city limits magazine, may 1980 issue

8/3/2019 City Limits Magazine, May 1980 Issue

1/24

CITYLIMITSMAY 1980

Housing CommissionerAnthony B. Gliedman:New Man"n the Pipeline

$1.50 VOL.5NO.5


2/24

OWNERSHIP, MIDDLE CLASS HOUSINGLISTED AS PRIORITIES BY COMMISSIONER

After eight months as housing commissioner-a position that insiders say he neither coveted nor had an obvious background for-Anthony B. Gliedman haschanged the working climate at HPD and has begun to.articulate priorities for housing in New York City.The Gliedman regime is not the "use it or lose it "whirlwind that blew through the .corridors of the housing bureaucracy under former commissioner (now deputy mayor) Nathan Leventhal.

"His style is very different," one HPD officialobserved. "Nat was much more of a nuts and bolts person. Tony is more of a leader. He delegates authority.We needed Nat here to develop the programs. Now weneed someone like Tony to lead the battle. Peoplefeared Nat and the CD meetings . . . I think things arecalmer under Tony.". Gliedman served as commissioner of Ports and Terminals for nearly two years before coming to HPD.Some say he found it difficult to follow Leventhal, whowas regarded as a strong policymaker and knowledgeable about housing programs. "He's not a housing person," an HPD source noted. "He was thrown into a bigagency with two weeks notice, and what he reallywanted was to stay where he was."In an interview with City Limits on May 6, Gliedmancalled for more tax breaks for homeownership, promoted a program to build middle income housing,vehemently defended his support of the fuel cost passalong to rent control tenants and practically shut thedoor on low income sweat equity rehabilitation.Gliedman also said he remains strongly committed tomaking the thousands of occupied city-owned buildingshabitable, intends to "backstop" future low-incometenant cooperatives with low-interest loans and believesthat next year's proposed $190 million CommunityDevelopment housing budget will enable HPD to "maintain all programs at a minimum" while expanding some."We needed Nat here to develop the pro-grams. Now we need someone like Tony to

lead the battle."Interviews with a number of Gliedman subordinatesproduced agreement that he is friendlier, more approachable than Leventhal, and that he has a freer styleof management.

"Tony is much more personable than Nat and muchmore friendly," said Assistant Commissioner JosephShuldiner. "But he is much less management-orientedthan Nat and much concerned with ombudsman issues.Now we're dealing with projects on a building-bybuilding basis rather than making developers and the

CITY LIMITS/May 1980 2

Office of Property Management the priorities. Thisrepresents a definite break with the past."Assistant Commissioner Jeffrey Heintz said, "Tony'schallenges are quite different from Nat's. Making spending decisions is now exceedingly wide open, and nowwe're trying a little bit of everything."Assistant Commissioner Manual Mirabal said Gliedman is quick to spot problems, and Assistant Commissioner Philip St. Georges said he is "trying hard tomaintain the high levels of productivity that have beenestablished for all the housing programs."Others in the agency were more critical. "Tony is verymuch interested in the political needs of Brooklyn as isthe mayor ," one official said. "I don't think he has anygood feel for the programs. He's a decent sort of niceman, but he doesn't understand the CD budget and he

hasn't been fighting City Hall very hard to prevent program cutbacks."Asked if the CD budget, which is $57 million less thanwhat HPD requested, would cause any of his programsto falter, Gliedman said the funding levels are more areflection than the cause of program performance."What the CD budget does is it doesn' t allow me as greatan opportunity to restore some of these programs tohealth as I' d like," he said. HPD is pursuing other funding sources to supplement programs that have been financed by CD grants in the past. Gliedman mentionedsubstituting Section 8 moderate rehabilitation funds forCD dollars in the Community Management program."There are three or four things like that hidden in herethat I hope to be able to do," he said.3,000 Units fo r SaleThe commissioner predicted that approximately 3,000housing units will be sold as low-income cooperatives totenant and community groups this year but said it willprobably be two or three more years before the city willbe selling more buildings than it will be taking inthrough tax foreclosure. Asked about the politicalfeasibility of spending so much money on In Rem housing ($118 million this year), Gliedman said, "I thinkthere's a real commitment there. 1 haven't seen themayor back of f an inch. HUD has specifically approvedit for another year." What about pressures fromneighborhoods with negligible amounts of city-ownedhousing? "The City Council hearing will be interesting," he replied. "People are raising it with me. But myposition has been that 1don't have other places to housethe 35,000 families that are there. I f we were going tobuild 35,000 units of new housing and put these peoplein there that would be swell. It's not going to happen."Gliedman said HPD is working now to develop a

continued on page 18


3/24

VANISHING SPECIESThe neighborhood housing movement is losing

one of its most important and effective tools: thecommunity organizer, the advocate, the link between an organization and the people of theneighborhood.The community organizer deals with day-to-dayproblems in the neighborhood; he/she know theresidents, brings the community issues to theorganization, organizes around those that areimportant, raises the level of awareness andbroadens the base of support for the organization.The chief attribute of a good organizer is not theability to speak, but to listen, to offer alternatives.There is hardly any large scale community issueor project that can be successfully accomplishedwithout an organizer, including many programsoffered by the city.With such an important role to play, why is theorganizer fast becoming extinct? One reason isthat government and private funding sources intheir love affair with the concept of "self-sufficiency" have stressed the need for groups toconcentrate on development and have aimed theirsupport at those kinds of projects. Organizing hasbeen labeled "software": at best irrelevant to theimprovement of communities and at worst excessbaggage unable to pay for itself'. Moreover,as groups attain "success," most of their manpower and energy get siphoned into administeringprograms.Community organizations are to be commended for accepting the challenge of providing housing for their neighborhoods when no one else iswilling to do so. Development, both housing andeconomic, is important if groups are to serve theneeds of the residents of the community. It is vitalhowever, to ensure that the organization is indeedserving the community and that the developmentis consistent with the group's goals. There mustbe a way to gain the community 's perception of itsneeds before priorities are set and programsimplemented.A strong organizer does that and much more. Itis important to remember that most organizationswere born out of the actions of a few concernedresidents who brought the issues to other residents and solicited their support for direct actionto resolve the problem. When one issue was re-solved, they moved on to others and eventuallythe corps of leaders evolved into organizations.

3

An organization that stops organizing faces theheavy risk of running head-long into a vacuum, ofbecoming estranged from the community and existing simply to perpetuate itself. At that point, thegroup sheds its role of community agent, advocate and resource center. It comes to be seen bylocal residents as just another institution.The problem with traditional institutions is thatthey tend to be geared toward service delivery, notbuilding local leadership. If community organizations are to continue to serve the goal of "teaching people how to fish" rather than doling outtheir own catch, there must be full involvement oflocal residents through the assistance oforganizers.If the skills of organizers are allowed to die,groups will no longer know if they are serving thecommunities or themselves. To succeed, development plans need the support of an informed andinvolved community.

We urge community organizations to: emphasize organizing as a high-status function and an integral part of the overall program. convince funding sources of the critical roleorganizers play in strengthening communities andimproving conditions.provide on-going training for organizers toensure continued effectiveness and communitysupport. 0

MAKE NOTECity Limits has a new telephone number:(212) 477-9074, 9075.

.CITYLIMITS'City Limits is published monthly except June/ July and Augus t!September by the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers,

Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. Subscriptionrates: $20 per year; $6 a year for community-based organizations andindividuals. All correspondence should be addressed to CITYLIMITS, 115 East 23rd St. , New York, N.Y. 10010.

Second-class postage paid New York, N.Y. 10001City Limits (ISSN 0199-0330)Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .Bernard CohenAssistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .Susan BaldwinAssistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom RobbinsDesign and Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis FulgoniBusiness Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolyn WellsCopyright 1980. Al l rights reserved. No portion or portions of thisjournal may be reprinted without the express written permission of hepublishers.This issue was funded by a grant from New York Communi1y Trust

Cover drawing by Dan Stern

CITY LIMITS/May 1980


4/24

LOW INCOME DISPERSAL PLANSTUMBLES OVER OPPOSITION

- ....---::::::--- - --------By Tom RobbinsA few years back, Newark commuters used to repeata cruel joke that belied a harsher truth. "Last one

out," one commuter would say to another, "turns outthe lights ." That one liner, which could have been toldin numerous metropolitan areas, reflected what ap-peared to be an increasingly common urban fact: thejourney to and from ever mushrooming white middleclass suburbs was made through dense, ever moreimpoverished and increasingly black and Hispaniccentral cities.Today, while the stark contrast between city andsuburb still generally holds true, the recent and well-chronicled influx of middle income whites into areas ofthe inner city has made the lines a good deal fuzzier. Anenergy squeeze, skyrocketing interest rates, new familyformations and an apparent shift in lifestyle preferenceshave combined to produce a growing trend among themiddle class to reject the path of a previous generationthat followed an expanding network of highways intothe green tracts of suburbia.

At the same time, low income communities of theinner cities have been by and large left out of the new


urban revitalization. "Gentrification," many commun-ity activitists assert, has made the real estate potential oflow income neighborhoods increasingly attractive andhas produced a strong rationale for the triage system ofurban planning-"planned shrinkage."It is from that perspective that a number of commun-ity groups have greeted a new federal program toincrease the option of low income minority city dwellers

to move to the suburbs with deep suspicion."We won't be fooled at this point," said one partici-

pant at a workshop of the National Low Income Hous-ing Conference held in April in Washington, D.C.,"that they love us so bad they have come up with awonderful program to expand our options, at preciselythe same time as the white middle class is expanding itsoption into our community."The workshop, made up of representatives fromorganizations from several major cities, voted todemand the elimination of the Regional Housing Mobil-ity Program, a $1.89 million effort of the U.S. Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development.Initiated last summer, the program is designed to


5/24

enhance the ability of inner city residents, through theprovision of Section 8 housing certificates and counseling, to make the shift from city to suburb. To implement the program HUD invited twenty two metropolitan areawide planning organizations to submit applications detailing how they would coordinate effortbetween private fair housing groups and public housingauthorities that administer the Section 8 subsidies.

Normally, it would seem that a federal program thatoffered no more than $150,000 to the planning groupswould barely draw the attention, let alone the fire, ofcommunity organizations. But in two cities so far wherethe mobility program was planned, a public outcry hascaused its cancellation, and at least one nationalcampaign is underway to have the scheme scrappedaltogether.Ironically, opposition to the mobility program appears to run totally contrary to the assumptions behindyears of court decisions against exclusionary zoning aswell as federal initiatives that have challenged overwhelmingly white suburbs. For example, in the 1976 Mt.Laurel, New Jersey case, a landmark fair housingdecision, the state Supreme Court held that every developing municipality had the obligation to allow for theaccommodation of low and moderate income housing.Other attempts have been made by fair housing groupsto block federal Community Development funds goingto suburban towns that have failed to provide lowincome housing. Also, in 1971, the NAACP declaredthat its top priority for the 1970's was housing integration in the suburbs.The opposition to the program appears therefore tobe a dramatic turnaround, and has pitted some fairhousing advocates against part of the constituency fairhousing is designed to serve. In a stranger twist, innercity opponents of the mobility plan have become at leasttemporary bedfellows of white suburban adversaries.By combining economic access, via Section 8 subsidies, with legal openings, HUD officials believe thelocked door to the suburbs may at last be successfullypicked. It came as a surprise therefore that the programhas stirred such controversy.

"There was never any thought there would be thissort of opposition," said one HUD official involved inadministering the program. "A t this point," she said,"the opposition is being overplayed. There is vocalopposed, but also vocal in favor."Philadelphia was one originally selected city where avocal opposition won out. The Delaware ValleyRegional Planning Commission dropped its intention ofincluding Philadelphia and the adjoining Pennsylvaniasuburbs in its application for HUD funds when it wasoutflanked by a combination of surbuban and inner cityresidents.The mobility scheme was viewed with particularhostility by Philadelphia black activists . A blackpolitical network had only recently flexxed an impres-

5

sive set of political muscles by defeating an attempt byMayor Frank Rizzo to run for a third term. That wasfollowed with a strong showing by a black candidate inthe ensuing mayoral race. In addition, black tenantactivists were in the midst of a major protest campaignagainst what they said was a HUD-backed plan toempty public housing projects of its tenants and eitherdemolish them, or fill them with elderly citizens.Instead of a program to enhance freedom of choice inhousing, the mobility program was viewed as an attempt

to break up a nascent black political power, and openup the inner city to middle class whites."We wanted to facilitate those who had a legitimatereason to move," said Alfred Toier, chief of the Housing Section of the DVRPC. But because of local opposition, Toier said, "the proposal died aborning.""There is no freedom of choice when both sides ofthe move are dilapidated," asserted Henry DeBernardo,chairman of the North Philadelphia RevitalizationCoalition who spearheaded the protest against theprogram. Rather than helping blacks move to the

suburbs, said DeBernardo, "since the government sawfit to knock everything down in the inner city, let thembuild it back up."Aside from Philadelphia, the only other city to haverejected the program because of minority opposition isSt. Louis, although in New York City, where the TriState Regional Planning Commission is overseeing amobility contract, one group has pledged to bring theprogram down. "We're informing the communityabout the plan," said Minister Michael Amen-Ra of theBlack: United Front, "and we intend to touch all legalbases to have it halted.""Right now in New York, said Amen-Ra, "Koch isgearing his moves to make black and Latin people think

it's better to get out of the city. The climate is such thata family won't think it's a good place to bring up theirchildren." Like DeBernardo and other critics of themobility program, Amen-Ra believes that the plan isintended to diminish "the awesome political power ofthe black community that was once a sleeping giant."Over a decade ago one of the sharpest thrusts of blackactivism was pointed towards what would appear to bethe same objective the housing mobility program isaimed at. Marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.into the white suburbs of Chicago demanded access forblacks to the better housing available there, and a courtchallenge to the Chicago public housing authority'srefusal to build projects outside of black communitiesled to the first successful piercing of all white suburbs .According to Amen-Ra, there is no contradictionbetween past advocacy of open housing by blacks andthe present opposition to the mobility program . "At thetime of Dr. King's struggle in Chicago, said Amen-Ra,"the federal government did nothing to enable mobility .Now, when suburban residents are trying to move intothe cities, all of a sudden they're pushing it hard."

continued on page 17CITY LIMITS/May 1980


6/24

NYC PROPOSED CD VI HOUSING BUDGETThe following tables compare a.) Mayor Koch's proposed CD VI budget; b.) HPD's CD VIrequest, and c.) CD V budget.

HOUSING PROGRAMS (in millions of dollars) . . . .Rehabilitation ... . . ... .. .. .. . ... ....... ... .Participation Loan Program . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweat Equity Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Article VIII-A Loan Program . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .Small Home Improvement Program . . . . . . . . .Mortgagee-in-Possession Program . . . . . . . . . . .Project Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Neighborhood Preservation Program . . . . . . . . . . .Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Complaint Intake and InspectionService Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Emergency Repair Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Housing Litigation Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Community Law Office Contract . . . . . . . . . . . .Management Transfe r Program . . . . . . . . . . .. .Project Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Community Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interim Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Permanent Site Improvement Program . . . . . . .Facade and Street Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical Assistance Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Homeownership Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . .Unsafe Building Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Unsafe Building Demolition and Seal-Up . . . . .Project Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In Rem Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Handyman Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Superintendent Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Repairs and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Storehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Property Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consultant and Community HandymanContracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Project Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In Rem Alternative Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tenant Interim Lease Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HPD/Housing Authority RehabilitationManagement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Management in Partnership Program . . . . . . . .Private Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Community Management Program . . . . . . . . . .7 A Leasing Program .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Project Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fair Housing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Section 8 Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HP D Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public Housing Modernization-New YorkCity Housing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


ProposedCD Year VI190.17338.75020.000.20012.0001.100.1505.3002.400

19.2309.0307.100

2.300.250.150.4004.0001.000.5001.0001.5000.00020.654

19.1541.50054.880

8.5007.50013.3001.0004.000.60019.980

30.8403.0003.5004.7002.10014.500.1002.940

.2301.000

11.9896.200

HPD CD VI Request(2180)247.01454.63428.0004.00014.5002.000.1505.9842.650

25.76510.9009.6292.500.2502.000.48610.2502.000.7502.0003.7803.00021.653

20.000.48662.74610.4008.70916.3001.3004.878

.71523.77843.3142.3607.0918.1882.15018.927.9653.625

.2302.000

12.918Not Available

CD Year V177.71226.51015.0002.0005.0003.0000.0001.5102.400

22.05011.9006.5002.5000.000.750.4007.2001.3003.200.200.7000.00019.150

18.0001.15054.8648.7006.70013.6001.0003.700

.27020.89426.700

1.0001.5002.2001.55016.750.5003.200

.2300.000

11.5367.072


7/24

COOPERATIVES, OTHERHOUSING BILLSSUBMITTED TO STATE LEGISLATUREBills that would likely put the brakes on the dramaticincrease in the conversion of rental housing tocooperatives have been introduced in the State Legis

lature. Some 25,000 units are expected to be convertedto co-ops in 1980, up from 5,000 units in 1978.Two changes in a bill introduced by AssemblymanEdward Lehner, Democrat of Manhattan, and JohnFlynn, Republican of Bronx-Westchester, would makeit more difficult to convert under plans that allow theco-op to evict non-purchasing tenants. One change isthat the bill would raise from 35 per cent to 51 per centthe minimum number of tenants whose consent to buytheir units would be needed to have an "eviction plan"co-op. The other is that the percentage would refer tothe tenants who were in occupancy when the plan was"submitted" to the state rather than when the plan was"accepted"-a later date when for a number of reasonsgetting consent is often easier.The Lehner-Flynn bill would also require the consentof 25 per cent, rather than 15 per cent, of the tenants inoccupancy at the time of submission in order to do anon-eviction plan conversion. It would give non-purchasing tenants 30 days following the date the evictionplan was declared effective to buy their apartments onthe same terms that were offered prior to the effectivedate. And it would protect tenants 62-year-old and olderfrom eviction regardless of their incomes. To dampenspeculation, a plan would normally not be accepted forfiling unless the building had been under the sameownership for at least two years. And finally, a planwould be deemed defunct if it did not become effectivewithin 12 months of the commencement of the offering.The Lehner-Flynn bill has been reported out of the

GRAND OPENING. Kande Garner, in front of328 East 120th Street,which she and other women rebuilt under the auspicesofBuilding forWomen, affiliated with Project Green Hope. The three storycooperative containing four apartments was rehabilitated under a City

7

Assembly Housing Committee and was being considered by the Assembly as City, Limits went to press.Another bill introduced by Assemblyman Saul Weprin,Democrat of Queens, and Senator Frank Padavan, Republican of Queens, would enact stronger protectionsbut is considered to have little chance of passage, havingfailed to get reported out of the Assembly HousingCommittee. That bill would outlaw eviction plans, require consent to buy of 35 per cent of the tenants in occupancy at the time the plan is accepted for filing andwould be statewide and permanent. The Lehner-Flynnbill affects New York City, Rockland, Westchester andNassau counties and expires in 1985. A third bill wouldestablish a near moratorium on conversions, reducingthe annual number of units to five per cent of the unitsapproved the previous year.

Other LegislationThe City of New York has submitted a legislativepackage in Albany that includes two bills concerningtenants in city-owned buildings. One bill would allowthe city to proceed with a holdover action-an evictionfor cause other than non-payment-even though thetenant may have paid rent to a city designated collectionagent such as a check cashing service or a bank branchafter the procedure has been initiated. Presently, rentpayment by a tenant the city is seeking to evict for causecan void the holdover action.A second piece of legislation would accomplish threethings: exempt non-profit groups, 7A administrators orother designated managers of city property from havingto become licensed real estate managers; give legalstanding to eviction proceedings brought by those man-

continued on page 22

low-interest sweat equity loan program. Adjoining the building is anew park area. Project Green Hope serves the needs of women returning to the community from prison, or who are referred as an alternative to prison.



8/24

UPGRADING THEBLOCK-AND THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD

by John MaynardIn the twelve years I have lived in or around the corner from East Thirteenth Street between Second and

Third Avenues, I have witnessed the uprooting and consequent destruction of neighborhood life tha t have beencharacteristic of the area. This article describes some ofwhat has happened and what is happening now, in thespring of 1980, in one Lower East Side block.Fourteenth Street and Third Avenue has been considered the northwest corner of the Lower East Sidesince perhaps the time Stuyvesant Town and PeterCooper Village went up, in 1947. Builders have put uphigh-rise and high-price apartment blocks in the neighborhood north of that corner, and expensive brownstone remodelling has taken place there as well. But, foryears, that large-scale change stopped at FourteenthStreet.Third Avenue has long awaited development: the citytook down the Third Avenue Elevated Railway in 1955;the Stuyvesant Trust dissolved, and new landlords tookover old cold-water tenements; speculators pulled downmany of the buildings between Seventh and FourteenthStreets after 1960 with a view to putting up tall apartment blocks. One went up near Fourteenth Street, andanother at Ninth Street. The others remain on paper,parking lots covering the area, while zoning disputescontinue. Several landlords have recently remodelledexisting four- and five-story buildings. The units rent

8

for $300 to $600 per month .On Thirteenth Street between Second and Third A venues, three resident landlords remodelled their ownbrownstone buildings in the 1960s. But a 1977 fire in atenement towards Third Avenue drove all eighteen families out and was the catalyst for the block's currentdevelopment. A fire in a mid-block tenement six weekslater destroyed that building's roof, forced the residentsfrom twenty-four more apartments, and left everyoneelse jittery. The landlord of the first burned-out buildingsold it over a year later to a company that engaged acontractor who was already remodelling a few of theThird Avenue buildings. Work is still in progress.Other people bought a small rooming house, previously a brownstone, and a condemned and vacantbrownstone; they removed the tenants from the first,remodelled it, and now rent to six tenants where twentyused to live. The second will have terraces on the back,indicating the future rents.Coincident with all this, a new landlord bought fivetenements in which the former owners had taken day-today interest: he operates them as a company enterprisewith twenty others around the city. Immediately, uponbuying each building, he face-lifted newly vacant apartments and increased rents on them to the upper limit; healso charged finder's fees equal to one month's rent andestablished a 'separate company' to collect these; heevicted two neighborhood clubs and moved to evicttenants one month late with their rents; oil deliverieswere spotty or nil for several weeks in the winter of1979, just after he had bought in. As his company hasgrown in the last year, different people, more personable and understanding of tenant problems, work in hisoffice, but building care and upkeep are fair-tomiddling.

It is clear that one owner who buys five buildings,with 125-150 apartments, is in the position to change theblock's character. The company has already begun todo this. Rents fQr the newly-remodelled apartments arenow too high for any welfare or working families on theblock, families whose earnings are $4,000-$10,000 eachyear . Increasingly, single people or young, small, professional families rent them.

In the meantime, the second burnt-out building'sowner began to get tenants to move from his three adjoining buildings so he could remodel them. (Ten yearsearlier, he had failed to get a remodelling plan approvedfor housing medical people working in nearbyhospitals.) His prod was to provide only occasional heatand hot water and to let fly, uncorrected, the rumor thateven these things would stop by wintertime. The ten-


9/24

ants, as one may imagine, were out of two of hisbuildings over a year ago and out of the third by thebeginning of this winter. Last spring and summer, mencame in to gut three buildings, but the work stoppedthere, and the wooden scaffolding above the sidewalkremains. Presumably, this owner is waiting to see the effects of the changes on the block before remodelling.Something obvious has happened. Between nine hundred and a thousand people lived on East ThirteenthStreet three years ago, mostly neighborhood-orientedHispanic families. Very likely, five-to-six hundred livehere now-only half are families; a third are Hispanic.Some families who lived in the now burnt-out and vacated buildings have moved into other apartments in theblock, but most have left and not returned. Moreover,none of the new tenants seems to be as attached to theneighborhood character of the block as the residentswho have made it a neighborhood: their relationshipsare with people who live elsewhere.This semi-purposeful 'upgrading' of the block showsthe owners' determination to raise income by getting outlower-rent people and getting in higher-rent people. Theimplicit and debatable view is that lower-rent peoplemake a bad block and are, thus, less desirable tenantsthan higher-rent ones.The landlords are not removing old buildings andputting up new ones, so, even with tax-abatement, theyhave no responsibility to clear their plans and work withthe neighborhood or the Lower East Side communityplanning board. They relate to block residents asincome-producing tenants, which was not always theonly part of the landlord-tenant relationship here: atleast one tenement landlord lived in one of his buildings,and another had her office on the block.The situation, which includes the fact that severalpillars of the block have moved and that the family feeling that held us together has greatly lessened in the lastyear, produces a dismal picture. People have gone tolive in Brooklyn, The Bronx, Jersey City, the nextblock, and Avenues C and D. Several still come back occasionally because the good feelings that were here areimpossible to forget: we knew each other, ate and drankand went on trips together, and were in each other'shouses and felt secure in a real neighborhood.

We must admit that we residents of this block havedone nothing to halt the process I have described. Wehave not sufficiently understood the need to learn housing law and social organizing and known that, withthem, we could have become the masters of our own little village in this block as others have become masters oftheirs. No small group or even one of us has had thecommitment to work with the rest of us to find thispower in ourselves to educate ourselves and be responsible to ourselves as a group. Personal relationships arewonderful, but we have let landlords do the social planning for us since the 1920s, when the block was a Russian, Polish, and Italian neighborhood. We have let the9

police deal with crime in whatever decent or corruptfashion they have seen fit. We let a big church program,the Police Athletic League, and then a minister run oursummer street programs for the children, all with nofinancial or moral accountability to or education of therest of us.We have permitted drugs to flow through and dealersto operate out of our block and out of our families for

years, even after we helped shut down two methadonedispensing centers, one of them on the Second Avenuecorner. Each new group of our young has members thathave started to use drugs and alcohol, to steal and gamble. We have spent little time to get them through schooland into work that really suits them, although manyhave done this themselves. A look at the block now doesnot tell a visitor that any of us has religious concerns.And in all but two of the fund-raising block-parties andaffairs, one or more families have pocketed most of theproceeds. Community work on a playground over fiveyears was a huge success, and we planned, publicized,and ran a massive clothing-and-food drive for hurricanevictims in Santo Domingo in the summer of 1979, butthese did not overcome the mistrust the money problemscreated. Though one building is beginning a rent strike,we are generally disorganized and not ready to do anything, except, again, maybe with outside help. We areripe to have others buy or rent the block out from underus, and we shall not be able to say or do much of anything about it.The same thing is happening to other blocks in theLower East Side.

This may seem to be good urban development andneighborhood upgrading. In this writer's view, it issimply new urban development and well-performedneighborhood destruction. It gets the poor of f thisisland without making available to them many of thesocial opportunities for which New York City hasalways been famous. It is heavy, but unspoken, clasJismand racism, and it moves out the aged, the unschooled,and the poor with big families while it moves in educated and wealthier people with no families or rathersmall ones. It is not unslumming, but gentrification. Itis the grinding of the face of the old, the poor, andworking people who lack the knowledge, ability, experience, or strength to put a stop to it. It is anything butthe integration of the Lower East Side. It is rather therestratification of it, on a higher, richer, level, with people whose commitment and responsibility to a neighborhood does not yet exist, engineered by people whosecommitment and responsibility to social justice do notappear to enter into their development schemes. 0

John Maynard is a Quaker sign-painter and videotapetechnician for teacher-training programs at New YorkUniversity. He has played in the Lower East Side since1952 and lived here since 1966.



10/24

ISO MAPS NEW INSURANCE BOUNDARIESTOMAKE THE RATES MORE CONSISTENT

by Bernard CohenFor the first time in more than 50 years, the insurance

industry is redrawing the boundaries of its rating territories in New York City after acknowledging thatsimilar properties only blocks apart were paying wildlydifferent prices for liability insurance.The new outline of territories and a set of revisedrates will be published in mid-May by the InsuranceServices Office, an association of some 1,300 propertyand casualty insurance firms. ISO collects data for theinsurance industry and promulgates rates that are usedby many companies.Some details of the new plan were explained at ameeting April 17 between New York State InsuranceDepartment officials, insurance company representatives, ISO and a delegation from the Northwest BronxCommunity and Clergy Coalition. The Bronx community group has been working for more than a year to endthe disparity in insurance rates by calling for the abolition of territories and substitution of building-by-building evaluations.Although ISO officials deny that the regrouping ofterritories is in response to pressure from NWBCCC,the two actions do coincide, and it is the first time since1926 that the industry has looked at the applicability ofits territorial map.New York City is currently divided into 89 ratingterritories by ISO. Liability insurance prices are set byexamining the number of claims and the amount paid ineach territory. Insurance officials said the revision isexpected to greatly reduce the number of territories andbring the rates closer into line with each other. Whatthose rates will be, however, will not be known untilafter the ISO circular is published.In probing the uneven rate structure, NWBCCCfound that a lO-unit building in the Crotona area of theBronx was paying $1,873-per-year for $300,000 worthof coverage, while a lO-unit building in approximatelythe same condition in the Fordham-Bedford area waspaying $427. A more deteriorated 12-unit building in theMosholu-Woodlawn area was paying only $325. Why?Different rating territories, not the buildings.

For example, a building on Longfellow Avenue in theSouth Bronx, located in territory 91, would be paying$8.30 per 100 square feet for the same coverage thatwould cost a similar building on Colgate Avenue, fiveblocks east in territory 88, $1.90 per 100 square feet. Inthe Northwest Bronx, homeowners living east of Broadway are paying a rate of $2.90. West of Broadway, therate is $5.30."Since June of last year, we have been asking theCITY LIMITS/May 1980 10

same questions about why buildings the same size, in thesame condition with the same insurance pay rates thatvary more than four times," Breda Campbell, chairwoman of the Bronx coalition's insurance committee,told the insurance representatives on April 17 . Othercommunity residents said insurance brokers neverinspect the buildings. They simply go to their ISO ratetables.ISO said that in reducing the number of territories,from 14 to 3 in the Bronx, for example, it will reduce theprice difference so that no building in the Bronx will bepaying more than two-and-a-half times the rate of anyother building .

" I t would not surprise me if those on the lower ratesfind themselves paying more and those on the higherrates pay less," said ISO State Manager HobartFountain .Last October, the State Insurance Department askedISO to explain the origin of the rating territories. In aletter of reply on November 8, Fountain said, "We canonly believe that these districts were originally adoptedyears ago (possibly in the early 19OOs) because of theunique character of the housing in New York City."He continued, "With respect to what factors aretaken into consideration . . .we could not determine theoriginal reason, since we know territorial districts weredeveloped prior to 1926, however, they were probablybased on the housing in each area. That is, how modernthe buildings were, if they were fire-resistive or sprinklered, how well they were maintained, and so on. Theremay also have been factors such as the amount of trafficthrough the buildings, the proportion of manufacturingbuildings and residential buildings, etc."A letter from the coalition complaining about theskewed rates drew a hand-wringing reply from HenryBergens, a State Insurance Department official onMarch 17:

"In this connection, it may be noted that there willalways be sections within a territory whose loss experience may be somewhat better or worse than the lossexperience for all risks in that territory as a whole. Thisis true of any classification. Problems are apt to beraised with regard to residents on either side of the territorial boundary line. Of necessity, no system willproduce equity."The community representatives were told that a"schedule rating" discount system enables underwritersto drop the cost of certain liability policies by as muchas 25 per cent after inspecting the premises. Sincebrokers do not make such inspections, buildings in the


11/24

Bronx are deprived of the possible savings, they responded.At hearing this, Martin Greenspan, general counselfor the insurance department, told the gathering, "Ithink they (insurance companies) have an obligation toinspect the buildings. I think that's the least you areowed. The company should go out and take a look andlet you know-if it's good, bad or why if they are notgoing to insure."Frank Barry, a director in the commercial departmentof Aetna Life & Casualty in Hartford, Conn., said thatschedule rating is only available for policies at or abovethe basic premium limit of $1,000. "It's arbitrary andjudgemental," he acknowledged when questioned aboutthe $1,000 figure. "I can't say it's terribly scientific."But mandating inspections of properties with smallerpolicies would not be cost-effective for the company orits policy-holders, he added.Attending the New York meeting were representativesof Travelers, Allstate, Hartford and Aetna insurancecompanies. A week later, three of the country's top

GROUPS CLAIM DELAYIN CD CONTRACTS

In December, 1979 HPD awarded contracts rangingfrom $20,000 to $80,000 to 45 neighborhood and citywide organizations. But as of early May only sixteen ofthe groups had actually received money. The contracts,paid for by the Community Development Block GrantProgram, were scheduled to run from January toAugust, 1980 and were to be used for such tasks as tenant organizing, building surveys, architectural fees andpackaging loans with landlords, developers and sweatequity homesteaders.According to Marcia Reiff in HPD's Division ofCommunity Development, the delays are due to "thefailure of many of the groups to submit the requiredscope of services, budget, cash flow and performancestandards to us in acceptable form." Each group metpersonally with a monitor Reiff said, and was told whatto do and how to do it. "When they don't do it right thefirst time, that means a lot of extra work sending papersback and forth," she said, "then that delays getting thecontract to the Board of Estimate for its approval ."According to some recipients however, the processwas never clear. Roger Finney of Housing ConservationCoordinators in Clinton said, "They gave us no formsto follow and were quite casual in their first instructions. But whatever we submitted was rejected. I had tosubmit first to our local Neighborhood Preservation Office and then downtown. Whatever the NPP person approved, downtown disapproved. Then in about the second month of the process, they gave us a form devel-

property insurers signed an agreement with NationalPeople's Action at its annual meeting in Baltimore toend redlining abuses in the nation's urban neighborhoods.Representatives of Hartford, Travelers and theUnited States Fidelity and Guarantee pledged on behalfof their companies, "that as a matter of corporatepolicy, no homeowner or business applicant will bedenied full coverage conventional insurance solelybecause of 1) location of building, 2) age of building, 3)construction of building-brick or frame, 4) applicantpreviously or presently insured by the FAIR plans."A bill introduced last March in the U.S. Senate wouldsharply restrict the ability of industry-wide associationssuch as ISO to promulgate rates. Called the InsuranceCompetition Improvement Act, the legislation wouldremove the immunity from federal anti-trust laws thatthe insurance industry had enjoyed for 35 years. It wasintroduced by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio.Hearings before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee areexpected soon. 0

11

oped by some group in Flatbush, which in no wayrelated to what we planned to do. They said that was themodel, but when we followed it, our new submissionswere rejected, too."Gary Hattem, Director of St. Nicholas NeighborhoodPreservation & Housing Development Corporation inWilliamsburg had similar complaints. "This is a terribleprocess. I have been negotiating with HPD for a renewal of my contract since October. I would never gothrough this if we didn't need the $20,000 so badly."Because of the long delay in receipt of the money,some groups were unable to pay existing or new staffpersons. Others paid staff, but not creditors.Groups complained that the revisions required byHPD were often not substantive; three groups reportedhaving to retype the entire submission to be sure that theword, "consultant:' was capitalized. The consensus ofopinion was that no one at HPD was able to give preciseinstructions. George Calvert of Hope Community inEast Harlem said, "N o one tried to facilitate the process." Gwen Moody of Prospect Lefferts GardensNeighborhood Association said the problem was,"They were constantly changing their minds.""Even after you get the money:' warned JoyceWarner of Flatbush Development Corporation, thelargest contractor and one of the first groups to be funded, dealing with HPD on vouchers and monthly reportsis very time consuming, because one hand doesn't knowwhat the other is doing."Several of the groups expect their contracts to comebefore the Board of Estimate at the end of May, havingcompleted their revisions in March. Funding shouldbegin for those approved by Mid-June. 0 Toby Sanchez



12/24

CAREY DROPS DHCRBREAK-UP PLAN

Facing certain legislative defeat, Governor HughCarey has abandoned his three-month-old plan to dismantle the state Division of Housing and CommunityRenewal.Carey's reorganization plan had met with universalnegative reaction in both houses of the State Legislature

and from civic organizations. Its major feature was thedispersal of DHCR's functions to a variety of agencieswithin the Executive Department. DHCR was to become nothing more than a rent-setting agency, with theNeighborhood Preservation Companies program goingto the Department of State along with coordination offederal C.ommunity Development Block Grants .Carey referred to his plan as "consolidation." Criticstermed it further fragmentation. The New York StateTenant and Neighborhood Coalition issued a legislativememorandum attacking the plan for going in "thewrong direction," and urging instead the creation of anew Department of Housing and Community Affairsincorporating under one agency all housing and CDprograms.The "first phase" in the reorganization was to beenactment of a bill to expand the powers of the Mortgage Loan Enforcement and Administration Corporation. Created last year by executive order to collectmortgage arrears due to the state from owners of 113Urban Development Corporation and Project FinanceAgency housing projects, MLC cannot assume jurisdiction over 114 Housing Finance Agency projects without .legislative approval.The MLC bill met heavy resistance, much of it relatedto the reorganization. Both Assembly Housing Committee chairman Edward Lehner (Dem. Manhattan) andSenate Housing Committee chairman Caesar Trunzo(Rep. Suffolk County) expressed opposition. Legislators generally agreed with the goal of going after"recalcitrant owners" of state-assisted projects whowithheld mortgage payments due to the state (since lastyear MLC has collected $7 million in arrears), but questioned the structural changes contained in the bill.DHCR rank and file civil service staffers used personaltime to lobby against the bill on grounds that it wouldmean loss of their jobs.Lehner scheduled a hearing on the MLC bill May 1.By 10 a .m. the hearing room at the State Office Buildingin lower Manhattan was so packed with DHCR employees and other opponents that many people could not getinside.Acting Commissioner Joseph Goldman, testifying infavor of the MLC bill, signaled abandonment of the reorganization by stating that except for MLC and a billto transfer the Housing Development Fund fromDHCR to HFA, "no further legislation regarding a

restructuring of DHCR and its functions is contemplated." He announced an "internal reorganization"and concluded: "No DHCR staff members will be outof work because of the passage of the MLC bill orbecause of an internal reorganization." Carey's originalreorganization proposal was being scuttled in order tolessen opposition to MLC. As City Limits went to press,negotiations were continuing over a revised MLC bill.In a subsequent interview Carey's housing aide JudyFrangos stated that the Governor still intends to implement the Council on Housing and Community Development, to consist of the heads of DHCR, UDC, HFA,PFA, the Office of Urban Revitalization and Department of State, plus an outside chairperson and threepublic members. Appointments are to be made following the current legislative session. Frangos expressedhope that the Council would develop a plan for restructuring the state's housing programs: "The basic problem is that New York has too many agencies in the housing and community development business." Anothersource joked that the various agency heads would be instructed to "bring their own guns" to Council meetings.Still to be resolved is the fate of the Buffalo andAlbany regional offices, which were transferred April 1from DHCR to OUR. Frangos indicated that nothingwould be done before the internal reorganization planwas worked out, and that in the meantime it made nodifference whether the regional staff members were onDHCR or OUR lines, as their functions would notchange. 0 MichaelMcKee

PASSALONG SUITDECISION PENDINGA suit to block the implementation of the fuel passalong bill, which was cleared by the City Council April14, is now before a State Supreme Court Judge who willdetermine whether a preliminary injunction should begranted.Brought by City Councilman Stanley E. Michels,Democrat of Manhattan, along with seven other Council members, the suit claims that the bill was passed inviolation of proper legislative procedures.The passalong bill, which was the subject of intenselobbying from both tenants who were opposed and city

hall which strongly favored the legislation, allowslandlords to pass along 75 per cent of all fuel cost increases to tenants in 400,000 rent controlled apartments.The bill does not cover fuel usage above the rate of 230gallons per room per year, nor does it affeect seniorcitizens with rent exemptions. The average rent hikeretroactive to January I, is expected to be $3.25 perroom per month.Judge Ira Gammerman heard oral arguments on therequest for the preliminary injunction on May 9 and isexpected to give his decision by June 1. 0



13/24

CHANGES PROPOSED FOR NPC GRANTSThree state legislators have introduced a bill which, ifenacted, will significantly modify the state's three-yearold program of grants to community-based organizations engaged in various neighborhood preservationactivities.The bill, filed by Republican State Senator DouglasBarclay, Republican of Pulaski, Assembly MajorityLeader Daniel Walsh, Democrat of Franklinville, andAssembly Housing Committee Chairman Edward Lehner, Democrat of Manhattan, would create a new Article 17 of the Private Housing Finance Law, to providegrants to rural neighborhood preservation companies incommunities with less than 20,000 population. Thelegislation would also amend the existing Article 16, theNeighborhood Preservation Companies Act, whichbecame law in 1977 and which now provides some $6million in administrative and planning funds to approximately 150 neighborhood organizations throught the

state.While the NPC program was designed for urban communities, a dozen or so rural groups have been fundedas well. The three sponsors are seeking an appropriationof $750,000 for the rural NPC program; if successful,they will free the funds not committed to rural organizations under Article 16 for additional urban grants.The legislation would replace the current three-yearfunding limit with a $300,000 aggregate cap, wherebyan organization receiving a $50,000 annual NPC grantwould be eligible for six years of state funding. Theoverwhelming majority of grants so far have been in the$30,000 to $40,000 range; very few groups have receivedmore than $50,000, and only two $100,000 grants, themaximum allowed in one year, have been made.Commercial revitalization projects with respect to"retail and service establishments" would also becomeeligible activities as long as they are carried out in connection with housing programs.The New York State Tenant and Neighborhood Coalition and the Rural Housing Coalition are jointly lobbying for passage of the new Lehner-Walsh-Barclay bill.Persons interested in the issue may call Nancy Travers(589-3839), Sandra Abramson (388-5454) or MichaelMcKee (964-7200).

Gains In NPC BudgetThe Fiscal Year 1980-1981 budget adopted by theLegislature last month in effect adds some $1.6 millionto the NPC program. Governor Hugh Carey had requested an appropriation of $6,786,500, down from the$6,925,000 appropriated last year. The Legislaturerestored the $138,500 cut, which Carey vetoed, but alsorolled over $925,000 in unexpended 1979-1980 funds,which was not vetoed.The reappropriated $925,000 had been impounded byCarey's Division of the Budget which had ordered the13

state Division of Housing and Community Renewal notto exceed $6.02 million in grants. The $925,000 rolloverplus the last $786,500 of Carey's budget request therefore represents "new" funds which DHCR can use forNPC grants during the current fiscal year, assumingthat the Budget Division does not make further impoundments, which technically it has power to do.

NPC director Elizabeth Searles of DHCR stated thatshe intends to use the $786,500 for increases tocurrently-funded organizations whose third-year andsecond-year grants will be made this year, and the$925,000 for first-year grants to new groups.Continuing negotiations between the Legislature andGovernor over the budget might also result in ultimaterestoration of the vetoed $138,500, which Carey hadproposed as part of his across-the-board 2 percent cutsin all "local assistance" programs, whereby the statefunnels dollars into localities through such programs asaid to education, transit, the arts and neighborhoodpreservation. 0 Michael McKee

Advertisemen

Peoples Housing NetworkSummer School For OrganizersSat. June 28, 10AM-4PM"Understanding Community Organizing"

Instructor: Roger Hayes $12.Sat. July 12, 10AM-4PM"Rent Control & Rent Stabilization"

Instructors: Michael McKee, Bill Rowen $12.A Special Series of Classes on Legislation:Wed. June 25, Wed. July 2, Wed. July 9,Wed. July 16, 6PM-8PM, $4 each class.

Subjects:"The State Legislature"; "Reapportionment""Techniques of Lobbying";"Congrtss-How I t Works"

Instructors:Norman Adler, District Council 37, AFSCME;Leslie Loble, Democratic Study Group, U.S. Houseof Representatives.

All 6 classes: $35. For information about location,group discounts: Yvette Grant 2121964.7200.



14/24

SEWARD PARK: WHOSE PROMISED LAND?

Seward Park Extension Urban Renewal Areaby Tom Robbins

Just south of Delancey Street on the Lower East Side,where traffic headed onto and of f the WilliamsburgBridge whizzes past swarms of shoppers seeking out thearea's famed bargains, lie several vacant acres of cityowned real estate. Except for a handful of buildings thathave escaped the wrecker's ball, and two fiercely contested housing developments, most of the 14 squareblocks have remained largely unused since the late 1960swhen they were designated an urban renewal area. Sincethat time the use of those acres has been fought overalmost as much as certain areas of the Middle East, andnearly as many failed peace initiatives lie buried in therubble of its demolished buildings.The latest, and perhaps the final, city attempt tobalance the competing demands of the area's Jewishand Hispanic populations, received only partial approval by the Board of Estimate on April 24. The Jewishcommunity, based mainly in 4,500 cooperative apartments south of the renewal area, has sought commercialbuildings or middle income housing on the sites. Thelarge, housing-needy Hispanic population to the northand west, has long urged the construction of lowerincome housing units.


The Board's decision, to amend the plan to excludelow income family housing from the site has left theHispanic community feeling "cut out" and more bitterthan before.

By a 9-2 vote, with only the Mayor's off ice dissenting,the Board voted to adopt an amended proposal by Manhattan Borough President Andrew Stein that called forapproval of an "international mall" along the southside of Delancey Street, and 156 apartments for theelderly and handicapped. The prime bone of contention, 100 units of low income family housing waseliminated by Stein's amendment.A third factor in the proposal, the fate of several cityowned buildings, two of which are tenanted, remainsunclear as present building plans call for their demolition.Argument and debate over the sites has always beenheated and often laced with charges of racism. Thestruggle between the two communities has spilled overinto the streets at times, and has also led to lengthy andinvolved legal challenges on the tenancy of the projectsthat have been built.


15/24

The Board of Estimate meeting was no exception tothat strain, and spectators for and against the familyhousing traded insults during the hearing. When Steinleft the chamber, following the adoption of his amend-ment, a chant of "Racist! Racist!" arose from manyspectators. Stein was quoted later as saying that to at-tempt to combine economic development with low in-come housing was "ludicrous" and that "every ex-perience with low income housing shows it creates crimeand social problems." Stein's office later insisted thatthose remarks were taken out of context, and were notindicative of his feelings about subsidized housing forthe poor.

"W e believed it was a unique opportunity to do com-mercial development," said Stein's Deputy Jesse Masyr,"and we didn't think it essential or wise to place on topof economic development a low income project." Thearea north of Delancey Street, Masyr said, needs stabili-zation much more. "Around (Avenues) Band C there'sjust a lot of rubble," he said.

While the United Jewish Council, the major groupthat has contested low income housing, had opposed theconstruction of the elderly as well as family apartments,it still reacted to the Board 's vote as a victory."The homework was taken care of," said DouglasBalin, Executive Director of the UJC, when asked aboutthe lobbying effort his group had undertaken before thevote, including reports that delegations of rabbis from

around the city visited Board members to press theirconcerns about the plan."I n our Board's eyes," said Balin, "there is nothingwrong with saying this is our neighborhood. This is a

large Jewish community and we want to preserve it. "The plans for the Seward Park Extension Urban Re-newal Area had already been thrashed out on a locallevel, with Community Board #3 voting in favor of theplan.The Lower East Side Joint Planning Council, whichhas actively promoted the construction of low incomehousing on the sites to replace the more than 1,400 lowincome apartments lost to demolition when the area wascleared, asserted at the hearing that the United JewishCouncil was attempting to make Delancey Street a de-marcation line between the two communities . The city,the group stated, had a moral obligation to providehousing for those in need in an area where an inte-grated, low income neighborhood had existed.

"We took a lesson in hate," said Nestor Cortijo ofthe JPC after the Board's vote. "But those who hate aregoing to have to realize that they will reap hate as well ."While the thrust of Stein's amendment-eliminate thelow income units-was understood by the Board mem-bers, it was not until some days after the vote that thespecifics of the changes adopted were understood by all.Presently the disputed site, 2B, is listed as residentialwithout specifications at to type.

15

"We're still committed to the original goals ofSeward Park Extension," said HP D Deputy Commis-sioner Ron Marino, "but, as it stands now, the amend-ment bars any low income housing on that site otherthan elderly. It is too politically charged a situation toattempt to amend the plan again. We'll have to look atother sites for housing."

According to Balin, that is exactly what the JPCshould have been doing originally. "There are plenty ofother parts of this community board that are in moredesperate need of housing," said Balin, "but this areahas generated interest in economic development andthat is what it is best suited for." The JPC, said Balin,"wants to see this as a turf battle. They look for sym-bols. They would settle for a couple of tents on GrandStreet."

Part of the argument for integrated low income hous-ing in the urban renewal area stems from the identity ofthose who originally lived there, who, according to cityfigures, were more than two thirds Hispanic, black andAsian, and one third white. Most of the buildings de-molished were aging old law tenements, but some werespacious structures with elegant facades.One of the better buildings on the urban renewal areastill stands at 384 Grand Street, and is home to twentyfive families, eight of whom lived on the site in 1965 andthus have vested rights to reside in whatever housing isbuilt, provided it is within their income range.

Joyce Burger, who lived in two other buildings in therenewal area since 1965 before moving into 384,said shehad no interest in living in a high rise. Her three and onehalf rooms, for which she pays $73 per month, are largeand airy, she says, compared to the other buildings shehas lived in. "The places they want to send me fromhere," she said, "you wouldn't want to house an animalin."But saving 384 Grand Street, along with anotherbuilding on the site designated for senior citizen's hous-ing, is a thorny problem, which would take some deftmaneuvering and strong commitment from the city-acommitment city officials don't appear to have at thispoint. HPD insists that maintaining the building wouldmean consuming over 30 per cent of the open space, anamenity they say is crucial to the plan. In addition, of-ficials say, there are legal and financial difficulties in-volved, anyone of which might cause enough of a delayto make HUD withdraw funding for the project.Beni Matias, a tenant of 384 Grand Street for twoyears, insisted that demolition of the buildings would bewasteful: the other building, 195 Broome, will bedemolished, she points out, for parking, which HPDsays the project doesn't need but is mandated by HUDto have. The rest of the area will be landscaping saidMatias. "We support the planned housing," she said,"both the senior citizen and the family. The originalplan included the existing buildings and we think the



16/24

city has managed on other urban renewal sites to provide for standing buildings and they should do it here aswell."According to Marino, demolition of the buildings willtake place, but not for some time. At the moment noevictions will be ordered. While the Stein amendmentprovided for rehabilitation of the buildings for low income families, there are no plans in the works to dothat.

On site 2B, where the low income family initiative wasdefeated, things appear to be in limbo. A firehouse onthe site that has served as a youth center for severalyears may face ultimate demolition as well. The plan advanced by the Grand Street Settlement, which was thesponsor of the housing, called for the firehouse to bepreserved.What will ultimately be built there remains to be seen,and may call for a new round of negotiations. But having demonstrated they have the political clout to stymielow income housing, the United Jewish Council is notexpected to concede much. Balin of the UJC said hisorganization would be in support of elderly housing onthat site as well. But Marino, noting that an additionalsite has been slated for elderly housing to be sponsoredby the UJC and the Bialystoker Synagogue, said "Idon't think it makes sense to make that area the gerontology center of the U.S."According to Ken Kimmerling, attorney for the JointPlanning Council, the group is looking into thepossibility of litigation, challenging the Board's vote.

"W e originally fought to keep the city from takingany of the buildings around here," said Nestor Cortijo,"then we fought their original plan to build nothing butmiddle and upper income housing. Now we're stillfighting to get the housing our people need." 0

VOLCKER SPURNS 8%INTEREST RATE IDEAEight community leaders representing hundreds oflocal organizations throughout the country met withPaul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, onMay 6 to present him with ideas for reducing interestrates in low and moderate income neighborhoods. The

lower rates would apply to mortgages, home improvement and rehabilitation loans for small homes andmultiple dwellings.The meeting took place as the result of a demonstration at Volcker's officer on April 14 by about 700delegates to the 9th Annual National Peoples ActionConference.Neighborhood groups from around the country havefelt over the past year that victories won through theCommunity Reinvestment Act (CRA) were often beingnullified because of soaring interest rates. Redlining byprice has begun to replace redlining by location. Neigh-CITY LIMITS/May 1980 16

borhood leaders are asking what good it is to win impressive agreements on reinvestment from banks whenthe interest rate is 15 or 16 per cent, rates that even moreaffluent people have trouble affording.They have linked the high interest rates to policiesenacted by the Fed as part of the CarterAdministration's a ttempt to reduce inflation.The neighborhood participants at the meeting camearmed with two specific proposals. The Fed should require lower reserves from banksthat are willing to lend to low and moderate income persons at 8 per cent instead of 15 per cent. For banks that agree to lend to low and moderateincome borrowers, the Fed should lower the interest rateit charges from 13 per cent to 6 or 7 per cent.These demands were the first real attempt to crackopen the so-far impenetrable wall that seems to protectthe traditional ways housing is financed in this country.Instead of subsidizing interest rates for large developersthe way programs such as 236 and 221(d)(3) were designed, these lower rates would be offered to low andmoderate income homeowners tenant cooperatives andresponsible landlords by banks with the aid of theFederal Reserve.In keeping with his tough-guy image as the soleprotector of the U.S. economy, Volcker refused toagree to any of the group's demands, saying they represented activities the Fed has "traditionally notengaged in." It was brought to his attention that 16 percent interest rates on mortgages were something mostpeople had never dealt with either.Volcker's aides said a program of requiring lowerreserves in exchange for lower interest rates on mortgages would be illegal. This point has been disputed byother economists with whom neighborhood leaders andresearchers have consulted. As for the idea of loweringthe rate of interest for loans to banks so they could passthese on to consumers, one aide to Volcker remarkedthat this was clearly possible legally. Then why wouldn' tVolcker do it? "It's a political decision," the aide said.

"Volcker was clearly not prepared to agree to anythingat this meeting. He did not want to understand that wewere there to pressure him to get after the financial institutions," said Richie Gallagher of the NorthwestBronx Community and Clergy Coalition, who attendedthe meeting. "He kept saying that if we were looking forsubsidies that we should go knock on HUD's door. "Neighborhood leaders are now putting togetherstrategies for dealing with the Fed at the local level aswell as trying to push for Congressional hearings intothe crisis of housing financing in low and moderate income neighborhoods. New York City's CoalitionAgainst Redlining is considering various says toorganize around this issue locally. Any reader who is interested in learning more should contact Roger Hayes,CAR, 198 Broadway, Room 1100, N.Y. 10038. (212)964-7200.0 Roger Hayes


17/24

Dispersal continued"Our position is that if people freely volunteer tomove to the suburbs, they should have that right," saidDeBernardo. "But we object to coercion. We don'twant to see people hoodwinked out of their homes."Paul Davidoff of the Suburban Action Institute,which has a lengthy track record in working to open up

the suburbs to low income residents and is participatingin Tri-State's contract with HUD for the mobilityprogram, believes the essential issue is one of freedomof choice. "We're looking to identify those people whomay be working already in a suburban job but can't findhousing nearby because of cost or discrimination."On the other hand, Davidoff and others recognizethere is a thin line between choice and coercion whenthere is little to choose from in the cities already. "Thereis a right to reside in place," he insisted at the Washington conference.While all officials queried on the intent of the mobility program claimed it is aimed only at those wishing tomove, critics of the program cite a gap between thatclaim and the description of it in the consultant studyHUD commissioned for the program. That study, prepared by the Housing Advocates of Cleveland, Ohio,suggests the need to "alter" people's "natural inclinations" to remain in their neighborhood when theymove. "This justifies the time, staff and expense ofsupport services if mobility moves are going to beaccomplished," the study states.Much of the philosophy behind the mobility program, its critics say, has emanated from the work ofAnthony Downs who in 1973 authored a pioneeringstudy "Opening Up the Suburbs" which advocated thedispersal of lower income inner city residents throughout the suburbs in such a fashion that middle classdominance prevails. At the same time, wrote Downs,"Middle and upper income households can be broughtback into crisis ghettos in sufficient numbers so theybecome the dominant group there."

That description, although several years old, hitsclose enough to the reality of today's "gentrification"to stoke the fires of mistrust. But beyond the suspicionthat the barn door will be locked behind them, criticsseriously question whether the suburbs hold a differentfuture for low income families that move there.

"I like grass as much as everyone else," commentedMae Mallory who heads the housing section of theBlack United Front, "but why should we move outsidethe area to live decently? We take whatever we are withus."Although far smaller in scale, the low incomeminority neighborhoods of many suburban areas inboth Westchester County and on Long Island appear tobe suffering from many of the same ills as in the city.There, ghettoization has been accompanied by bothhousing abandonment and a lack of adequate health17

services and education. "People who do move out,"said Amen-Ra, "are suffering. They're working two orthree jobs and have some of the same poor housingconditions we have here. It's not the paradise theyenvisioned. "Proponents of the Regional Housing Mobility Program insist, that beside all else, the program is just toosmall to merit the storm it has received. In New York,the program involves only 50 Section 8 certificates,which come from an additional federal allocation, 30 ofwhich are targeted for families wishing to move to LongIsland and 20 for Westchester. And, as a pilot programfunded from the HUD Secretary's discretionary Community Development funds, the program will expire in1981.On the other hand, says Amen-Ra "why spend eventhis amount for a limited program with no real impact?First, they have to see if they can surmount the community opposition. Otherwise, why waste money without future dividends? The program will be expanded."

"We're at a decision point as to where we should begoing in the 1980's," said the HUD official. "Thepolicy thrust could change." The program guidelinessuggest various avenues for the future, among them theuse of CETA, private funds and more CDBG money tocontinue a regional mobility effort. "Federal officialscould promote the decentralized strategies now," wroteDowns, "while trying to generate the institutionsneeded to carry out the centralized strategy in the longrun. "In Boston, where city officials predict a substantialinflux of white collar professionals over the next fiveyears, housing activists have coined a chilling term todescribe the possible trend of low income blacks forcedfurther and further from the central city. They call thephenomenon "the Johannesburg Effect." "We're forfreedom of choice," said a st . Louis housing organizerat the Washington conference, "but not forBantustans." 0

MAYOR NAMESHISPANIC ADVISOR

Rafael Esparra, a professor of human services andspecial advisor to the president of New York Community College, has been appointed Special Advisor forHispanic Affairs to Mayor Koch.Esparra, 39, was born in Salinas, Puerto Rico. Hisappointment is effective June 18, and he will receive asalary of $37,500 annually. Esparra produces and willcontinue as host of a weekly public affairs radio program broadcast on W JIT-AM in New York City for theSpanish-speaking community. He has had experience incommunity organization as a caseworker and projectdirector for Brooklyn Catholic Charities, VISTA, andthe National Institute of Mental Health. 0



18/24

Gliedman continuedpolicy that will specify when the city will deviate fromits general policy of selling tenant and communitymanaged buildings in low income neighborhoods for$250 per unit. It will be based, he said, on balancing theinterests of the individuals, the community and the city."There are a lot of combinations, and I think we'recommitted to the concepts of fostering economic integration and to keeping people in place in their neighborhoods, but I don't think that necessarily implies eachand every building being treated the same way."Although most of the attention with the sales issuehas been focused on the Clinton section of Manhattan,where a planned convention center and other development have blocked a number of low-income co-op sales,Gliedman said Park Slope in Brooklyn was another areawhere the city was re-evaluating its $250 sales policy.One of HPD's most troubled programs is the sweatequity program, an ambitious effort to save seriouslydeteriorated housing in some of the city's lowest incomeneighborhoods using relatively modest subsidies. Interest rates and inflation have driven up developmentcosts dramatically.Although there are fervent efforts taking place bysweat equity sponsors and supporters to keep the program alive, HPD has cut the budget deeply. Gliedmanappeared to be skeptical about saving the program andsaid he did not know what would happen to the 65buildings that were accepted into the program.

Part of the problem may be statistical semantics.Gliedman says the development cost for sweat equity is$45,000 per unit. Sponsors peg the development cost at$32,000 and say it could be reduced by modifying theprogram in several ways. But Gliedman said the development cost would have to come down to about $20,000per unit before he would support the program.

"The thought of spending $45,000 or so per unit is anentirely intolerable one to me," he said. "We could dothree Community Management units, we could do 30TIL units. I just don't think it's a good way to spend

our money on a seven-unit building. I think the programhas got to be very basically restructured . . . The questionreally is, do I try and swim upstream for the lack offederal programs and make the city programs do thosethings? I don't think it's right for me to do that. I thinkit's a misallocation of my resources."Merging Programs

Gliedman said there is some preliminary discussionabout merging "two or three programs"-presumablysweat equity, tenant management and community management. "I think there's a very close relationship therewhich we are just beginning to study and look at andtalk to people about. I don't know the answer yet, butit's the kind of thing we are trying to see because TIL isin fact a sweat equity program."In response to assertions that the city is endangeringthe success of tenant management by treating it as an"a s is" program instead of putting enough resources into the buildings to assure their viability, Gliedman saidthat it was likely that a pool of 8-A low interest loanfunds would be reserved for the tenant co-ops. "I recognize my responsibility to backstop those buildings for aperiod of time for large scale things that might happento them," he said. "There is no question about that. Ithink that is something essential for us."One of his top priorities, he asserted, is to see to itthat businesses that do work for HPD are paid within 30days. He also said that federal regulations have hampered the city's ability to spend the millions of dollars ithas for building weatherization. "We are trying to getpermission to use some of the (energy) monies for thetenant-managed buildings to help them upgrade theirboilers. It's a great thing so next year they won't have tospend so much for oil, they can use it for repairs.Doesn't that make sense? And they (the federal agencies) are fighting us every step of the way. I f you thinkwe are bad, you ought to see the others, that's all I cantell you." 0

This report was prepared by City Limits editors Ber-nard Cohen, Susan Baldwin and Tom Robbins.Excerpts from City Limits interview with Commissioner Anthony B. Gliedman on May 6.

Q. What major housing trends do you see that willcharacterize the 1980's-issues like abandonment, housing construction, displacement?A. The responsible owner finds it very difficult tooperate rental housing. The problem is our tax structure, partially, and that's one of the things I went downto Congress to try and get across. The tax benefits, Ithink, come not at the appropriate time in the building'slife. We give it at the beginning when the building isbuilt and at the end when it's abandoned. The day-today maintenance of buildings is totally unsheltered income basically. That's a real problem because there areso many competing investments today which allow himCITY LIMITS/May 1980 18

to make as much money with less effort. Consequentlywe get more and more people who are only in it formoney and the only way to make the money is by notproviding al the services, by cutting corners. The secondtrend I see is that there are not rental housing units being built without major subsidies. Middle income housing rental units hardly exist. There is no (government)program aimed at that target.

Q. How would you change the tax structure and howdo you provide the housing for this middle income tomoderate income group?

A. One possibility is to give rental housing incomesome sort of sheltered treatment in and of itself the


19/24

same way we give credits for operating certain kinds ofbusinesses. I think that perhaps the federal governmentshould consider the first part of such income to be taxexempt or sheltered in some way. A second possibilitythat is much less severe is to just allow writeoffs, creditsfor capital improvements as they are done instead ofhaving to amortize them over a period of years. We giveinvestment tax credits for a whole variety of things. Ithink we've got to try and focus that on people whowant to own, operate and maintain housing.As far as trying to build middle income housing,. . . he program I find most interesting and attractiveright now is the question of 235 housing. I like the lowdensity housing. I like the idea of homeownership. Thekey is to be able to keep the interest rate low enough.Q. How much 235 housing do you expect to see builtin the city?A. I think we will probably have 2,000 units over thenext two years.Q. Would these be in CD eligible neighborhoods?A. Oh yes, I think most of them would be there. Rightnow the government is considering changing the 235program to make it much less suitable for New York.They want to raise the minimum interest rates from 4per cent to 8 per cent so that a $14,OOO-a-year personwho could have carried it at 4 per cent now means ittakes a $20,000-$21 ,OOO-a-year person to carry the samemortgage at 8 per cent. That's a horrible kind of situation. So we're down there trying to argue against that.Q. You spoke about middle income. Given the recentdecision on Seward Park and the West Side Urban Renewal Area, is there a political and economic climate forbuilding new low income housing?A. Oh absolutely. One of the directions I think we aretalking about going is the combined development whereyou have people of all income strata.Q. Do you see the city steering away from projectsthat are all low income?A. No. We are putting things to the Board ofEstimate right now that are 400 units of all low income.I would like to see a greater mix somehow. I don't seewhy housing can't be more reflective of neighborhoods.There are neighborhoods where there are mixes of different income groups. Why can't the housing in thoseneighborhoods be a reflection of the different kinds of

people?Q. But aren't neighborhoods like the West Side Urban Renewal Area and Seward Park examples of exactlythat where you have people who are middle to upper income who are paying market rate, isn't there going to beoverwhelming opposition from those neighborhoods toconstruction of low income housing?A. Seward Park is obviously not an example of that.No one at Seward Park is paying market rate that Iknow of at all.Q. But it's not an exclusively low income

19

neighborhood.A. All I'm saying is that it's not that issue. I think theWest Side Urban Renewal Area and others around thecity are amenable to this kind of approach.Q. But with an organization like CONTINUE whichis filing a lawsuit to block further progress of thedevelopment of low income housing, how do you reconcile that with your view that they are totally amenable.A. I don't say they are totally amenable. I think thearea is susceptible to this kind of treatment. Whethereach group in the area accepts it or not I have no firmidea. I am of the opinion that I can in fact put togethersomething and make it stick. For example, I will saythat anybody who wants to stop a project that we arepursuing by injunctive means is going to have to put upas far as I'm concerned a bond for the difference between the costs. Low income housing is so easily stopped . It really is . So many people have the right to stop itthat if a project gets through the Board of Estimate, theCity Council-that process, I want to go ahead, and if

someone wants to stop it they are going to have to payfor the privilege.Q. Your Participation Loan people tell me that Participation Loans now with the city and the privatemoney are coming in around 8 or 9 per cent. How canthis program continue to be funded under CD? Howcan it be called a program that's primarily for thebenefit of low and moderate income people. Shouldn'tit be just taken right out of the CD program?A. I don't think interest rate is the factor. I think theresulting rents are, and I am pleased to say the rent increases under PLP, I think, have been really quitemoderate and allow basically for the people who are liv

ing there to continue to live there. Many times there isnot even an increase in PLP.Q. You talked before about economic integration being an important concept to you and also protection ofneighborhoods. And in fact it is the city's stated policyin its fair housing policy that one of the city's goals iseconomic integration. In view of that, why is it that

HPD cannot commit itself to selling buildings to tenantand community organizations in low incomeneighborhoods for $250 per unit, regardless of what theimmediate market around the building is doing, inrecognition of the role tenant and community groupsare playing in terms of salvaging housing in the city andin terms of economic integration of neighborhoods andin terms of preservation of the stock of low incomehousing?

A. I think we are generally committed to selling theoverwhelming number of units in buildings for $250 aunit. The real question is in a few neighborhoodswhether or not it is wise to sell, all, any or none of theunits for that price. These come up in the areas wherethere is basically a very high value for the properties,and what we are trying to do, as I told the Clinton com-CITY LIMITS/May 1980


20/24

munity where it comes up most clearly, is to balanceof f three issues. One is the rights of the individual, thesecond is the rights of the community and the third isthe rights of the city. I don't think that anyone of thosethree is so absolutely paramount that it wipes out theother two.

Q. I tbink tbat wbat confuses people perbaps is tbefact tbat tbey are not clear on wbat criteria you are going to use to deviate from tbe $250 policy. Can you be alittle more specific?A. I think perhaps more importantly vis a vis status isthat we do send to the vast majority of tenants that enterour programs a statement tha t their units will be sold at$250 a unit. In those areas where there is a question wedon't send such a statement. We are trying very hard tocome up with a policy which, as I say, balances thosethree interests.

Q. Once you bave a policy in place, will tbat policy letpeople know in advance wbat kinds of things you aregoing to be looking at?A. I think so. It's going to be difficult for an individual tenant to know in his building what is going tohappen, because I think what we are going to be lookingto do is what else is happening in the neighborhood,what other options there are. So I think what we'll betrying to do is come up with some guidelines in which wewould make some decisions and then working with thecommunity and with community groups we would tryand assert tha t on a building by building basis . . . I think

we are trying to keep it really fairly narrow . The problem comes where the market value is $8,000 or$10,000 a unit or maybe $50,000 a unit .Q. Is there an overall disposition policy that relates to

Article 11 and auction? Have you clearly mapped outwhich buildings that the city owns are going into whichpots?A. I think so. I think whenever possible, we're looking for community and tenant groups to do them.That's certainly our disposition mechanism ofpreference. To the extent we can't get that togetherbecause of anyone of a number of reasons, we looktoward auctions.

Q. Looking down the road a bit , when you get to auctioning occupied buildings, what is that going to meanfor the tenants?A. I think they'll basically be well protected. We'regoing to make Section 8 available to those who need itand the rents will be restructured. The owner will be required to remove violations, restore services within acertain period of time or face all sorts of penalites. Am Iabout to say that there won't be any sharpshooter tryingme out for the first two years? I won't say that. There'sno doubt in my mind that there will be an awful lot ofpeople buying the first few round of buildings

city limits magazine, may 1980 issue

Documents