on the site of
Roosevelt Hospital- and the Hud-
son River Center, all of which, she
fears, could be certified at the same
time. "Community Boards should be
given no more than one complex pro-
ject a month," she insists.
Ruth Goring, who chairs Brook-
lyn's CBB says her board could often
use more than the allotted 60 days to
review a project. "Sometimes it is just
not possible to get [all the work]
done. The board members often have
to break their backs." She and others
cite the increased pressure to review
projects before summer, when the
boards usually take two months off.
Kowal of Manhattan CB7 is suspi-
cious that "some of the toughest pro-
jects" - including Columbus
Center - "seem to come up when the
boards are usually off."
Advisors Or Actors
One central question prompted by
ULURP is whether Community
Board decisions on ULURP applica-
tions should be merely advisory, as
they are now, or more binding. Al-
though the final plan for Columbus
Center incorporates some of the Com-
Boards' recommendations,
the of one
John Kowal, chairp.rson of ManhaHan's Commu-
nity Board 7,
.... . th. mayor and his administration would lile. to
tolee oway from the powers al the Community
Boards."
of the two towers by 25 feet, improv-
ing pedestrian circulation and ad-
ding acoustic treatment and an extra
token booth to the subway station re-
novation, the boards were still not
satisfied enough to approve the pro-
ject. Strangely, many Community
Board members insist that the advis-
ory role is appropriate.
"Community Boards should be ad-
visory since members are not elected,
only appointed," says Goring of
Brooklyn CB8. "I think a good strong
advisory role can be effective."
Stephen Wilder, a member of Manhat-
tan CB5, says he feels the system for
Coming Soon
If things go the way city officials
hope they will, sometime this sum-
mer the 30-year-old New York Col-
iseum at 59th St. and Broadway
will come crashing to the ground
and a massive 2.3 million square
feet of new buildings will rise in
its stead.
A joint venture of Boston Proper-
ties and the Salomon Inc. invest-
ment house, Columbus Center, as
it's called, comes out of a March
1985 Request for Proposals(RFP)
put out by the city and the Met-
ropolitan Transportation Associa-
tion, joint owners of the four-acre
site since the 1950's. Boston Prop-
erties was the high bidder for the
land and will pay $455.1 million,
all earmarked for mass transit.
Designed by famed architect
Moshe Safdie, the Center will have
two towers of 68 and 58 stories that
will dwarf by at least 300 feet even
their tallest neighbor, the Gulf and
Western Building. During the
winter, they will cast a shadow that
will cut out half an hour of daylight
from the southern portion of Cen-
tral Park, one of the main bones of
contention among Community
Board opponents.
As required by the city, the pro-
ject will be mixed-use, with a four-
story retail "Galleria" complete
with nine-screen movie theater, an
indoor public garden, 1.9 million
square feet of office space, 350 lux-
ury condos and the 640-space park-
ing garage beneath the Coliseum.
Although the proposed Center's
height ?nd bulk have been controv-
Developers are beginning to come to Community Boards a few
years before launching projects, a sign that CB leverage has
grown.
selecting board members would "fall
apart if they were elected. He and
others point to the low turn-out at
school board elections as an example
of what might happen if Community
Board members were elected.
Still, some board members call for
stronger powers. Kahn believes the
boards "should have limited legal
powers where a project's impact on a
neighborhood is not being taken into
account."
But even strengthening a Board's
role in the ULURP process may not
improve community imput in how
development happens. There is threat
ersial during the ULURP process,
it is just what the city ordered: the
RFP gives the developer a 20 per-
cent zoning bonus in exchange for
improvements to the Columbus
Circle subway station-set at $40
million.
Community " attempts to shape
the project began more than a year
before the RFP was put out. The
Columbus Circle Task Force, under
the direction of City Council
Member Ruth Messinger and
chairs of Community Boards 4,5
and 7, made overtures to City Plan-
ning and the MTA but "they were
basically ignored," says Gail
McEachern, program director of
the Parks Council, which partici-
pated in the task force.
After the RFP came out, the task
force dissected the prject's En-
vironmental Impact Statement and
found major errors. Although some
of their comments were addressed
in the revised Statement, says
Stephen Wilder of Board 5, "We
beat our heads against the wall and
had comments glibly brushed
aside." Ultimately, the project was
opposed by every legislator, Board
member and community group of
the West Side, according to John
Kowal of Board 7. A final com-
promise was attempted by the
three Boards; they asked that only
$20 million be extracted for sub-
way station improvements in ex-
change for a 200-foot reduction in
the height of the towers. But the
Board of Estimate approved the en-
tire package on February 5.DJ.S.
to that advisory role in the form of
yet another statute of the city's Char-
ter - the Urban Development Area
Action Program. Passed in 1979 and
amended three years later, UDAAP
was created to enable the city to sell
its own property without going
through the auction process, as is gen-
erally required. According to Bonnie
Brower, head of the Association of
Neighborhood and Housing Develop-
ers, the theory behind UDAAP was
to wipe out urban blight by selling
scatttered, abandoned buildings to
neighborhood people, thus shoring
up communities. In practice, though,
it has become a vehicle for the city
to sell or give away its properties to
whomever it choses for any purpose
with no statutory restrictions, says
Brower. "The 1982 amendment ena-
bles the city to either expedite or
waive ULURP in certain instances:
for construction of one- to four-family
homes, or in the sale of any city-
owned property. They can get out of
ULURP if the Planning Commission
or the Board of Estimate designates
they can," she states.
Brower notes that a report by the
Department of Housing Preservation
and Development shows that from
1979-82, 7,000 units of city-owned
housing were sold through UDAAP,
thus circumventing ULURP and com-
munity input altogether. "It's clearly
the wave ofthe future," Brower says.
A final problem with ULURP is a
problem many attribute to City Plan-
ning in general: "It's more of a reac-
tive process, not true planning," says
Goodgold. "It brings us late into the
process when projects are hard to
change." CB4 in Manhattan is trying
to overcome this problem by using a
little used provision of the city char-
ter that allows a Community Board
to devise a plan "for the development,
growth, and improvement" of its dis-
trict and to use ULURP to for an urban
renewal area in Clinton that it hopes
to put into ULURP soon. After that
the board hopes to come up with a
plan for Chelsea, she says, "to study
our community and see what we can
preserve" in the face of gentrification.
"Everybody is working overtime,"
she says. "We have community mem-
bers who have become technical ex-
perts on ULURP and zoning." The re-
sult: "We hope to become a pro-ac-
tive, not a reactive, group."D
..
.
PROGRAM FOCUS
BY DOUG TURmKY
SITUATED NEXT TO A PENN CEN-
tral railroad trestle, with used car lots
all around, the Mets Motel is an un-
likely place for tourists to spend the
night. The motel offers few amenities,
its grounds little more than a scrag-
gily lot ringed by a wire fence. But
the Mets does a thriving business
with a steady clientele - the home-
less.
Since 1983 the city's Human Re-
sources Administration has been
placing an average of 60 families a
night at the Mets. Management limits
most of these families to 14-day stays,
which costs HRA $910. Business is
so good that last summer the motel
built an 85-room addition.
The city shells out over $1.4 mil-
lion dollars a year to the motel on
Queens Boulevard at 73rd Street. But
local homeless advocates and those
who have stayed at the motel say the
city isn't getting very much for their
money. Renee Brailsford, who has
been in city shelters and the hotels,
sums up her two-week stay at the
Mets last February, "The shelter was
the pits, but it was better than the
Mets."
Theresea Greenberg, youth coor-
dinator for Queens Community
Board 2 stretching from Long Island
City to Woodside and a member of
the Northwest Queens Task Force on
the Homeless, says the Mets repre-
sents the worst of the welfare hotels.
"The current and ongoing problem at
the Mets is that the management
won't allow people to become perma-
nent residents. The result is the most
horrific example of what a hotel can
become," declares Greenberg. "What
happens with the short stay is that
they don't get their checks, their food
stamps and other means of support. "
By limiting stays under 28 days,
management ensures they won't be-
come legally bound to providing a
room to the families. In the past year
management has cut the number of
"permanent" families at the Mets to
less than ten. These short stays also
allow management to make sure the
motel has enough rooms for its other
business.
Hot Sheets
Four signs at the Mets, including
one that towers above the railroad
Mets Motel Strikes it Rich
OHthe HOlJ1e/ess
trestle, advertise "exotic movies" and
one sign at ground level proclaims
"day rates." Larry Long, a member of
the Queens Coalition for Homeless
Families, says, "The general am-
biance of the place is even shorter
stays of one to two hours." While
there have been a number of allega-
tions of prostitution at the Mets, most
people believe the motel is a favorite
for quickie sexual encounters.
Motel management often demands
that HRA only send young single
mothers with children below school
age, fueling perceptions that the Mets
wants to merge its two businesses.
But others contend that young
mothers with children are just less
likely to cause trouble at the motel.
Long and other homeless advocates
question the city's willingness to
place young children in the Mets' sor-
did environment.
HRA spokesperson Barbara
Thompson says the city has little
choice but to use places like the Mets.
"New York City doesn't have the lux-
ury to pick and choose hotels, " she
says. Thompson acknowledges the
"hot sheet" trade at the Mets, com-
menting, "My understanding is that
those signs are there but they're not
part of the building we use. "
Sam Goldstein claims only to be
the manager of the Mets. But his
name along with Berkshire Realty
and SJG Enterprises appears on city
tax records for the property. Neither
company is listed in the phone book.
Goldstein's name also appears on
mortgage papers filed with the city.
Refusing to answer any questions
about the Mets, Goldstein comments,
"I don't know anything, I just man-
age," adding, "a big corporation
owns" the motel.
Many of the homeless who have re-
cently stayed at the Mets are very will-
ing to talk about the motel. Twenty-
three-year-old Carmen Garcia was
sent to the Mets along with her hus-
band on February 4 for 14 days. She
says her room was a mess, with win-
dows broken, springs popping out of
the mattress, dirty sheets and a bro-
ken dresser. The manager refused to
listen to her complaints about the
room's condition. "He told me to
leave, that he wasn't going to hear any
problems from me," says Garcia.
Ronald Singletary and his wife, .
who is three months pregnant, began
their two-week stay on February 3.
He charges there were no clean sheets
or towels in the room and the mat-
tress was bloody and had holes in it.
"If I paid out of my own pocket they'd
treat me better. The people who come
for three to four hours get better treat-
ment," he declares. "They feel if wel-
fare is paying they don't owe you any-
thing."
Wanda Revell echoes these com-
plaints. Her 14-day stay ended on Feb-
ruary 11. "They don't give the [wel-
fare] recipients clean linen. You ask
them for it and they tell you they don't
have any. But you see them bringing
it to the others," she says.
"They could tear that place down
and forget it," adds Renee Brailsford.
She says the Mets didn't provide nor-
mal motel services to the homeless
clients. When the toilet in her room
overflowed it took two days for some-
one to come and fix it. And the room
she and her two children stayed in
was freezing. "It was so cold in there
when you blew out your breath there
was smoke," she remembers. A Janu-
ary 9 inspection of the Mets by the
Department of Housing Preservation
and Development turned up seven
building code violations.
Community Pressure
Queens-based homeless advocates
have been protesting HMs use of the
Mets since the spring of 1985. Com-
munity leaders wrote a flurry of let-
ters to then-Commissioner of HRA
Geroge Gross and to local and city
officials. A key complaint was man-
agement's refusal to give HMs Crisis
Intervention Services worker a per-
manent room at the motel. Without
office space, the CIS worker could not
help clients apply for food stamps or
other entitlements. Mets manage-
ment eventually relented when HRA
stopped referring families to the
motel.
But social services are still lacking.
The short stays most homeless
families are allowed at the Mets pro-
hibit the development of education
or training programs. "What can you
do with families that are there two to
fourteen days?" asks a frustrated
Greenberg.
The short stays also place an added
burden on the families. "It per-
petuates a whole lot of chaos and
mental confusion for the people,"
says Larry Long. "It's as disruptive as
anything can be. The kids are like
nomads," adds Beth Gorrie of the Co-
alition for the Homeless.
According to Community Board
representatives and some of those
who have stayed at the Mets, the
motel also has an active drug scene.
In the spring of 1985 the HRA relayed
allegations of drugs and prostitution
to the police. Officer Lewis Llanes, a
police spokesperson, says that inves-
tigation turned up "nothing solid."
Wanda Revell claims she has seen a
motel security guard selling drugs.
Carmen Garcia suspects the Mets har-
bors an active drug trade because of
the people she saw wandering
around the motel. Officer Llanes says
a second investigation of the Mets is
now underway.
Garcia finds it incomprehensible
that the Human Resources Adminis-
tration paid $65 a day for her to stay
at the Mets. She and others who have
stayed at the Mets have complained
about conditions to workers at the
HRA's Emergency Assistance Units,
where hotel referals are made. "They
don't care," says Garcia. "They tell
you to take what they give you or stay
out on the streets."
Theresa Greenberg has registered
numerous complaints with HRA offi-
cials about the Mets. "You call them
and people there are sympathetic, but
nothing ever happens," she charges.
Sometimes HRA officials suggest
pressuring the Mets' landlord. Green-
berg argues that the HRA is the one
that should be applying the pressure
since they pay the bills. "HRA is like
a travel agent," comments Bill O'Sul-
livan, district manager of Community
Board 2. "They could promise to fill
these rooms for five years. A travel
agent would ask for a cut rate. But
HRA doesn't even bother."
O'Sullivan and others at the Com-
munity Board have their own idea for
the Mets Motel. For the past two years
they have made the purchase of the
Mets one of their top capital budget
items. Greenberg says that for the
same money paid every year, the city
could be entering into a lease pur-
chase arrangement for the motel. A
nonprofit like the Red Cross - which
has already expressed interest -
could run the motel more cheaply
while providing better services and
allowing families to stay until they
find permanent housing. The city
continually refuses to act on the
Board's suggestion.
Greenberg hopes the city will at
least pressure the Mets management
into marginal improvements at the
motel. "The city needs to force the
management ... they're making a lot
of money on this," she comments. But
for families like Renee Brailsford's,
the Mets will remain a memory of the
worst the city can offer. Says
Brailsford, "Every time you mention
the Mets Motel to my son he nearly
breaks down in tears. "0
HEWI1T CONSTRUCTION
and
BUILDING SERVICES, CORP.
-General Contractors-
Services:
Building Management
Apartment Renovation
& Alteration
Roofing Work
Painting & Plastering
Call 212-473-0457
Hewitt Construction & Building
Services Corp.
212 Forsyth St.
New York, N.V. 10002
ORGANIZE
Back to Basics:
Organizing in the
Age of Austerity
Bob Schur always spoke the plain, painful truth about the housing
crisis. He wrote the smartest position papers and thought up the best
alternative programs. He was a legal wizard and a great political
strategist. Bob believed in neighborhood people and didn't trust
bureaucrats.
Bob Schur died unexpectedly of a heart attack five years ago this
month. Devastated by this loss, many of us in the neighborhood hous-
ing movement found it difficult to imagine how we could go on without
him, without his creative ideas, incisive mind and the no-holds-barred
directives that aimed at keeping everyone a bit more honest, be they
commissioners, technical assistance providers, directors of commu-
nity organizations, 7 A administrators or the tenants themselves.
Bob was once a city housing official who dared to let neighborhood
residents manage abandoned buildings. He left government to start
and direct the Association for Neighborhood Housing Developers and
there began what is now City Limits. Later he was a tireless consultant
who walked the neighborhoods in search of situations he could help
remedy. The harder the challenge, the more he dug in his heels, often
turning a losing battle into a local victory.
Bob had an uncanny sense for predicting what was about to happen
in the housing arena. He was the first to talk about curbing gentrifica-
tion and harnessing it for those who had stuck it out through the
municipal cutbacks of the 70's. And he was the first to help implement
such an effort, assisting the Lower East Side to defeat the city's artist
housing proposal. Later he worked on the start of that community's
comprehensive plan.
This month we honor the spirit of Bob Schur by reprinting Back to
Basics, one of his most important writings. It was first published in
the January 1982 issue of City Limits, which featured bold analysis
of Reaganomics and its impact on housing and low income neighbor-
hoods. Now, five years later, we see the results: 4, 800 homeless families,
including some 1,200 children and 26,000 homeless adults; 100,000
households doubled-up; 25,000 evictions through Housing Court;
countless units in disrepair and no new affordable housing in sight.
Bob never talked about impending homelessness, perhaps because
no one wants to believe that in the 1980's people would be living in
the streets. But Bob did know that whatever the magnitude of the
housing cirsis, there was always one important and fundamental sol-
ution - organizing and building the strongest and broadest move-
ment that could succeed in winning enough permanent, affordable
housing. Back to Basics is a reminder and shot in the arm for today.
And it gives us the foundation and fuel for our work in the Housing
Justice Campaign. - Harriet Cohen
BY ROBERT SCHUR
THE PROGNOSIS FOR NEIGHBOR-
hood housing groups in the era of
Reagan austerity is poor indeed - if
we look at the situation purely in
terms of dollars for neighborhood or-
ganization support and for housing
develorment projects. The full im-
pact 0 the present administration's
cutbacks have yet to be felt in the
housing sector. Once the current Sec-
tion 8 new construction, substantial
and moderate rehabilitation and the
Section 235 small home projects get
built, there won't be any more. The
only thing certain about housing and
community development budgets is
that next year and thereafter smaller
amounts of money will be available
to cover a broader range of activities.
While state and city officials decry
federal cuts, it is clear they are not
going to fill the gaps, especially not
in housing programs, which are not
only expensive but, in today's politi-
cal world, have low priorities. To the
extent that state and local govern-
ments do try to make up for lessened
federal aid, they are likely to reduce
what they now provide for housing
in order to replace some of their lost
revenues for welfare, health, food
stamps, education and programs for
the elderly. .
In this state of affairs, what are
neighborhood housing grou ps to do?
We suggest that, realistically, there
are two alternatives, and that one of
them can lead only to disaster for the
housing movement. You can, of
course, struggle all the harder to pre-
serve your piece (or as much of it as
you can) of the rapidly shrinking pie.
Or, you can reassess your situation
and begin doing what has to be done
to carry on the struggle for decent and
affordable shelter for all people.
Recall, first, that even in the "best
of times," we never had a national,
state or local government policy
which could resolve the housing
crisis. All we got in the good old days
was a few more dollars and a handful
of jobs, for which we were expected
(a) to "cooperate" with the public pol-
icy of the moment and (b) keep our
neighborhoods cool and free from
embarrassing confrontations.
And, recall, too, how easy it was.
For a few Section 8 units, a couple of
"points" of some private developers'
tax syndications and a few dollars
wrapped up in a package called
"neighborhood preservation" or
"community consultation," we fell
all over ourselves to become "respon-
sible" local agents of the establish-
ment. Of course, we grumbled a bit
about what we were told to do and
about comrlying with the arbitrary
demands 0 the bureaucrats. Many of
us were all-too easy frey to the co-
optation tactics 0 government
officialdom. Like generations of
elected officials from ghetto and
minority communities, the most
valid criticism which could be made
of us was how cheaply we were
bought.
Most community groups won't
have to worry about that much longer.
Except that the city and state (and
perhaps even the Reagan people to a
small extent) may still try to entice
us to bid against one another for the
few meager leavings which may be
put up for grabs later this coming year
and next. If anyone takes this bait,
know that you will most certainly be
sealing the doom of other groups now
and your own only a little later on.
For not only will the ante be lower,
but the quid pro quo is assuredly
going to be higher. With watchwords
like self-sufficiency and public-pri-
vate sector partnerships becoming
the order of the day, does anyone re-
ally believe that we will be able, or
even allowed, to serve the needs of
our communities while partaking of
public largesse? Anyone who does
this either lost (or never had) any per-
ception of what our communities'
needs are, or just plain doesn't give
a damn. In which case, welcome to
the New Order of Post-Great Society
Poverty Pimps.
Government Strategy
It should be plain enough by now
what government strategy is in being.
Instead of co-opting the local neigh-
borhoods by giving our kinds of or-
ganizations financial support and
projects to be busy with, the new
view is that we are no longer needed
at all. Reagan and Koch have clearly
written off the inner cities, the ghet-
toes and the minorities. Whatever
may be given out to the neighbor-
hoods this time will be even more
tokenism than before and is sure to
have tighter strings attached.
Where else can we go for soon-to-
dry-up-funding? The private founda-
tions and corporations? Haven't they
already made it clear that they are not
going to replace the government
trough? And to the extent that they
are still in the neighborhood business
at all , aren't they tightening the
Subscribe to CITY LIMITS
Just $ 15 brings you the best coverage
anywhere of the other New York. And
you 'U save $5 off the cover price.
Nam.
am. Dp
Individual. Community group rate:
o $15 1 year 0 $252 years
Business, gow't .InstItuUonal rate:
o $35 1 year 0 $50 2 years
o Payment ene1OHC1 0 BW me
ctty LImlts/.2. W 33rd st/New York, NY 10001
screws to make us the opposite of
what we thought we were in business
for? Witness the Jolly Green Giant of
them all- the good old Ford Found-
ation - announcing its Local Initia-
tives Support Corporation (USC)
which (a) gets directly into bed with
the largest and most reactionary bus-
iness corporations in the nation and
(b) tells neighborhood groups that if
you want any help, turn yourselves
into mini- entrepreneurs capable of
making profits off the local folk you
are supposed to serve.
The now becoming-privatized Na-
tional Consumer Cooperative Bank?
With its control by the big, non-poor
cooperatives, its 12 percent and up
loans and its drive to look just like a
private bank so it can peddle its
bonds, is that outfit going to meet our
needs?
It's time to go back to basics. We
must reverse the prevailing percep-
tion that neighborhoods of poor and
moderate income people don't count.
And we have to counter the efforts to
put neighborhood land to "higher
and better use" than as housing and
amenities for those who live there.
First, we have to understand, ourse-
lves, what the aims and purposes of
this government of ours really are.
Our government is not, and never
was, a benevolent one, bent on
equalizing resources and oppor-
tunities for the disadvantaged. What
progress has been made in this direc-
tion in past history was invariably
wrung from a reluctant establishment
which, from time to time, was made
to fear that worse might be in store if
it did not yield a few concessions
when demands became strong and
sometimes nasty. The civil rights ad-
vances, the welfare improvements
and even the housing programs
(meager as they were) of the 1960s
were the product of confrontations,
widespread civil disobedience in the
south, rebellions in the black ghet-
toes of the cities of the north and west
and welfare rights demonstrations all
over.
Housing, especially, has never been
a function of governmental concern
for poor peoples' shelter needs.
Though advanced as the responses of
socially progressive public officials,
government inaugurated housing
programs invariably provide the
biggest benefits for those who pro-
duce, finance and market subsidized
housing. It provides at most inciden-
tal (and always inadequate) relief for
needy housing consumers.
Put very bluntly, government pro-
vides benefits to the poor, minorities
and disadvantaged, not because they
love them, but because they fear them
so. The extent of government provi-
sions for these elements of society is
directly correlated with the degree to
which they generate such fear.
From Confrontation to Co-optation
Right now, government has little to
fear. Their handouts to neighborhood
groups during the 1970s helped put
them in their present precarious pos-
ition. A couple of years ago, Professor
Hans Spiegel of Hunter College wrote
a paper tracing the evolution of three
neighborhood-based organizations in
the New York metropolitan area. He
gave it the title: "From Confrontation
to Cooperation," thereby seeking to
encapsulate the "progress" of these
groups from fighting the establish-
ment to becoming its partner in deliv-
ering services to their constituencies.
Rereading that paper now, one has to
ask the questions: was the change
worth it when government cancelled
its part of the bargain? And, can those
groups return now to confrontational
tactics to regain what has been taken
away? A more apt title for Professor
Spiegel 's paper might be "From Con-
frontation to Co- optation and Can
We Go Home Again?"
To survive, and to achieve what
they were created to do, neighbor-
hood housing groups must become
confrontational. To do so effectively,
these groups must, first, organize
their communities. A decade ago,
every local housing group was first,
last and always, engaged in organiz-
ing. There wasn't much else one
could do then. There weren't any
Community Development Block
Grants, nor any Neighborhood Preser-
vation or Community Consultant con-
tracts; no CETA workers and no NSA
designations, UDAGs or Section 8s to
scramble for. And, of course, commu-
nity management, Tenant Interim
Lease and the rest of the alternative
management programs hadn't yet
been invented. Even tenant organiz-
ing against private landlords had a
rougher row to hoe. There was no
Housing Court; Article 7 A hadn't
been amended to make it at least
somewhat useful; and New York State
and City had never heard of a war-
ranty of habitability or of any rules
against retaliatory evictions.
But whether they organized out of
conviction or desperation, their ef-
forts bore fruit. Much of what was
won during the 70s would not have
happened had the organizing ac-
tivities and the rent strikes, marches,
demonstrations, sit-ins and building
take-overs not taken place.
Today, alas, many of the organiza-
tions which were once the best and
most successful organizers, no longer
do much of that. Some of them have
probably forgotten how. Other, newer,
groups never learned - all it took
them to get started was a friendly
elected official or two and a talented
proposal writer to make them into in-
stant neighborhood developers.
We have to go back to communicat-
ing with the residents of our neigh-
borhoods. We have to tell them the
truth about why they can't find decent
housing at prices they can afford and
why they are either being abandoned
or gentrified out of their homes and
neighborhoods. And if everyone
works together, something can be
done about it - but only if we are
mad enough and smart enough to do
what we have to.
We have to be organized and to act
as organized constituencies. We have
to go back to some of the old tactics -
and to become better at them than
we were before. Rent strikes and
building take-overs against landlords
who don't make repairs or provide
services - including the city and the
Housing Authority and HUD, wher-
ever they fail to give tenants what they
are entitled to. Demonstrations-
picketing, rallies, mass meetings-
against landlords, irresponsible
banks, public agencies and officials.
Who can recall the last time a group
of housing activists took over a com-
missioner's office, or picketed his
home or broke up a staid meeting of
an establishment conclave? What
happened to the heady excitement,
the enthusiasm, the rallying of hun-
dreds and even thousands to a protest
of just a few years ago?
Ask ourselves: how many bodies
can my organization get to march on
City Hall, or even to a local official's
district office, for whatever grievance
or purpose today? Then: what do we
have to start doing and how do we go
about it to be able to summon this
entire neighborhood into the streets
to send the message to those who are
exploiting and ignoring us?
Our own local housing con-
stituents, no matter how well or-
ganized, won't be enough. We have to
resume something else which we
once knew about but also seem to
have forgotten - networking.
We have to reactivate and radicalize
our existing and past coalitions and
umbrella groups. Outfits like the As-
sociation for Neighborhood and
Housing Development and the New
York State Tenant and Neighborhood
Coalition must be sharpened into
more effective spearheads for inter-
neighborhood and inter-city com-
munication and, above all, action
programs to make our voices and de-
mands heard loud and clear. Techni-
cal assistance groups must begin to
serve the people, and the real needs
of our organizations and cease being
satrapies of their public and private
funders.
Beyond the housing and neighbor-
hood arenas, we have to begin
dialogues with existing organiza-
tions, whose members are suffering
and whose goals are being thwarted
by the policies and programs of our
governments. The labor unions are,
of course, the largest and most weal-
thy of such groups. We need them and
they need us - if we get our acts to-
gether and can truly show that we
represent the residents of our neigh-
borhoods. The time has passed for
petty bickering over niceties of
dogma and questionings of motives.
Reaganomics is a mandate for
neighborhood groups to change their
strategies and reaffirm their original
goals. Just "getting funding" will no
longer suffice. The axe is poised to
fall. If you don't get it in'82, you will
for sure in'83. If we don't get the mes-
sage now, it will soon be too late.D
providing complete architectural and engineering services to
non-profit developers
NEW CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION AND CONVERSIONS
o Building Evaluation and Inspection
o Feasibility Studies
o Preliminary Design/Scope of Work Studies
o Complete Construction Drawings & Specifications
o Construction Supervision
HUD SECTION 202 SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING, HOMESTEADING
PROJECTS, GROUP HOMES, HPD RFPS, DSS/HHAP RFPS
Call John Harris RA. for an evaluation of your project's needs
J.C. HARRIS ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
580A GATES AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11221 (718)453-2406
BUILDING BLOCKS
Understanding an Electrical Systeln
THERE ARE MORE HOUSEHOLD
appliances than ever ~ h i c h may over-
burden even new electrical systems.
Here are some basics to demystify
your household electrical system.
Electrical system installations are
governed by Electrical Codes for mat-
erials and safe installation methods
to avoid the dangers of electrical
shock, fire or electrocution.
The basics of electrical systems
have not changed since electricity be-
came a common source of power in
homes. Power is measured in volts.
Most household appliances need
110V to 120V. which is usually avail-
able at wall outlets and light fixtures.
The outlets and lights are arranged
in configurations specified by the
code called circuits. Each circuit con-
tains a supply and return line for the
electrical current and a safety device
to control the rate of flow to outlets
and lights. Safety devices are either
circuit breakers or fuses.
The rate of flow of the electrical
current is the amperage. The amper-
age capacity of each circuit is
specified on the fuse or circuit
breaker. The amperage of the circuit
breaker or fuse is matched to the am-
perage capacity of the wiring in the
circuit and it is very dangerous to in-
crease the size of the fuse or circuit
breaker because it allows the user to
overload the wiring and seriously in-
creases the danger of a fire. Because
of this danger, Electrical Codes now
specify that only circuit breakers or
type/S (tamperproof) fuses can be
used on new installations since it is
too easy to put in the wrong size fuse.
Fuses and circuit breakers blowout
because of overloading - when
more appliances are used than the cir-
cuit can safely supply. In this case
the circuit shuts down before the in-
creased amperage draw becomes
dangerous. The solution is to unplug
some of the appliances and replace
the fuse or turn on the circuit breaker.
A short circuit can also cause a blow
out, sending current flowing directly
from the supply wire to the return,
rapidly increasing the flow and creat-
ing a danger. Inspect appliances for
damage, such as frayed wires or bro-
ken plugs. Burn marks may be evi-
dent at the source of the short. If the
problem seems to be with wiring in-
side the wall call a licensed electri-
cian.
A safety ground is built into electri-
cal systems to prevent electric
shocks. It provides a safe path
through a metal conductor that al-
lows loose electricity to flow into the
earth where it will dissipate. Addi-
tionally, Electrical Codes now require
ground fault circuit interrupters
(GFCI) to be installed at certain loca-
tions, usually where there is a danger
of water coming into contact with the
electrical system. If there is the
slightest imbalance in the electrical
system caused by current flowing to
ground the GFCI will turn off the cur-
rent immediately.
Total rewiring is expensive. It gen-
erally includes increasing the voltage
and amperage being brought into the
building. Today, a 100 amp service of
220 volts to 240 volts is required and
there may be 10 or more circuits. Most
modern appliances today still only
need 110 volts but many of them
might be used simultaneously, such
as air conditioners, television sets,
coffee makers, refrigerators, and hair
dryers.
Electrical Codes today specify cer-
tain circuits for certain uses. There
are lighting circuits for lights and con-
venience outlets. Appliance circuits
are installed in kitchens and dining
areas where a heavy use of appliances
is likely. Designated circuits are
single purpose circuits which func-
tion for specific appliances.
Appliances such as electrical ranges
that require 240 volts are always con-
nected to designated circuits in resi-
dential installations.
Rewiring may not always be neces-
sary to improve an electrical system.
Start with a circuit survey of which
outlets and lights are connected to
each circuit. This will show areas of
heaviest use and show how to distri-
bute appliances to balance the use.
Small homes or apartment buildings
still equipped with fuses can have
mini breakers installed to eliminate
the inconvenience of replacing fuses.
These are circuit breakers shaped to
screw in like a fuse. It is important
for safety reasons to use the right am-
pere size. Where there are no special
appliance or designated circuits a
safe assumption would be to use 15
amps. Appliance circuits usually use
20 amps. In some instances the ser-
vice at the main source is large
enough to accommodate an addi-
tional circuit.
Remember, Electrical Codes were
instituted to promote the safe use of
electricity and cutting short any code
requirements is not only illegal but
dangerous. For illustrated fact sheets
on electrical systems send a self-ad-
dressed stamped envelope to: HAND-
IVAN Program, Cornell University,
280 Broadway, Room 701, New York,
New York 10007. Mention City Limits
March 1987.0
LETTERS
CroNy Corrected
To The Editor:
In his City Limits interview Oan.
1987), Housing Commissioner Paul
Crotty said that groups which claim
that the 8A and Participation Loan
Program cause displacement "have
never been able to substantiate that
claim."
Most PLP rehabilitations include
Section 8 set-asides, so HPD believes
that displacement cannot result from
increased rents. In fact, there are so
many gaps in the regulations and the
application process is so difficult to
fathom that it is not at all unusual for
tenants to get lost in the paperwork
wilderness.
Today I spent at least half a day
trying to patch together pieces of Sec-
tion 8 and welfare payments which
mayor may not prevent one low-in-
come tenant from being evicted from
a building rehabilitated with a PLP
loan. Numerous other tenants in her
building are in the same boat.
As soon as I have time to "substan-
tiate" the displacement issue, I will
certainly do so.
Carol Smolenski
Housing Specialist
Gateway Community Restoration
Queens
WORKSHOP
ORGANIZER/COORDINATOR. For lower East Side coalition.
Tasks include: neighborhood preservation, building coalition
membership, promoting community plan, fundraising. Experi-
ence in tenant/community organizing; knowledge of housing
programs. Spanish language a plus. Salary: $18-20,000 com-
mensurate with expo EOE. Resume to: Personnel Committee,
lES Joint Planning Council, 61 E. 4th St., NY, NY 10003.
HOUSING MANAGER. Responsibilities: Managing up to 100
units of low-moderate income co-ops and 7a buildings; training
tenant cooperators in self management; assisting resident man-
agers of two senior housing projects. Requirements: BA or HS
plus minimum 3 yrs. equivalent experience; bilingual (Spanish!
English) preferred. Salary $20,000 + (negotiable); good benefits.
Send resume to: A. Sandra Abramson, St. Nicholas NPC, 11-29
Catherine St., Brklyn, NY 11211.
MULTI-ISSUE PROGRAM STAFF. Develop program/literature
on domestic issues and anti-apartheid for Mobilization for Survi-
val. Coordinate work with national goals task forces/affiliates.
Minimum 2 yrs. organizing experience required. Fundralslng
Coordinator. Administer and coordinate direct mail, grant writing,
donor solicitation, phone bank. Previous fundraising experience
desired. Salaries $16,000 per yr. plus benefits. Applicants should
support MfS goals. Positions available Third world
people encouraged to apply. Resume/writing samples to: MfS
Search, 853 Broadway, #418, NY, NY 10003.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STAFF. Several openings for BEC's
major, multi-year New Communities program. General
salary in upper forties; Project Managers, salary in mid-upper
twenties; Controller, salary in mid thirties. BEC is a large, church-
based empowerment organization in communities surrounding
Downtown Brooklyn. New Communities is redevelopment of in
rem buildings for working class ownership as co-ops and condos.
Send Resume to: Richard Harmon, BEC, 562 Atlantic Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11217.
HOUSING STAFF. City-wide housing organization seeks appli-
cant for staff position with skills in cost estimating, loan packaging
and processing, construction mgmt. and monitoring, architectural
drafting, scope writing and specs. Spanish speaking a plus but
not a necessity. Salary and job description negotiable based on
expo Send resume to: UHAB, 1047 Amsterdam Ave., NY, NY
10025, Att: lee Farrow.
HOUSING SPECIALIST. Queens Independent Living Center
seeks committed individual to assist persons with disabilities to
obtain housing and to work with the community to develop new
housing resources. Responsibilities include providing info on sub-
sidized and other housing resources, info on tenant rights, assist
persons to negotiate the system, work with local housing and
disability groups. Salary: mid to upper teens, depending upon
expo Available immediately. Personal expo with a disability a plus.
EOE. Resume to: QllC, 140-40 Queens Boulevard, Jamaica,
NY 11435.
STAFF ATTORNEY. Staff attorney for a project protecting tenants
in SRO housing. Will work as part of team with community or-
ganizers to represent individual and tenant associations in court
and before administrative agencies, to educate SRO tenants
about their rights, and help organize to save SROs. Qualifica-
tions: Admitted to NY Bar. Two to 3 yrs, expo in law practice,
including concentration in tenant group representation or equiva-
lent housing law exp., familiarity with SRO housing issues prefer-
red. Knowledge of Spanish helpful. Salary: $26,000 + depend-
ing upon expo Send resume to: Saralee E. Evans, West Side
SRO Law Project, Goddard-Riverside Community Center, 647
Columbus Ave., NY, NY 10025. EOE.
HOUSING STAFF. City-wide nonprofit agency seeks individual
to package low interest loans and tax abatements for
equity co-ops. Person to serve as tenant advocate and liaison
from application submission to abatement award. Negotiate with
city officials to ensure max. benefits for co-ops. Work with city
and in-house tech. staff to determine job specs, construction
monitoring and violation removal. Salary: high teens, depending
upon expo Send resume to: Rey Reyes, UHAB, 1047 Amsterdam
Ave. , NY, NY 10025.
HOUSING PLANNER. The housing planner will be responsible
for developing VSf1\s permanent and transitional housing prog-
rams for homeless baftered women and their children as well
as for training VSA staff on housing issues and ways to advocate
on behalf of clients experiencing housing difficulties. Qualifica-
tions: BA and advanced degree and at least two yrs. relevant
housing experience. Additional housing experience may be sub-
stituted for advanced degree. Excellent writing skills required.
Salary: $25,000, negotiable depending upon expo Send resume
to: Peter N. Pinckney, Victim Services Agency, 2 lafayette St. ,
NY, NY 10007.
"The Statue of Liberty is 100years old, Mayor Koch's bootie is getting cold" - Professor Louie
City Limits Doers Profile
NAME: Professor Louie, B.A., BMT, IRT
HOME: Brooklyn, NY, the Center of the Universe. Right across the park from the house
where I was born.
OCCUPATION: Rapping in your community
LATEST COMIC BOOK READ: Mayor Koch's face
AMBITION: To snatch it from the greedy, deal it to the needy. Throw it all on the wall in
cold graffiti.
LATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT: Rapping "The Mayor's Bootie is Getting Cold" before the
Board of Estimate.
PROFILE: Just another guy trying to feed his kids.
HIS MAGAZINE: If you got no blankets, the Times gives fuller coverage. But if you want
something to read, City Limits is where it's at.
For Professor Louie's tapes, call (718) 768-8728.

City Limits Magazine, March 1987 Issue

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

City Limits Magazine, March 1987 Issue

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

S L E A Z E A T T H E M E T : I' '

Você também pode gostar