In last week's Spectator, there was an article on the CB9 rejection of Nick Sprayregen's re-zoning proposal. A number of reasons were given for the unusually close 16-12 vote, but what caught our eye was the Board's concern with affordable housing: "After much debate over the resolution's wording, CB9 rejected the proposal in a close and contentious vote. The resolution set forth conditions that the plan would need to meet for board approval, including making at least 50 percent of residential units affordable housing and defining affordable housing within CB9’s average mean income."
What's fascinating here is the way in which the community is holding Nick to the same standards that it is holding Columbia to-the insistence that an affordable housing piece be included as a term for any community board approval. Of course at this early stage, and with no zoning approval, there's no way that Sprayregen could promulgate an affordable housing plan with any specificity-the community has a better beef with area elected officials who have had lockjaw on the affordable housing issue.
The pols should be lined up in concert to demand that the city, state and university put forward such a plan for the area as a precondition for any Columbia expansion. In the absence of such principled action, Sprayregen becomes a convenient scapegoat for the community's frustration.
The Spectator also speculates that the defeat of the Sprayregen rezoning can be partially attributed to the ill-will spread by Columbia consultant Bill Lynch: "But some of the dissent may have come out of doubts over Sprayregen’s credibility and allegations that he cares more about the money in his pocket than the well-being of the neighborhood. Much of the criticism can be traced to former deputy mayor Bill Lynch, whose firm, Bill Lynch Associates, was hired by Columbia in April 2006 to lobby for its expansion plans."
We're less sure about this. The more likely source is the over all sense of powerlessness-and the frustrating lack of political leadership, underscored by the pusillanimous actions of the Manhattan BP and the failure of the West Harlem LDC to generate any sense of sanguinity over the prospects of a worthwhile CBA.
In another Spectator piece about the community board's discouragement with the LDC, one of the members of the negotiating group demurred: "Maritta Dunn, a former board member and member of the LDC, the body negotiating a community benefits agreement with Columbia, responded to board members’ accusations that politicians have co-opted the LDC and that CB9 representatives have not fought to be heard since the group’s creation. “The LDC is the only game in town,” Dunn said, adding that it only helps Columbia when board members are divided over the LDC. “We need to stop knocking it,” she added."
Maybe so, but many others remain unconvinced about the LDC's bona fides: “I never have blind faith,” community board member Norma Ramos said. “I’m never going to surrender my right to raise any issues and I‘ve been consistently raising the issue of the lack of Latino representation on the LDC and I’m not going to be silenced about that by being told that I am against the interest of the community.”
So it seems to us that Nick Sprayregen is really a victim of circumstances on all of this, and as much as we'd like to blame Bill Lynch, the real blame lies with the university and its political enablers. The real issue in the expansion debate is residential displacement and the concomitant need for affordable housing. The fact that the city and area electeds have allowed a newly-created West Harlem LDC to bear the burden of community concerns over these matters is a sorry example of buck passing.
What needs to be done now is for the university to become proactive on the affordable housing issue. Sprayregen has put an interesting and creative land swap concept on the table, one that could lead to the significant increase of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Is it enough? Probably not; but it's the first positive step in the right direction, and we're hopeful here that Columbia will see it as such.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query columbia and affordable housing. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query columbia and affordable housing. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Labor's New Vision
There's a new land use dynamic on the way, and the leader of the new direction is the Central Labor Council. As the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales points out this morning: "The city's major union leaders have secretly approved a new campaign to block future redevelopment projects in the city unless each includes tough new livable wage and affordable housing guarantees, the Daily News has learned."
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Laboring for Affordable Housing
In today's NY Post the paper reports on the joint effort between the UFT and Comptroller Bill Thompson's office to build affordable housing for teachers. As the paper says: "The buildings, which are to go up in the Melrose section by 2009, will offer 234 units to qualifying teachers, teachers' aides and school administrators, with rents ranging from $806 for a studio to $1,412 for a three-bedroom."
This is, of course, a fabulous idea and it underscores that the concept of affordability doesn't need to be restricted to people who are at or below the poverty line. The cost of housing in the city is getting to be so out of control that municipal workers are finding it hard to find decent places to live. As Thompson pointed out to Metro: “With the cost of living rising in New York City, there’s no better way for us to invest in our teachers than to help them afford the cost of housing,” said Thompson, who noted almost 30 percent of city households pay half their incomes for shelter."
Clearly, however, this is no more than a good start. As NY1 reported yesterday, "The 234 rental units would only benefit a fraction of the city's teachers, teaching aides, principals and assistant principals..." The program would enable the teachers to pay only about 30% of their income for housing, a number that is way below the 50% average that most families are currently paying.
The housing plan here is called "workforce housing," and it is a concept that is being advanced by the Central Labor Council and its executive director Ed Ott. Ott, who was featured in an Observer story on this topic last week. The CLC is very interested in advancing the workforce housing idea, which is why we had Nick Sprayregen reach out to the group when he developed his idea for an affordable housing plan in a swap of properties with Columbia University.
The idea makes practical and political sense and, as the Observer story pointed out; "It is also clear that the labor council can offer something to for-profit developers—although Mr. Ott is clear that he would enter into a partnership only if it would lead to a significant number of affordable apartments and a pro-union management.“I think if unions are involved, it’s reassuring to people in the neighborhood,” Mr. Ott said. Financial partners, he added, “also want us to use our political strength, which we feel is part of our capital and which we are proud of.”
All of this plays into the city's overwhelming need to help keep the middle class in the city. The key in all of this is to find good spots for building-which brings us to Columbia's 18 acre expansion area. As CPC Commissioner Battaglia told Lee Bollinger, affordable housing needs to be an essential ingredient in the Columbia plan; and it must transcend a theoretical commitment that includes some money but no concrete building plan.
So the UFT plan is a really good start. As Randi Weingarten told the Post: "This measure, in particular, will help in a critical area by creating the first workforce housing development that educators can actually afford," she said." Now let's expand this great idea into West Harlem-it's time that Columbia thought outside of its own blue and white box.
This is, of course, a fabulous idea and it underscores that the concept of affordability doesn't need to be restricted to people who are at or below the poverty line. The cost of housing in the city is getting to be so out of control that municipal workers are finding it hard to find decent places to live. As Thompson pointed out to Metro: “With the cost of living rising in New York City, there’s no better way for us to invest in our teachers than to help them afford the cost of housing,” said Thompson, who noted almost 30 percent of city households pay half their incomes for shelter."
Clearly, however, this is no more than a good start. As NY1 reported yesterday, "The 234 rental units would only benefit a fraction of the city's teachers, teaching aides, principals and assistant principals..." The program would enable the teachers to pay only about 30% of their income for housing, a number that is way below the 50% average that most families are currently paying.
The housing plan here is called "workforce housing," and it is a concept that is being advanced by the Central Labor Council and its executive director Ed Ott. Ott, who was featured in an Observer story on this topic last week. The CLC is very interested in advancing the workforce housing idea, which is why we had Nick Sprayregen reach out to the group when he developed his idea for an affordable housing plan in a swap of properties with Columbia University.
The idea makes practical and political sense and, as the Observer story pointed out; "It is also clear that the labor council can offer something to for-profit developers—although Mr. Ott is clear that he would enter into a partnership only if it would lead to a significant number of affordable apartments and a pro-union management.“I think if unions are involved, it’s reassuring to people in the neighborhood,” Mr. Ott said. Financial partners, he added, “also want us to use our political strength, which we feel is part of our capital and which we are proud of.”
All of this plays into the city's overwhelming need to help keep the middle class in the city. The key in all of this is to find good spots for building-which brings us to Columbia's 18 acre expansion area. As CPC Commissioner Battaglia told Lee Bollinger, affordable housing needs to be an essential ingredient in the Columbia plan; and it must transcend a theoretical commitment that includes some money but no concrete building plan.
So the UFT plan is a really good start. As Randi Weingarten told the Post: "This measure, in particular, will help in a critical area by creating the first workforce housing development that educators can actually afford," she said." Now let's expand this great idea into West Harlem-it's time that Columbia thought outside of its own blue and white box.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Swap Spitting Contest
Last week in the Spectator the paper ruminates about the proposed land swap plan put forward by property owner Nick Sprayregen. A number of interesting observations are brought forth in the story, chief among them is the university's public willingness to talk about the idea: "Columbia Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin expressed his willingness to negotiate if Sprayregen were to propose his land swap to the University. “Columbia looks forward to hearing more directly from him,” Kasdin said."
Very interesting. The university would be wise to do so, since it will afford it the opportunity to generate considerable political good will. Right now, with the City Planning Commission on tap today-and a robust community protest expected to great its expected rubber stamp approval-Columbia is taking its lumps.
The most serious Achilles heal in the expansion proposal is the total lack of any housing in the 18 acre footprint of the development. Columbia has stressed that it wants to be involved in the building of affordable housing, but it doesn't appear that the university has seriously went out of its way to identify any actual locations to do it. The creation of a "Housing Trust Fund," without any identified build area, starts to take on the appearance of a sinister scam; one that belies any serious intention on the university's part to do any good for the locals facing displacement.
Therefore, the Sprayregen swap plan has the potential to be of all around utility: Nick gets to keep his property; the university gets rid of its strongest critic, someone who has the potential to delay its expansion; and the community gets around 1,000 units of housing. Oh, and the Bloomberg administration gets another notch on its five year plan for affordable housing-something that it needs since it is apparently falling short of its laudable goals.
Of course, all of this depends on the promulgation of a plan that is both economically and politically sound. The Spectator comments on the fact that Columbia and Sprayregen have yet to talk: "Yet Sprayregen still has not directly presented his proposed property trade to Columbia. He explained that the idea has been “out there” for a while and that the University’s lack of response “shows their utter belligerence and lack of desire to compromise.”
But Columbia spokesperson La-Verna Fountain emphasized that representatives have been in touch with Sprayregen and his family for years. She explained that Columbia has not responded to the property exchange proposal because it is against University policy to negotiate through the press."
It's really unclear whether Columbia is serious about negotiating with Sprayregen, but its public comments do indicate that there may be a decent opening to do so. The need for a well thought-out plan, however, must come first since Sprayregen's labor allies want to get a feel for the feasibility of the effort before climbing on board. This key aspect of the potential swap negotiation is now underway-and a solid outline of a building plan should be ready in a week or so.
Once this happens, serious multi-sided discussions-involving Sprayregen, labor, Columbia and key political decision makers-will take place as the ULURP clock moves into its final phase. In these kinds of things very little happens until the eleventh hour.
What are we to make, though, of the public comments of one Reggie Williams, central casting's answer to Al Sharpton. Williams has been recruited to be the community face for Columbia's expansion, and has taken on the role of Sprayregen-baiter. As he told the Spectator: "Reverend Reggie Williams of the Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville, a pro-expansion group organized by lobbyists for Columbia, called Sprayregen’s proposed land trade an “eleventh hour swap,” and cited it as evidence that Sprayregen is trying to circumvent the development process."
Well, what to make of this nonsense? Sprayregen's trying to "circumvent" a process that has, as one of its essential features, the taking of the property that his family has owned for over three decades. Shame on Nick! Williams is acting here as Columbia's Repo man; except for the fact that the property in question doesn't belong to Columbia.
Williams goes on to question whether Sprayregen is representing the community's interests; while never questioning the extent to which the university's expansion effort is thinly disguised self-aggrandisement. Of course, in trying to save his property Nick is acting in his own economic interest-just as Columbia's doing.
The only question here is how can the CU plan better reflect the over all good of the greatest number of West Harlem residents. What Sprayregen is proposing is an opportunity for the university to complement its expansion effort with an additional aspect that addresses a crucial community need. If it does, and we believe so, than the negotiations should begin as soon as the Sprayregen plan is ready for a full unveiling.
Very interesting. The university would be wise to do so, since it will afford it the opportunity to generate considerable political good will. Right now, with the City Planning Commission on tap today-and a robust community protest expected to great its expected rubber stamp approval-Columbia is taking its lumps.
The most serious Achilles heal in the expansion proposal is the total lack of any housing in the 18 acre footprint of the development. Columbia has stressed that it wants to be involved in the building of affordable housing, but it doesn't appear that the university has seriously went out of its way to identify any actual locations to do it. The creation of a "Housing Trust Fund," without any identified build area, starts to take on the appearance of a sinister scam; one that belies any serious intention on the university's part to do any good for the locals facing displacement.
Therefore, the Sprayregen swap plan has the potential to be of all around utility: Nick gets to keep his property; the university gets rid of its strongest critic, someone who has the potential to delay its expansion; and the community gets around 1,000 units of housing. Oh, and the Bloomberg administration gets another notch on its five year plan for affordable housing-something that it needs since it is apparently falling short of its laudable goals.
Of course, all of this depends on the promulgation of a plan that is both economically and politically sound. The Spectator comments on the fact that Columbia and Sprayregen have yet to talk: "Yet Sprayregen still has not directly presented his proposed property trade to Columbia. He explained that the idea has been “out there” for a while and that the University’s lack of response “shows their utter belligerence and lack of desire to compromise.”
But Columbia spokesperson La-Verna Fountain emphasized that representatives have been in touch with Sprayregen and his family for years. She explained that Columbia has not responded to the property exchange proposal because it is against University policy to negotiate through the press."
It's really unclear whether Columbia is serious about negotiating with Sprayregen, but its public comments do indicate that there may be a decent opening to do so. The need for a well thought-out plan, however, must come first since Sprayregen's labor allies want to get a feel for the feasibility of the effort before climbing on board. This key aspect of the potential swap negotiation is now underway-and a solid outline of a building plan should be ready in a week or so.
Once this happens, serious multi-sided discussions-involving Sprayregen, labor, Columbia and key political decision makers-will take place as the ULURP clock moves into its final phase. In these kinds of things very little happens until the eleventh hour.
What are we to make, though, of the public comments of one Reggie Williams, central casting's answer to Al Sharpton. Williams has been recruited to be the community face for Columbia's expansion, and has taken on the role of Sprayregen-baiter. As he told the Spectator: "Reverend Reggie Williams of the Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville, a pro-expansion group organized by lobbyists for Columbia, called Sprayregen’s proposed land trade an “eleventh hour swap,” and cited it as evidence that Sprayregen is trying to circumvent the development process."
Well, what to make of this nonsense? Sprayregen's trying to "circumvent" a process that has, as one of its essential features, the taking of the property that his family has owned for over three decades. Shame on Nick! Williams is acting here as Columbia's Repo man; except for the fact that the property in question doesn't belong to Columbia.
Williams goes on to question whether Sprayregen is representing the community's interests; while never questioning the extent to which the university's expansion effort is thinly disguised self-aggrandisement. Of course, in trying to save his property Nick is acting in his own economic interest-just as Columbia's doing.
The only question here is how can the CU plan better reflect the over all good of the greatest number of West Harlem residents. What Sprayregen is proposing is an opportunity for the university to complement its expansion effort with an additional aspect that addresses a crucial community need. If it does, and we believe so, than the negotiations should begin as soon as the Sprayregen plan is ready for a full unveiling.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Council's Domain
In the culmination of the Council's vote on behalf of the Columbia expansion, Speaker Quinn addressed the eminent domain issue. As she told the NY Sun: "Let me be clear — I think eminent domain should be used infrequently. It should be used carefully and cautiously and it should only be used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city and I think certainly the possible creation of 6,000 jobs, economic development, job creation — those are relevant reasons and appropriate reasons to use eminent domain."
She is clear here to us. What her statement means is that there are virtually no circumstances involving any large economic development project where she wouldn't approve the use of eminent domain-all such projects involve job creation and economic development, Our issue, and it has been all along, is the need to incorporate a process that addresses property rights and recognizes that they are fundamental to liberty.
That does not mean that, at the end of the day, that ED isn't used; it just means that the potential use of ED is elevated into the center of the land use discussion-something that the Council chose not to do, even while they made very sure to include all of the community benefits as a critical feature of legislative approval. If the use of ED is not germane to ULURP, as we're told repeatedly, than neither is the amount of money that Columbia ponies up for affordable housing.
Which brings us to the community benefits. Does anyone know the process by which CU will be held accountable? Here's the money quote from Metro: "The CBA was still being finalized, and the terms were not disclosed to Council members before the vote. LDC president and C.B. 9 member Patricia Jones said a memorandum of understanding — “the precursor” to an agreement — has been signed in which Columbia would contribute $150 million for affordable housing, job creation, arts programming and historic preservation. The deal will also include a high school and K–8 school. City Councilman Robert Jackson said his community needed jobs, better schools, affordable housing and health care. “These needs will hopefully be met,” he said. “Can I guarantee that? Absolutely not, just like I can’t guarantee I’ll be alive tomorrow,” said Jackson, who had a rep on the LDC. “I believe this is the best plan we can do under the circumstances.”
Can you believe that, with weeks left on the ULURP clock, the Council leadership rushed this to a vote before anyone knows what the deal is, or how it will be enforced? As Council member Barron told the NY Times: “I don’t think we should rush to give Columbia University a Christmas present,” Councilman Charles Barron said before he voted against the plan. “We’re here to support the people’s right to participate in this process.”
Which means that city and state elected officials have a great deal of responsibility here-and as we've emphasized before, the area of affordable housing is the central conundrum because no one knows the size of Columbia's check or where any housing will be built to mitigate the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents.
All in all, however, this was not a good day for the council's vaunted reinvention as an accountable and transparent legislature. It remains for others to take the responsibility of balancing the equities here, and in insuring that the expansion moves forward both expeditiously and fairly.
She is clear here to us. What her statement means is that there are virtually no circumstances involving any large economic development project where she wouldn't approve the use of eminent domain-all such projects involve job creation and economic development, Our issue, and it has been all along, is the need to incorporate a process that addresses property rights and recognizes that they are fundamental to liberty.
That does not mean that, at the end of the day, that ED isn't used; it just means that the potential use of ED is elevated into the center of the land use discussion-something that the Council chose not to do, even while they made very sure to include all of the community benefits as a critical feature of legislative approval. If the use of ED is not germane to ULURP, as we're told repeatedly, than neither is the amount of money that Columbia ponies up for affordable housing.
Which brings us to the community benefits. Does anyone know the process by which CU will be held accountable? Here's the money quote from Metro: "The CBA was still being finalized, and the terms were not disclosed to Council members before the vote. LDC president and C.B. 9 member Patricia Jones said a memorandum of understanding — “the precursor” to an agreement — has been signed in which Columbia would contribute $150 million for affordable housing, job creation, arts programming and historic preservation. The deal will also include a high school and K–8 school. City Councilman Robert Jackson said his community needed jobs, better schools, affordable housing and health care. “These needs will hopefully be met,” he said. “Can I guarantee that? Absolutely not, just like I can’t guarantee I’ll be alive tomorrow,” said Jackson, who had a rep on the LDC. “I believe this is the best plan we can do under the circumstances.”
Can you believe that, with weeks left on the ULURP clock, the Council leadership rushed this to a vote before anyone knows what the deal is, or how it will be enforced? As Council member Barron told the NY Times: “I don’t think we should rush to give Columbia University a Christmas present,” Councilman Charles Barron said before he voted against the plan. “We’re here to support the people’s right to participate in this process.”
Which means that city and state elected officials have a great deal of responsibility here-and as we've emphasized before, the area of affordable housing is the central conundrum because no one knows the size of Columbia's check or where any housing will be built to mitigate the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents.
All in all, however, this was not a good day for the council's vaunted reinvention as an accountable and transparent legislature. It remains for others to take the responsibility of balancing the equities here, and in insuring that the expansion moves forward both expeditiously and fairly.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Negotiated Surrender
Yesterday, as expected, Manhattan BP Scott Stringer lived up to his deal with the mayor, and agreed to support the Columbia expansion plan-with little of community benefit to show for his willing acquiescence. What he did get out of the deal was good for Scott; he gets to point with some degree of exaggerated pride to the city's support for the rezoning plan that he has put forward as an answer to the anticipated Columbia-generated widespread dislocation in the West Harlem community.
It is, however, way too little to show for his efforts. As Matt Schuerman of the Observer pointed out, the $20 million that Columbia has pledged to support affordable housing is a cruel joke when juxtaposed against the dislocation that the the university's own consultants envision will be generated by the massive gentrification impacts of the plan. As Scheurman observes:
"Some $20 million will be devoted to an affordable housing fund that will partially offset the indirect displacement that the new campus is expected to cause outside the footprint.
But given the fact that it costs, conservatively, somewhere around $400,000, and sometimes as much as $1 million, to build an affordable apartment in Manhattan, the contribution would only go so far in alleviating the indirect displacement. The draft environmental impact statement, for instance, says that “approximately 3,293” nearby residents would be forced out because of gentrification."
So what the BP has failed to do is to draw a principled line in the sand, something that would have been reflective of true leadership on behalf of a beleaguered community that has been looking for a righteous defender. Instead, just two days after Lee Bollinger acquiesces to an Iranian nutcase, Stringer acquiesces to Bollinger and becomes the midwife for the gentrification that he claims to be so concerned about.
Here's Stringer's comment on all of this sleight-of-hand: “This is a win-win for Columbia,” said Stringer. “It's a win for West Harlem, and quite frankly it's a win for all of New York City. Columbia's expansion will keep it at the forefront of higher education and scientific research. While it becomes an active partner with the community, we can be assured that binging affordable housing and jobs, sustainable development and economic opportunity is something that we will have to continue to strive for."
Notice the interesting circumlocution here? Columbia gets its expansion, but everything else is put in the "continue to strive for" category. It's a classic buying of a pig-in-a-poke, with Stringer acting as the auctioneer. Let's face it, Stringer, when confronted with the Columbia behemoth, simply blinked-afraid to tackle the university and its plan head-on. Where will the affordable housing be built. What good will the $20 million be if no space is set aside in the 18 acre footprint? Isn't this the real "player to be named later" that the baseball executives talk about?
It all reminds of of Popeye's Wimpy, who would always tell the sailor: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." In this case, it is Columbia getting the hamburger today, while it is West Harlem that will be continually waiting to see if Tuesday will ever come.
Let's hope, as the Times reports this morning, that the deal making is not yet done: "Yesterday, some Harlem officials said the agreement by Columbia was a good-faith effort to begin discussions about the project and its impact." If this is so, we can only hope that the next negotiation phase will be led by those who understand that Columbia needs to truly modify its plan if the community benefits are to have real substance.
It is, however, way too little to show for his efforts. As Matt Schuerman of the Observer pointed out, the $20 million that Columbia has pledged to support affordable housing is a cruel joke when juxtaposed against the dislocation that the the university's own consultants envision will be generated by the massive gentrification impacts of the plan. As Scheurman observes:
"Some $20 million will be devoted to an affordable housing fund that will partially offset the indirect displacement that the new campus is expected to cause outside the footprint.
But given the fact that it costs, conservatively, somewhere around $400,000, and sometimes as much as $1 million, to build an affordable apartment in Manhattan, the contribution would only go so far in alleviating the indirect displacement. The draft environmental impact statement, for instance, says that “approximately 3,293” nearby residents would be forced out because of gentrification."
So what the BP has failed to do is to draw a principled line in the sand, something that would have been reflective of true leadership on behalf of a beleaguered community that has been looking for a righteous defender. Instead, just two days after Lee Bollinger acquiesces to an Iranian nutcase, Stringer acquiesces to Bollinger and becomes the midwife for the gentrification that he claims to be so concerned about.
Here's Stringer's comment on all of this sleight-of-hand: “This is a win-win for Columbia,” said Stringer. “It's a win for West Harlem, and quite frankly it's a win for all of New York City. Columbia's expansion will keep it at the forefront of higher education and scientific research. While it becomes an active partner with the community, we can be assured that binging affordable housing and jobs, sustainable development and economic opportunity is something that we will have to continue to strive for."
Notice the interesting circumlocution here? Columbia gets its expansion, but everything else is put in the "continue to strive for" category. It's a classic buying of a pig-in-a-poke, with Stringer acting as the auctioneer. Let's face it, Stringer, when confronted with the Columbia behemoth, simply blinked-afraid to tackle the university and its plan head-on. Where will the affordable housing be built. What good will the $20 million be if no space is set aside in the 18 acre footprint? Isn't this the real "player to be named later" that the baseball executives talk about?
It all reminds of of Popeye's Wimpy, who would always tell the sailor: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." In this case, it is Columbia getting the hamburger today, while it is West Harlem that will be continually waiting to see if Tuesday will ever come.
Let's hope, as the Times reports this morning, that the deal making is not yet done: "Yesterday, some Harlem officials said the agreement by Columbia was a good-faith effort to begin discussions about the project and its impact." If this is so, we can only hope that the next negotiation phase will be led by those who understand that Columbia needs to truly modify its plan if the community benefits are to have real substance.
Monday, June 28, 2010
In the Domain Of Neither Left or Right
Last week’s disastrous-and craven-Court of Appeals decision overturning the Appellate Court ruling against Columbia U’s expansion, has been received derisively by both conservatives and liberals; although the anger against the larger issue is being stoked primarily from the conservative side of the political plate. That is epitomized by the manner in which SCOTUS divided on Kelo, with liberal judges siding with the condemners.
But as far as Columbia is concerned the ideological divide is more blurry-with the liberal Mayor Bloomberg riding the bulldozers; and the even more liberal Senator Bill Perkins manning the barricades against the city’s effort. So with this is mind, it is useful to point out that the Drum Major Institute-folks that we don’t normally see eye to eye with-has been staking out an opposing position in support of property owner Nick Sprayregen.
As Emi Wang writes on the DMI blog: “Case after case, courts have simply deferred to the judgments of government agencies, granting the ESDC free rein to determine what is blighted, and then acquiescing to those determinations. As the appellate court pointed out in 2009, both the ESDC and Columbia University used the same contractor to conduct the study of the area that led to its blighted designation, a designation that Justice James Catterson threw out the window. Furthermore, the courts have steadily expanded the definition of “public use,” allowing private developers to simply argue that their project has a purportedly superior utility than its current use. In questioning, even the ESDC’s own attorney admitted that Columbia’s justification for the use of eminent domain could also be applied in the future to the expansion of such elite entities as private schools.”
Jonathan Tobin, on the conservative Contentions website, makes common cause with DMI’s Wang: “While I have no quarrel with the university’s desire to expand the Morningside Heights campus, where I spent my undergraduate years north into Harlem, the idea that it can use its clout with the state to bludgeon those who will not sell to it is repulsive. Moreover, the court decision, which overruled a lower appeals court’s rejection of the use of eminent domain in this case, is especially troubling. Though most of the property owners in the West Harlem area desired by Columbia sold it, some did not. In response, Columbia prevailed upon the State of New York to condemn the recalcitrant owners’ property upon the doubtful premise that it was “blighted,” which mandated its demolition and replacement with more useful (at least to Columbia) projects, which might ultimately generate more tax revenue. The four active warehouses and two bustling gas stations that Columbia wished to flatten to make way for new buildings of its own do not fit that description of “blighted,” though there is no shortage of locations in New York City that do.”
Although it’s certainly not clear that the not for profit university will generate greater tax revenues to the city since Columbia pays no real estate taxes at all. And if the city was looking to generate real economic development in what could be seen as the largest underutilized parcel in Manhattan, all it had to do was re-zone the area to allow for more densely productive uses.
That zoning change, however, would have not only allowed the existing property owners to benefit from their longstanding investment in this West Harlem neighborhood; it would have also forced Columbia to pay for the then more valuable land. In fact, Sprayregen had already asked the City Planning Commission to re-zone his property so that he could develop it and provide greater value for both himself and the city. Not surprisingly, in the fact of the fix that was in, the CPC denied the Sprayregen application.
And then there’s the issue of affordable housing-supposedly a signature issue for the Bloombergistas. But, like all such signatures in this administration, it is simply a forgery. With a large swath of underutilized land ripe for development neither the city nor the local council member thought that it should be incumbent on Columbia to-in exchange for the city’s provision of a gun to the heads of local property owners-provide a commensurate amount of affordable housing for West Harlem residents.
For its part, Columbia, knowing full well that Bloomberg had its back, simply refused to discuss the idea of a property swap with Sprayregen that would have enabled Nick to build around 2,000 units of housing across Broadway. So this, “civic project,” is all by Columbia and for Columbia-and while we think that it is in the city’s interest for the university to expand, that interest is not so compelling that it overrides the constitutional rights of Sprayregen and the Singhs (gas station owners in the bulldozers’ path).
What the Court of Appeals has done is to underscore what we had suspected all along-New York law affords absolutely zero protection for property rights. This is the challenge ahead, and the state needs its own Castle Coalition that will create the groundswell for that legal change. If that doesn’t happen, the people of Willets Point United will not be the only ones under the gun-it will be everyone who owns a home or a business in the state (except for the privileged class of billionaires that the mayor fronts for with such zeal).
But as far as Columbia is concerned the ideological divide is more blurry-with the liberal Mayor Bloomberg riding the bulldozers; and the even more liberal Senator Bill Perkins manning the barricades against the city’s effort. So with this is mind, it is useful to point out that the Drum Major Institute-folks that we don’t normally see eye to eye with-has been staking out an opposing position in support of property owner Nick Sprayregen.
As Emi Wang writes on the DMI blog: “Case after case, courts have simply deferred to the judgments of government agencies, granting the ESDC free rein to determine what is blighted, and then acquiescing to those determinations. As the appellate court pointed out in 2009, both the ESDC and Columbia University used the same contractor to conduct the study of the area that led to its blighted designation, a designation that Justice James Catterson threw out the window. Furthermore, the courts have steadily expanded the definition of “public use,” allowing private developers to simply argue that their project has a purportedly superior utility than its current use. In questioning, even the ESDC’s own attorney admitted that Columbia’s justification for the use of eminent domain could also be applied in the future to the expansion of such elite entities as private schools.”
Jonathan Tobin, on the conservative Contentions website, makes common cause with DMI’s Wang: “While I have no quarrel with the university’s desire to expand the Morningside Heights campus, where I spent my undergraduate years north into Harlem, the idea that it can use its clout with the state to bludgeon those who will not sell to it is repulsive. Moreover, the court decision, which overruled a lower appeals court’s rejection of the use of eminent domain in this case, is especially troubling. Though most of the property owners in the West Harlem area desired by Columbia sold it, some did not. In response, Columbia prevailed upon the State of New York to condemn the recalcitrant owners’ property upon the doubtful premise that it was “blighted,” which mandated its demolition and replacement with more useful (at least to Columbia) projects, which might ultimately generate more tax revenue. The four active warehouses and two bustling gas stations that Columbia wished to flatten to make way for new buildings of its own do not fit that description of “blighted,” though there is no shortage of locations in New York City that do.”
Although it’s certainly not clear that the not for profit university will generate greater tax revenues to the city since Columbia pays no real estate taxes at all. And if the city was looking to generate real economic development in what could be seen as the largest underutilized parcel in Manhattan, all it had to do was re-zone the area to allow for more densely productive uses.
That zoning change, however, would have not only allowed the existing property owners to benefit from their longstanding investment in this West Harlem neighborhood; it would have also forced Columbia to pay for the then more valuable land. In fact, Sprayregen had already asked the City Planning Commission to re-zone his property so that he could develop it and provide greater value for both himself and the city. Not surprisingly, in the fact of the fix that was in, the CPC denied the Sprayregen application.
And then there’s the issue of affordable housing-supposedly a signature issue for the Bloombergistas. But, like all such signatures in this administration, it is simply a forgery. With a large swath of underutilized land ripe for development neither the city nor the local council member thought that it should be incumbent on Columbia to-in exchange for the city’s provision of a gun to the heads of local property owners-provide a commensurate amount of affordable housing for West Harlem residents.
For its part, Columbia, knowing full well that Bloomberg had its back, simply refused to discuss the idea of a property swap with Sprayregen that would have enabled Nick to build around 2,000 units of housing across Broadway. So this, “civic project,” is all by Columbia and for Columbia-and while we think that it is in the city’s interest for the university to expand, that interest is not so compelling that it overrides the constitutional rights of Sprayregen and the Singhs (gas station owners in the bulldozers’ path).
What the Court of Appeals has done is to underscore what we had suspected all along-New York law affords absolutely zero protection for property rights. This is the challenge ahead, and the state needs its own Castle Coalition that will create the groundswell for that legal change. If that doesn’t happen, the people of Willets Point United will not be the only ones under the gun-it will be everyone who owns a home or a business in the state (except for the privileged class of billionaires that the mayor fronts for with such zeal).
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Swapping Unilateralism
The Columbia expansion proposal has been attacked mercilesssly by the community of West Harlem. One of the biggest criticisms has been that the university has no concrete plans for building of any affordable housing in a community that not only desparately needs it, but is also afraid that it will be swept aside by the gentrification that the CU expansion is bound to generate. Into this "our way or the highway" approach comes Nick Sprayregen, a local property owner who we have been advising since the first of the year.
As the Observer Real Estate Blog reports, and as Errol Lous had mentioned last week in passing, Sprayregen is willing to swap the bulk of his holdings west of Broadway for properties that Columbia owns on the east side, with the idea of using the east side properties to build 1,000 units of mostly affordable housing. Now, keep in mind that the main interest of the university is to have a continguous campus footprint, something that the proposed swap would allow to happen-especially if Nick can persuade the other property owners to join with him in his bold proposal. It would appear, then, that this innovative idea could, if people of good will can come together, be the "win, win, win," situation that Sprayregen sees it as.
In addition, the Sprayregen proposal also has the potential to remove the legally contentious-and to the university time consuming-issue of eminent domain from the table, another aspect of the Columbia plan that has roiled community opposition. It would seem to be in the university's interest to find a way to reach out to Nick on this, especially since it has been publicly proclaiming its willingness to engage its opponents.
The swap idea also has the potential to address the concerns that are encompassed in the zoning proposal advanced by Manhattan BP Stringer. The BP is worried, as he should be, that the university's billion dollars worth of expansion will create an inexorable wave that will sweep out many of the area's long time residents.
As we have argued, however, the way to mitigate the CU wave is to have the university invest in affordable housing as part of its main re-zoning plan-something that all major developers have been asked to do by a city that has made affordable housing a key policy goal. This is something that the university says it is coming around to doing.
If Columbia is sincere then there is much that can be accomplished here. In particular, Sprayregen's swap concept provides an actual venue where housing could be built. It is an area that already has similar sized residential units all along the Broadway corridor. With the aid of a Columbia housing trust all 1,000 units of proposed housing could be made affordable-and the community would score a big win at the same time that Sprayregen gets to maintain his property rights.
It's time for Columbia, and its allies among area elected officials, to step up and put their money where their mouth is. There are 18 acres eyed by the university's expansion; the Sprayregen proposal would target only 5% of this devlopment footprint. If CU can't see the benefit, than someone with the necessary clout needs to step forward and let them know that the time to sit down is now.
As the Observer Real Estate Blog reports, and as Errol Lous had mentioned last week in passing, Sprayregen is willing to swap the bulk of his holdings west of Broadway for properties that Columbia owns on the east side, with the idea of using the east side properties to build 1,000 units of mostly affordable housing. Now, keep in mind that the main interest of the university is to have a continguous campus footprint, something that the proposed swap would allow to happen-especially if Nick can persuade the other property owners to join with him in his bold proposal. It would appear, then, that this innovative idea could, if people of good will can come together, be the "win, win, win," situation that Sprayregen sees it as.
In addition, the Sprayregen proposal also has the potential to remove the legally contentious-and to the university time consuming-issue of eminent domain from the table, another aspect of the Columbia plan that has roiled community opposition. It would seem to be in the university's interest to find a way to reach out to Nick on this, especially since it has been publicly proclaiming its willingness to engage its opponents.
The swap idea also has the potential to address the concerns that are encompassed in the zoning proposal advanced by Manhattan BP Stringer. The BP is worried, as he should be, that the university's billion dollars worth of expansion will create an inexorable wave that will sweep out many of the area's long time residents.
As we have argued, however, the way to mitigate the CU wave is to have the university invest in affordable housing as part of its main re-zoning plan-something that all major developers have been asked to do by a city that has made affordable housing a key policy goal. This is something that the university says it is coming around to doing.
If Columbia is sincere then there is much that can be accomplished here. In particular, Sprayregen's swap concept provides an actual venue where housing could be built. It is an area that already has similar sized residential units all along the Broadway corridor. With the aid of a Columbia housing trust all 1,000 units of proposed housing could be made affordable-and the community would score a big win at the same time that Sprayregen gets to maintain his property rights.
It's time for Columbia, and its allies among area elected officials, to step up and put their money where their mouth is. There are 18 acres eyed by the university's expansion; the Sprayregen proposal would target only 5% of this devlopment footprint. If CU can't see the benefit, than someone with the necessary clout needs to step forward and let them know that the time to sit down is now.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Stringing Columbia Along
We have gotten the chance to review the "West Harlem Special District" zoning proposal that was put forth this week by Manhattan BP Scott Stringer. The report makes for interesting reading, and should act as a cautionary tale for all of those who are poised to uncritically jump aboard the Columbia expansion bandwagon.
What the proposal does is to emphasize the fact that "skyrocketing real estate pressures will price longtime Harlem residents and businesses out of their communities...And new development pressures are likely to encourage a staggering amount of displacement and change to community character." A great deal of displacement is already underway, and will only increase if there is no active governmental intervention.
Which, in the best of all possible worlds, should generate an active concern among all of the area's elected officials. In this regard, the Stringer report is certainly a call to action. The challenge, as Stringer sees it, is to act to prevent an extreme makeover of the entire community and to ensure that "certain physical features of the neighborhood remain in place."
The report goes on to laud the community's "remarkable diversity of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds," a diversity that is already being threatened by rising rents. In response, the Stringer zoning plan calls for the promotion of "inclusionary housing" bonuses that would encourage developers to build more affordable housing.
The fear here is that the entire corridor, all the way up to 145th Street, will become "dominated" by Columbia, as the continued pressure to expand drives more and more local residents and businesses out. Exactly so! What's missing, however, is a greater focus on Columbia's responsibility to mitigate the community impact of its plan.
Stringer gets it just right when he advocates forcefully for affordable housing through the use of the so-called inclusionary housing bonuses. But shouldn't this be a mandatory trade-off in order for Columbia to obtain the necessary zoning approvals for its campus expansion? And wouldn't the inclusion of a significant affordable housing initiative- as a central feature of the development plan itself - be exactly the kind of needed inclusion necessary to mitigate the "long term secondary impact" of the Columbia expansion?
The Stringer plan, by clearly underscoring the dangerous secondary impacts of the university's growth, sets the stage for the larger debate over the Columbia development. The school is asking a great deal from the city. In return, Columbia needs to give more back to the neighborhood that it has neglected over the past three decades.
What the proposal does is to emphasize the fact that "skyrocketing real estate pressures will price longtime Harlem residents and businesses out of their communities...And new development pressures are likely to encourage a staggering amount of displacement and change to community character." A great deal of displacement is already underway, and will only increase if there is no active governmental intervention.
Which, in the best of all possible worlds, should generate an active concern among all of the area's elected officials. In this regard, the Stringer report is certainly a call to action. The challenge, as Stringer sees it, is to act to prevent an extreme makeover of the entire community and to ensure that "certain physical features of the neighborhood remain in place."
The report goes on to laud the community's "remarkable diversity of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds," a diversity that is already being threatened by rising rents. In response, the Stringer zoning plan calls for the promotion of "inclusionary housing" bonuses that would encourage developers to build more affordable housing.
The fear here is that the entire corridor, all the way up to 145th Street, will become "dominated" by Columbia, as the continued pressure to expand drives more and more local residents and businesses out. Exactly so! What's missing, however, is a greater focus on Columbia's responsibility to mitigate the community impact of its plan.
Stringer gets it just right when he advocates forcefully for affordable housing through the use of the so-called inclusionary housing bonuses. But shouldn't this be a mandatory trade-off in order for Columbia to obtain the necessary zoning approvals for its campus expansion? And wouldn't the inclusion of a significant affordable housing initiative- as a central feature of the development plan itself - be exactly the kind of needed inclusion necessary to mitigate the "long term secondary impact" of the Columbia expansion?
The Stringer plan, by clearly underscoring the dangerous secondary impacts of the university's growth, sets the stage for the larger debate over the Columbia development. The school is asking a great deal from the city. In return, Columbia needs to give more back to the neighborhood that it has neglected over the past three decades.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Sprayregen Beats Columbia!
In a jaw dropping decision, a NY State Appelate Court, in a 3-2 ruling, declared that the use of eminent domain to allow Columbia University to expand in West Harlem was unconstitutional. Judge Catterson, speaking for the majority, couldn't have been stronger:
"The exercise of eminent domain power by the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ESDC") to benefit a private elite education institution is violative of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, § 7 of the New York Constitution, and the "first principles of the social contract." The process employed by ESDC predetermined the unconstitutional outcome, was bereft of facts which established that the neighborhood in question was blighted, and ultimately precluded the petitioners from presenting a full record before either the ESDC or, ultimately, this Court. In short, it is a skein worth unraveling."
In essence, the court determined that the use of eminent domain was not for any public purpose-a point that we have made constantly in our defense of Tuck-it-Away's Nick Sprayregen. This was a plan that was conceived by Columbia for its own benefit-and the collusion between the university and the city was evident to this court. As the Observer points out: "In an unexpected major decision, a New York appellate court has overturned the use of eminent domain to create a new West Harlem campus for Columbia University, ruling the action unconstitutional. The cases were brought by the defiant owner of a set of storage warehouses in West Harlem, Nick Sprayregen, and the owners of two gas stations in the footprint for the 17-acre campus, called Manahttanville. Mr. Sprayregen sued to block the land takings in January, after the use of eminent domain was approved by the state's development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation."
Judge Catterson saw through the ruse here: "The decision, written by Justice James Catterson, finds a difference between the use of eminent domain for Columbia and in other cases such as the landmark Kelo v. New London case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development. In the case of Columbia, the decision says, the clear beneficiary was Columbia, not the public. Columbia, by buying up property and not maintaining sidewalks, helped to create blight, the court found, and the university underwrote costs for the entire project, rather than the city or state committing funds..."
Catterson blisters ESDC on this point: "The record shows no evidence that ESDC placed any constraints upon Columbia's plans, required any accommodation of existing, or competing uses, or any limitations on the scale or configuration of Columbia's scheme for the annexation of Manhattanville. Thus, the record makes plain that rather than the identity of the ultimate private beneficiary being unknown at the time that the redevelopment scheme was initially contemplated, the ultimate private beneficiary of the scheme for the private annexation of Manhattanville was the progenitor of its own benefit."
And the collusion of the consultants that we underscored in 2007 came back to bite the university-and we cited a Weekly Standard piece that demonstrated this basic unfairness: "So to recap: The state of New York hired a firm that works for Columbia to carry out the blight study. The firm used personnel who were working for Columbia on the project, and Columbia reviewed this work as it progressed. You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that AKRF's report declared the Manhattanville neighborhood was blighted--the precise result Columbia desired."
But, as City Room reports, the ruling isn't fatal to the expansion-but restricts Columbia's ubber alles approach: "The court’s decision is not fatal to to its expansion plan. It already owns or controls 91 percent of the 17-acres–61 of 67 buildings–in the project area. It can simply build around the other property owners, or come to some sort of agreement. But the state and the university had always sought the entire site."
In fact, Sprayregen had offered the university a compromise plan that would have swapped properties so that Nick could build affordable housing on the East Side of Broadway-outside of the direct footprint of the university's "bathtub." The swap plan was rejected by the university-and in light of the court decision today that rejection turns out to be somewhat ironic. If it had agreed to allow the affordable housing plan to proceed, Columbia would have killed two birds with the proverbial single stone; taking Sprayregen out of the mix as an opponent, while at the same time, giving its plan a real public purpose.
As to be expected, the ruling buoyed our friends at Willets Point. As the Observer points out: "The ruling has also caught the eye of a set of business owners at Willets Point in Queens, where the city seems likely to use eminent domain. "We look forward to the same kind of vindication if the city coerces eminent domain on Willets Point," business owner Jake Bono said in a statement. That project, however, is a full city initiative for which no private developer has yet been identified."
True, but the Willets Point development is a taking of private property and transferring it for another private use-at least in our view. Still, the ruling was indeed shocking-and just may reverberate throughout NY State politics-and the notion of public use may indeed need to be further refined. As Daily Politics reports-citing the court: "The use of eminent domain should also be rejected on the grounds that Columbia's expansion is not a 'civic project,'" the decision reads.
"ESDC states that the project will be used by Columbia for "education related uses," and thus the project serves a civic purpose. The petitioners correctly contend that within the definition of Uncons. Laws § 6253(6)(d) (UDCA 3(6)(d)), a private university does not constitute facilities for a 'civic project. The statutory definition does refer to educational uses, but the final clause "or other civic purposes," clearly restricts the educational purposes qualifying for a civic project to only such educational purposes as constitute a "civic purpose...Were we to grant civic purpose status to a private university for purposes of eminent domain, we are doing that which the Legislature has explicitly failed to do: as in California and Connecticut, that decision is solely the province of the state legislature."
Spryregen was clearly ecstatic over the ruling-a vindication of his quixotic quest that even we doubted he could pull off. As he told City Room: "I feel unbelievable,” Mr. Sprayregen said following Thursday’s decision. “I was always cautiously optimistic. But I was aware we were going against 50 tears of unfair cases against property owners.”
And the true kudos go to the intrepid legal work of the indomitable Norman Siegel: "Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the property owners who opposed the use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia, called the court’s decision a “major victory” in a state that has been very deferential to the state’s power to take private property. He said the ruling establishes “a road map for how property owners can fight these battles.”
So this was a real case of David and Goliath-and we believe that it will be seen as a nationally significant decision. But, first things first. It should be a clear signal to the state, that the eminent domain law here needs to be changed.
"The exercise of eminent domain power by the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ESDC") to benefit a private elite education institution is violative of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, § 7 of the New York Constitution, and the "first principles of the social contract." The process employed by ESDC predetermined the unconstitutional outcome, was bereft of facts which established that the neighborhood in question was blighted, and ultimately precluded the petitioners from presenting a full record before either the ESDC or, ultimately, this Court. In short, it is a skein worth unraveling."
In essence, the court determined that the use of eminent domain was not for any public purpose-a point that we have made constantly in our defense of Tuck-it-Away's Nick Sprayregen. This was a plan that was conceived by Columbia for its own benefit-and the collusion between the university and the city was evident to this court. As the Observer points out: "In an unexpected major decision, a New York appellate court has overturned the use of eminent domain to create a new West Harlem campus for Columbia University, ruling the action unconstitutional. The cases were brought by the defiant owner of a set of storage warehouses in West Harlem, Nick Sprayregen, and the owners of two gas stations in the footprint for the 17-acre campus, called Manahttanville. Mr. Sprayregen sued to block the land takings in January, after the use of eminent domain was approved by the state's development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation."
Judge Catterson saw through the ruse here: "The decision, written by Justice James Catterson, finds a difference between the use of eminent domain for Columbia and in other cases such as the landmark Kelo v. New London case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development. In the case of Columbia, the decision says, the clear beneficiary was Columbia, not the public. Columbia, by buying up property and not maintaining sidewalks, helped to create blight, the court found, and the university underwrote costs for the entire project, rather than the city or state committing funds..."
Catterson blisters ESDC on this point: "The record shows no evidence that ESDC placed any constraints upon Columbia's plans, required any accommodation of existing, or competing uses, or any limitations on the scale or configuration of Columbia's scheme for the annexation of Manhattanville. Thus, the record makes plain that rather than the identity of the ultimate private beneficiary being unknown at the time that the redevelopment scheme was initially contemplated, the ultimate private beneficiary of the scheme for the private annexation of Manhattanville was the progenitor of its own benefit."
And the collusion of the consultants that we underscored in 2007 came back to bite the university-and we cited a Weekly Standard piece that demonstrated this basic unfairness: "So to recap: The state of New York hired a firm that works for Columbia to carry out the blight study. The firm used personnel who were working for Columbia on the project, and Columbia reviewed this work as it progressed. You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that AKRF's report declared the Manhattanville neighborhood was blighted--the precise result Columbia desired."
But, as City Room reports, the ruling isn't fatal to the expansion-but restricts Columbia's ubber alles approach: "The court’s decision is not fatal to to its expansion plan. It already owns or controls 91 percent of the 17-acres–61 of 67 buildings–in the project area. It can simply build around the other property owners, or come to some sort of agreement. But the state and the university had always sought the entire site."
In fact, Sprayregen had offered the university a compromise plan that would have swapped properties so that Nick could build affordable housing on the East Side of Broadway-outside of the direct footprint of the university's "bathtub." The swap plan was rejected by the university-and in light of the court decision today that rejection turns out to be somewhat ironic. If it had agreed to allow the affordable housing plan to proceed, Columbia would have killed two birds with the proverbial single stone; taking Sprayregen out of the mix as an opponent, while at the same time, giving its plan a real public purpose.
As to be expected, the ruling buoyed our friends at Willets Point. As the Observer points out: "The ruling has also caught the eye of a set of business owners at Willets Point in Queens, where the city seems likely to use eminent domain. "We look forward to the same kind of vindication if the city coerces eminent domain on Willets Point," business owner Jake Bono said in a statement. That project, however, is a full city initiative for which no private developer has yet been identified."
True, but the Willets Point development is a taking of private property and transferring it for another private use-at least in our view. Still, the ruling was indeed shocking-and just may reverberate throughout NY State politics-and the notion of public use may indeed need to be further refined. As Daily Politics reports-citing the court: "The use of eminent domain should also be rejected on the grounds that Columbia's expansion is not a 'civic project,'" the decision reads.
"ESDC states that the project will be used by Columbia for "education related uses," and thus the project serves a civic purpose. The petitioners correctly contend that within the definition of Uncons. Laws § 6253(6)(d) (UDCA 3(6)(d)), a private university does not constitute facilities for a 'civic project. The statutory definition does refer to educational uses, but the final clause "or other civic purposes," clearly restricts the educational purposes qualifying for a civic project to only such educational purposes as constitute a "civic purpose...Were we to grant civic purpose status to a private university for purposes of eminent domain, we are doing that which the Legislature has explicitly failed to do: as in California and Connecticut, that decision is solely the province of the state legislature."
Spryregen was clearly ecstatic over the ruling-a vindication of his quixotic quest that even we doubted he could pull off. As he told City Room: "I feel unbelievable,” Mr. Sprayregen said following Thursday’s decision. “I was always cautiously optimistic. But I was aware we were going against 50 tears of unfair cases against property owners.”
And the true kudos go to the intrepid legal work of the indomitable Norman Siegel: "Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the property owners who opposed the use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia, called the court’s decision a “major victory” in a state that has been very deferential to the state’s power to take private property. He said the ruling establishes “a road map for how property owners can fight these battles.”
So this was a real case of David and Goliath-and we believe that it will be seen as a nationally significant decision. But, first things first. It should be a clear signal to the state, that the eminent domain law here needs to be changed.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Columbia: What Housing Crisis?
We are witnessing some remarkable political movement on the issue of the availability of affordable housing in NYC. AS Azi points out today, a diverse coalition of elected officials gathered down at Stuy Town to announce the formation of a coalition on affordable housing. As CLC's Ed Ott told the group, called New York is Our Home, "'the price of housing in this city is effectively theft' and that affordable housing units, like the ones in Stuyvesant Town behind him, "are being stolen by the greed of developers and the market.'"
The new group, composed of "labor and tenant groups, The Working Families Party and others," is coming into existence on the heels of a sobering housing analysis that was done by the Community Service Society. The report, titled Closing the Door, talks about the loss of subsidized housing units to both the market and to disrepair.
As the report points out, the rapid loss of city's supply of affordable, subsidized units is well-documented, "but no level of government has yet produced a coherent policy response to it." The report goes on to say that, "This affordable housing stock provides important protections from the effects of a chronic housing shortage to low-income tenants who would be unable to afford housing in the unassisted rental market."
So we have a burgeoning coalition ready to tackle the threat to affordable housing. The question we want to raise is, what will this group do in response to the Columbia University expansion plan that, not only doesn't include a housing component and will evict low-income tenants, but will also create a gentrification aftershock that will create the market propulsion-expulsion that Ott excoriated at yesterday's press event?
The new group, composed of "labor and tenant groups, The Working Families Party and others," is coming into existence on the heels of a sobering housing analysis that was done by the Community Service Society. The report, titled Closing the Door, talks about the loss of subsidized housing units to both the market and to disrepair.
As the report points out, the rapid loss of city's supply of affordable, subsidized units is well-documented, "but no level of government has yet produced a coherent policy response to it." The report goes on to say that, "This affordable housing stock provides important protections from the effects of a chronic housing shortage to low-income tenants who would be unable to afford housing in the unassisted rental market."
So we have a burgeoning coalition ready to tackle the threat to affordable housing. The question we want to raise is, what will this group do in response to the Columbia University expansion plan that, not only doesn't include a housing component and will evict low-income tenants, but will also create a gentrification aftershock that will create the market propulsion-expulsion that Ott excoriated at yesterday's press event?
Friday, September 07, 2007
No ExSpectorating CU Land Swap
In a follow-up to the post done by the Observer's Matthew Scheurman, the Columbia Spectator has written a more comprehensive story on the proposal by Nick Sprayregen to swap properties with the university in order to build affordable housing. As the paper reports; "For the past three to four months, Sprayregen and his 'advisers,' as he referred to his architects, his lawyer Norman Siegel, and other professionals he is working with, have been creating a new proposal that, while a second choice to holding on to his current property, would give Sprayregen more space and allow Columbia to build a contiguous campus."
While Sprayregen told the Spectator that he feels the almost unanimous opposition to the Columbia plan makes his fight against the use of eminent domain that much more winnable, he's willing to compromise if it means that the community can come out ahead; "As part of Sprayregen's plan, he would build about 1,000 units of housing. A percentage of the units would meet West Harlem residents' standards of affordability, but he does not know exactly how much."
The level of affordability is something that needs to be worked out with the university and the area's elected officials. However, given Columbia's stated desire to help spur affordable housing for West Harlem it isn't a stretch to envision that the university could, through the creation of a housing trust fund- if it really wants to be a major stakeholder in keeping the neighborhood truly diverse- insure the affordability of the great majority of the 1,000 units.
To its credit Columbia, while not commenting on the specifics of the Sprayregen concept, has been responsive to the public appeal of the swap, saying that it was open to negotiation. As university spokeswoman Laverna Fountain told the Spectator; "'We absolutely would talk to him, no questions asked.'"
In the coming weeks, we believe that the Sprayregen Swap will begin to gain more and more adherents, in the community as well as among elected officials and housing advocates. It will because it makes so much sense; and especially if it ends up with the neighborhood getting the affordable housing that the community desparately needs, and the current Columbia expansion plan lacks.
While Sprayregen told the Spectator that he feels the almost unanimous opposition to the Columbia plan makes his fight against the use of eminent domain that much more winnable, he's willing to compromise if it means that the community can come out ahead; "As part of Sprayregen's plan, he would build about 1,000 units of housing. A percentage of the units would meet West Harlem residents' standards of affordability, but he does not know exactly how much."
The level of affordability is something that needs to be worked out with the university and the area's elected officials. However, given Columbia's stated desire to help spur affordable housing for West Harlem it isn't a stretch to envision that the university could, through the creation of a housing trust fund- if it really wants to be a major stakeholder in keeping the neighborhood truly diverse- insure the affordability of the great majority of the 1,000 units.
To its credit Columbia, while not commenting on the specifics of the Sprayregen concept, has been responsive to the public appeal of the swap, saying that it was open to negotiation. As university spokeswoman Laverna Fountain told the Spectator; "'We absolutely would talk to him, no questions asked.'"
In the coming weeks, we believe that the Sprayregen Swap will begin to gain more and more adherents, in the community as well as among elected officials and housing advocates. It will because it makes so much sense; and especially if it ends up with the neighborhood getting the affordable housing that the community desparately needs, and the current Columbia expansion plan lacks.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
CPC Plans, and God Laughs
As expected, the City Planning Commission voted yesterday to approve the expansion of Columbia University into West Harlem. The Commission, whose majority is controlled by the mayor, faithfully did what it was told to do-and did so without any recognition of the potential negative impact that expansion would have on existing businesses or residents.
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Columbia's Spin City
In the current issue of the Columbia Spectator the paper reports about a letter that the university sent to the West Harlem Local Development Corporation that deals with the proposed outline of a potential community benefits agreement.. According to a university spokesman, the letter is an indication that "Columbia University is committed to undertaking its expansion in ways that benefit the surrounding communities..."
But apparently not in ways that benefit the tenants and property owners whose apartments and land will be taken for the university's use. In any event, the Columbia correspondence is vague on details and fails to indicate the level of financial commitment the university will be making to achieve the affordable housing as well as other goals that it says it supports.
When the Spectator takes a careful look at the letter's content it is clear that, "It makes no reference to the direct creation of affordable housing." Columbia proposes creating some kind of housing fund that would help to acquire property (where?) and defray the "soft costs" of construction- "...costs not directly related to construction of new housing, and the preservation of existing housing stock."
All of this is quite a display of legerdemain. Put simply, it appears that Columbia wants no affordable housing anywhere in and around its new expansion footprint. It will create a fund to assist in the removal of existing residents and the (possible) construction of new units somewhere else. Where? Well, as Tom Lehrer said about Wernher von Braun: "Once the rockets go up, who cares vere they come down, that's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."
But apparently not in ways that benefit the tenants and property owners whose apartments and land will be taken for the university's use. In any event, the Columbia correspondence is vague on details and fails to indicate the level of financial commitment the university will be making to achieve the affordable housing as well as other goals that it says it supports.
When the Spectator takes a careful look at the letter's content it is clear that, "It makes no reference to the direct creation of affordable housing." Columbia proposes creating some kind of housing fund that would help to acquire property (where?) and defray the "soft costs" of construction- "...costs not directly related to construction of new housing, and the preservation of existing housing stock."
All of this is quite a display of legerdemain. Put simply, it appears that Columbia wants no affordable housing anywhere in and around its new expansion footprint. It will create a fund to assist in the removal of existing residents and the (possible) construction of new units somewhere else. Where? Well, as Tom Lehrer said about Wernher von Braun: "Once the rockets go up, who cares vere they come down, that's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Affordable Housing and Columbia
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper detailed just how the fiscal meltdown may impact Bloomberg's affordable housing goals: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign to build 165,000 units of desperately needed affordable housing appears to be running into the same economic maelstrom that brought down Wall Street. A $240 million fund that was a key element of the mayor's housing plan relies on some of the country's most troubled banks and securities firms, records show. The New York City Acquisition Fund's partners include Washington Mutual, Wachovia and Fannie Mae, strongly suggesting it may become a casualty of the still-evolving credit meltdown."
Which gets us to thinking about Columbia's expansion, the one that failed to include any housing, affordable or otherwise, in its West Harlem land grab. As we have commented, property owner Nick Sprayregen, whose land is in the way of the university bulldozer, has proposed a land that would allow him to remain in the area and build housing on the east side of Broadway, across from his current location.
What's real opportune her, is that, given Columbia's immense endowment, the project wouldn't need to tap into any of the current affordable housing monies; assuming that the university could be persuaded to make the swap and pony up in the name of the community that it says it supports, and really wants to be a part of. We're quite sure that this would get the full support of all of the elected officials, and we will help advance this so that we can get a win-win in West Harlem.
Which gets us to thinking about Columbia's expansion, the one that failed to include any housing, affordable or otherwise, in its West Harlem land grab. As we have commented, property owner Nick Sprayregen, whose land is in the way of the university bulldozer, has proposed a land that would allow him to remain in the area and build housing on the east side of Broadway, across from his current location.
What's real opportune her, is that, given Columbia's immense endowment, the project wouldn't need to tap into any of the current affordable housing monies; assuming that the university could be persuaded to make the swap and pony up in the name of the community that it says it supports, and really wants to be a part of. We're quite sure that this would get the full support of all of the elected officials, and we will help advance this so that we can get a win-win in West Harlem.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Columbia Comparisons
There's a very good piece on the Columbia expansion in an edition of USA Today that ran last week. The article focuses on the conflict between the university and good portions of the community, but we think that the most important aspect of the piece lies in the contrast that the paper makes between Columbia and some of its Ivy League competitors.
What emerges here is that urban universities are more and more coming out from "behind the fortresses." Faced with the contiguous challenges of crime and economic disadvantage, universities see that they need to become proactive-and many are in ways that we believe puts the Columbia effort to shame. As one keen observer points out,
"Universities have come out from behind the fortresses," says Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. A rise in homelessness and crime starting in the late 1980s prompted schools to get more engaged, he says. "Many university presidents are really a part of that small network of big employers who have an enormous amount of influence on how cities grow and evolve," Katz says. "So they've taken on more of a civic responsibility."
The University of Pennsylvania (with Rachele Lipsky as one of its esteemed graduates) leads the way in this regard. As the university's former president told USA Today:
"Universities have both the resources and appetite to expand and historically have done it by displacing local residents, many of whom were poor and minorities," says Judith Rodin, the former Penn president who spearheaded the initiatives. Penn recognized that it shared the community's problems. "Universities are trying to teach their students about civic engagement," Rodin says. "And I'm not sure you can do that responsibly without being a good role model of civic engagement as an institution."
How does this stance compare with Columbia's? Can anyone really say that CU is acting as a good role model in the pursuit of its own "God's little acres"? Or how about the Yale example? "Yale University in New Haven, Conn., has helped develop more than 1,000 units of affordable housing and made physical improvements to downtown, says Michael Morand, a Yale associate vice president. Such efforts have helped strengthen the relationship between the 250-acre downtown campus and adjoining neighborhoods, says Jerry Tureck, who has lived nearby for 25 years."
Where are Columbia's affordable housing units? Instead, its policy appears to be a search and destroy mission as it pursues its own version of lebensraum-with Scott Stringer as the Rumpkowski of the local Judenrat. And as far as the 6,000 jobs-always a questionable number that developers frequently use with no independent verification-how many in the surrounding neighborhoods will be able to qualify? As CB9 Chair Reyes-Montblanc points out: "He also says the jobs at the university will be beyond the educational or skill level of many in the neighborhood."
The sad fact here is that much could be accomplished if the university simply altered its bogarting philosophy and engaged its critics directly. Perhaps this is simply something that its chief consultant desperately wants to avoid.
What emerges here is that urban universities are more and more coming out from "behind the fortresses." Faced with the contiguous challenges of crime and economic disadvantage, universities see that they need to become proactive-and many are in ways that we believe puts the Columbia effort to shame. As one keen observer points out,
"Universities have come out from behind the fortresses," says Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. A rise in homelessness and crime starting in the late 1980s prompted schools to get more engaged, he says. "Many university presidents are really a part of that small network of big employers who have an enormous amount of influence on how cities grow and evolve," Katz says. "So they've taken on more of a civic responsibility."
The University of Pennsylvania (with Rachele Lipsky as one of its esteemed graduates) leads the way in this regard. As the university's former president told USA Today:
"Universities have both the resources and appetite to expand and historically have done it by displacing local residents, many of whom were poor and minorities," says Judith Rodin, the former Penn president who spearheaded the initiatives. Penn recognized that it shared the community's problems. "Universities are trying to teach their students about civic engagement," Rodin says. "And I'm not sure you can do that responsibly without being a good role model of civic engagement as an institution."
How does this stance compare with Columbia's? Can anyone really say that CU is acting as a good role model in the pursuit of its own "God's little acres"? Or how about the Yale example? "Yale University in New Haven, Conn., has helped develop more than 1,000 units of affordable housing and made physical improvements to downtown, says Michael Morand, a Yale associate vice president. Such efforts have helped strengthen the relationship between the 250-acre downtown campus and adjoining neighborhoods, says Jerry Tureck, who has lived nearby for 25 years."
Where are Columbia's affordable housing units? Instead, its policy appears to be a search and destroy mission as it pursues its own version of lebensraum-with Scott Stringer as the Rumpkowski of the local Judenrat. And as far as the 6,000 jobs-always a questionable number that developers frequently use with no independent verification-how many in the surrounding neighborhoods will be able to qualify? As CB9 Chair Reyes-Montblanc points out: "He also says the jobs at the university will be beyond the educational or skill level of many in the neighborhood."
The sad fact here is that much could be accomplished if the university simply altered its bogarting philosophy and engaged its critics directly. Perhaps this is simply something that its chief consultant desperately wants to avoid.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Columbia Changes Its Tune
Tonight CB#9 will meet to discuss the Columbia University expansion plan. All indications point to a fairly unanimous objection to the full scope of the university's proposal. What is emerging, however, is a changed perspective on the part of Columbia, a change that has been spurred by criticism (from this quarter in particular) that that its plan not only doesn't include any affordable housing, but that the plan's impact would displace thousands of low-income tenants.
As the NY Sun reports this morning; "Columbia is working with elected officials and community groups to forge an agreement that is likely to include a commitment by the university to fund the creation of affordable housing..." As the paper goes on to observe, this "represents a change from late last year," and, as Columbia spokesman Robert Kasdin told the Sun, "'There's a clear commitment by Columbia to address affordable housing'..."
The devil, as they say, is in the details here, since the CB is still upset by a number of other of the plan's features-particularly the university's use of eminent domain. Which does lead the door open, however, to a compromise with the area's largest property owner, Nick Sprayregen. Sprayregen has been developing (with our assistance) a plan to swap property with Columbia in order to create affordable housing while at the same time preserving Nick's own ownership rights.
So far, Columbia has not been very amenable to the discussion here, seemingly preferring to engage in a scurrilous campaign to demonize Sprayregen. We're confident that once the housing plan and swap become public, the negotiating dynamic will shift. There's still room for compromise, but that depends on the exercise of good faith. Let's see if the supply hasn't been squandered.
As the NY Sun reports this morning; "Columbia is working with elected officials and community groups to forge an agreement that is likely to include a commitment by the university to fund the creation of affordable housing..." As the paper goes on to observe, this "represents a change from late last year," and, as Columbia spokesman Robert Kasdin told the Sun, "'There's a clear commitment by Columbia to address affordable housing'..."
The devil, as they say, is in the details here, since the CB is still upset by a number of other of the plan's features-particularly the university's use of eminent domain. Which does lead the door open, however, to a compromise with the area's largest property owner, Nick Sprayregen. Sprayregen has been developing (with our assistance) a plan to swap property with Columbia in order to create affordable housing while at the same time preserving Nick's own ownership rights.
So far, Columbia has not been very amenable to the discussion here, seemingly preferring to engage in a scurrilous campaign to demonize Sprayregen. We're confident that once the housing plan and swap become public, the negotiating dynamic will shift. There's still room for compromise, but that depends on the exercise of good faith. Let's see if the supply hasn't been squandered.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Columbia's Lynch Hired to Weed the Garden
In his continuing focus on the Columbia University expansion effort, The Observer's Matt Scheurman takes a look today at the role of former Deputy Mayor Bil Lynch. It seems that Lynch, being paid $40,000 a month according to published reports, has been busy organizing his own grass roots coalition of employees and alumni of Columbia-as well as those who, "are supportive of the expansion because of the jobs they have heard about..."
All of which is well and good, because no one has denied that there are potential benefits inherent in the university's expansion. It is, however, somewhat beside the point since the real community concern has been in the all or nothing approach that the university has taken; as well as in the way in which Columbia, unlike Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn, has refrained from engaging the community in direct negotiations.
Which brings us to the issue of this WHLDC-a Trojan Horse in development. How many months has this entity labored? Not since Horton Hatches a Who has so much effort gone into an effort with so little to show for it. From our vantage point it looks like the classic Ali "Rope-a-Dope" strategy. You'd think by now that the LDC would have been able to devise 4 or 5 basic demands for the university.
And what are the electeds doing on the Board? The role of elected officials in a land use struggle is to act as honest brokers on behalf of the community, especially when a number of them will have to vote on the plan when it comes to them-either at the Borough Board or at the City Council. Even Adolfo Carrion didn't place himself on the negotiating team in the ill-conceived Gateway Mall CBA-while trying to steer the negotiations into a direction that he was comfortable with. Do you think that the presence of these officials might be one reason that the LDC has done very little?
The Lynch effort is, however, extremely interesting. What we do know is that the community opposition, as today's Newsday/AP story highlights, didn't coalesce as a result of any outside organizing; it has always been both genuine and passionate. So who will represent the Lynchites? Clearly, they will be folks who up until this time had no reason to voice support for Columbia's expansion.
Their entry into the conversation, then, would seem to require a catalyst; and with all due respect to Lynch, it can't be his good looks and charm that will be doing the pump priming. It is clearly a "Jerry McGuire" moment for the Lynch acolytes. Yet, what this creates, it seems to us, is a parallel negotiating process-an official one that involves the LDC, and an unofficial effort that is being spearheaded by Columbia's consultant.
If we were to bet here, we'd have to make Lynch the favorite to come out on top, since he is the one who represents Columbia and has its ear. If so, where does that leave the LDC? If we are right about the classic diversionary strategy in play here, it means that, in the final analysis, the LDC will adopt a platform that is in reality advanced by none other than Bill Lynch. In this kind of a dishonest process Jesse Masyr and Susan Russell are the quintessential midwives.
Will the results reflect genuine community interest? Given the structure of the process, and the role Lynch is playing, this is highly unlikely. In our view, the main community concern is the intertwined need for affordable housing and the fear of gentrification. Yet the Columbia plan completely avoids both sides of this equation-and don't expect to find a large contingent of housing advocates in Lynch's grass garden.
The bottom line in all of this is that no amount of weeding by Bill Lynch can change the fact that the university will, directly and indirectly, be displacing hundreds, if not thousands of low-income Harlem residents; and no amount of jawboning by Columbia about relocating those evicted should be taken with anything but the proverbial grain of salt.
In addition, with no negotiations or identifiable destinations identified up until this point, isn't it premature for Bob Jackson to be praising the university without qualification for agreeing to not use eminent domain to evict these tenants? Is there an agreement that we're not aware of? What if the tenants don't want to move from the neighborhood many have lived in for decades? The Columbia agreement, without any tenant assent to be moved, is pure smoke and mirrors; and praise from the elected officials here is redolent of bad faith.
All of which is well and good, because no one has denied that there are potential benefits inherent in the university's expansion. It is, however, somewhat beside the point since the real community concern has been in the all or nothing approach that the university has taken; as well as in the way in which Columbia, unlike Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn, has refrained from engaging the community in direct negotiations.
Which brings us to the issue of this WHLDC-a Trojan Horse in development. How many months has this entity labored? Not since Horton Hatches a Who has so much effort gone into an effort with so little to show for it. From our vantage point it looks like the classic Ali "Rope-a-Dope" strategy. You'd think by now that the LDC would have been able to devise 4 or 5 basic demands for the university.
And what are the electeds doing on the Board? The role of elected officials in a land use struggle is to act as honest brokers on behalf of the community, especially when a number of them will have to vote on the plan when it comes to them-either at the Borough Board or at the City Council. Even Adolfo Carrion didn't place himself on the negotiating team in the ill-conceived Gateway Mall CBA-while trying to steer the negotiations into a direction that he was comfortable with. Do you think that the presence of these officials might be one reason that the LDC has done very little?
The Lynch effort is, however, extremely interesting. What we do know is that the community opposition, as today's Newsday/AP story highlights, didn't coalesce as a result of any outside organizing; it has always been both genuine and passionate. So who will represent the Lynchites? Clearly, they will be folks who up until this time had no reason to voice support for Columbia's expansion.
Their entry into the conversation, then, would seem to require a catalyst; and with all due respect to Lynch, it can't be his good looks and charm that will be doing the pump priming. It is clearly a "Jerry McGuire" moment for the Lynch acolytes. Yet, what this creates, it seems to us, is a parallel negotiating process-an official one that involves the LDC, and an unofficial effort that is being spearheaded by Columbia's consultant.
If we were to bet here, we'd have to make Lynch the favorite to come out on top, since he is the one who represents Columbia and has its ear. If so, where does that leave the LDC? If we are right about the classic diversionary strategy in play here, it means that, in the final analysis, the LDC will adopt a platform that is in reality advanced by none other than Bill Lynch. In this kind of a dishonest process Jesse Masyr and Susan Russell are the quintessential midwives.
Will the results reflect genuine community interest? Given the structure of the process, and the role Lynch is playing, this is highly unlikely. In our view, the main community concern is the intertwined need for affordable housing and the fear of gentrification. Yet the Columbia plan completely avoids both sides of this equation-and don't expect to find a large contingent of housing advocates in Lynch's grass garden.
The bottom line in all of this is that no amount of weeding by Bill Lynch can change the fact that the university will, directly and indirectly, be displacing hundreds, if not thousands of low-income Harlem residents; and no amount of jawboning by Columbia about relocating those evicted should be taken with anything but the proverbial grain of salt.
In addition, with no negotiations or identifiable destinations identified up until this point, isn't it premature for Bob Jackson to be praising the university without qualification for agreeing to not use eminent domain to evict these tenants? Is there an agreement that we're not aware of? What if the tenants don't want to move from the neighborhood many have lived in for decades? The Columbia agreement, without any tenant assent to be moved, is pure smoke and mirrors; and praise from the elected officials here is redolent of bad faith.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Full Court Press Conference on Columbia
There will be a press conference at City Hall today at Noon, sponsored by the good folks at CB#9. The focus of the event is the decision by the Department of City Planning to certify the expansion plan of Columbia University. Certification, at this time, means that the land use application will be forwarded to the community board during its summer hiatus period.
The DCP decision is being protested by both the board and the West Harlem LDC that was set up ostensibly to negotiate a CBA with the local community. Board chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, is saying that the certification decision appears to be an attempt to end-run meaningful community input and review (a view that the LDC shares). As the NY Sun is reporting today, this contention is supported by State Senator Bill Perkins and Assemblyman Keith Wright, indicating that the political battle is just heating up.
The community board members will be joined by the Coalition for the Preservation of Community (CPC), the community group that has been organizing relentlessly against the Columbia-centric plan. One of the key ingredients in the entire protest is the community's dissatisfaction with the fact that Columbia's plan doesn't include any affordable housing component, this in spite of the fact that the university is evicting low-income tenants from the Till Houses.
All of which, as NY Daily News columnist Juan Gonzales points out in today's paper, is creating a building "rage" in the West Harlem community. As he reminds his readers, "Many in Harlem haven't fotgotten Columbia's dark history of evicting thousands of low-income black and Hispanic tenants from Morningside Heights from the 1960s to the 1980s to make way for more student dormitories..."
Gonzalez also points out that paying Bill Lynch $40,000 a month won't assuage the community that sees the need for affordable housing as critical. As Luis Tejada of the Mirabal Sisiters Community Center told the News, "This fight will determine if low-income housing disappears in all of West Harlem." In response, saying that the bad old days are over (and "The new Columbia is sensitive to the community") Lynch told Gonzales that, "The university is committed to provide affordable housing, if not in that catchment area then nearby."(emphasis added)
At the same time, Lynch also said that those who are opposing the project haven't "offered any concrete proposals for negotiation." As Bill should know, however, Columbia hasn't been on any extended listening tour in the West Harlem community.
What we're left with is the undeniable fact that, despite Lynch's protestations, Columbia has shown absolutely no desire to negotiate any real agreement with either the existing property owners in the path of expansion, or with the community that suspects the university's good faith. It remains to be seen if these defects can be overcome through the application of sheer political muscle.
The DCP decision is being protested by both the board and the West Harlem LDC that was set up ostensibly to negotiate a CBA with the local community. Board chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, is saying that the certification decision appears to be an attempt to end-run meaningful community input and review (a view that the LDC shares). As the NY Sun is reporting today, this contention is supported by State Senator Bill Perkins and Assemblyman Keith Wright, indicating that the political battle is just heating up.
The community board members will be joined by the Coalition for the Preservation of Community (CPC), the community group that has been organizing relentlessly against the Columbia-centric plan. One of the key ingredients in the entire protest is the community's dissatisfaction with the fact that Columbia's plan doesn't include any affordable housing component, this in spite of the fact that the university is evicting low-income tenants from the Till Houses.
All of which, as NY Daily News columnist Juan Gonzales points out in today's paper, is creating a building "rage" in the West Harlem community. As he reminds his readers, "Many in Harlem haven't fotgotten Columbia's dark history of evicting thousands of low-income black and Hispanic tenants from Morningside Heights from the 1960s to the 1980s to make way for more student dormitories..."
Gonzalez also points out that paying Bill Lynch $40,000 a month won't assuage the community that sees the need for affordable housing as critical. As Luis Tejada of the Mirabal Sisiters Community Center told the News, "This fight will determine if low-income housing disappears in all of West Harlem." In response, saying that the bad old days are over (and "The new Columbia is sensitive to the community") Lynch told Gonzales that, "The university is committed to provide affordable housing, if not in that catchment area then nearby."(emphasis added)
At the same time, Lynch also said that those who are opposing the project haven't "offered any concrete proposals for negotiation." As Bill should know, however, Columbia hasn't been on any extended listening tour in the West Harlem community.
What we're left with is the undeniable fact that, despite Lynch's protestations, Columbia has shown absolutely no desire to negotiate any real agreement with either the existing property owners in the path of expansion, or with the community that suspects the university's good faith. It remains to be seen if these defects can be overcome through the application of sheer political muscle.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Columbia's Lion Eyes
In today's City Section of the NY Times, the paper takes a long look at the expansion plans of Columbia University. The most incisive parts of the article deal with the fears of local residents that they will be priced out of the neighborhood once the "swells" start to crowd out the old neighborhood stalwarts. As long time resident Luisa Henriquez told the Times; "'They want us out here...'They want it all.'"
The university, of course, sees things quite differently-envisioning scientific breakthroughs in an area where currently you only hear the sounds of car engines being tuned. As the university's spokeswoman says; "'Columbia wants to work on the kinds of issues that impact humanity, like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease...'"
Why not throw in a cure for cancer while you're waxing poetic here? The issue, however isn't-or at least doesn't have to be-a zero-sum game between a beautiful new campus for Columbia and the preservation of local business and residents. It is only this way because the university makes it so. As Ms. Henriquez says, "'Columbia should work around us...They say that everything is for the students, for the students. What about us?'"
In addition, the vision that Columbia is seeking to impose on West Harlem (Manhattanville is the name the university chooses to use; the neighborhood sees itself as West Harlem) excludes other equally. or even more compelling uses. So, while some merchants welcome the change-and the new business it might bring; "...others in Manhattanville are unsure, and still others are strongly opposed, saying that the university is charging into Manhattanville just as the neighborhood begins to perk up, that they will be priced out of the revamped area and that other initiatives, like building affordable housing, are much more compelling."
Unfortunately, aside from a brief side bar discussion of our own Nick Sprayregen, we never get to meet these others-leaving the erroneous impression that Sir Nick is the lone white knight here, battling Columbia in order to preserve his own business interests. This is, of course, far from the truth; it excludes from the discussion the critical role of CB#9, the community's 197-a plan that is an alternative to the university's vision, and the actions of the Coalition to Preserve Community, a coalition of scores of local groups who are opposed to the expansion plan.
This is particularly remiss because the article does go into a rather lengthy discussion of the historic university gymnasium controversy that roiled this neighborhood in 1968. If this battle is, as the university spokeswoman suggests, a "shadow" that still hangs over Columbia's current plan, than the nature of the current opposition-aside from that of Nick Sprayregen-needs to be properly laid out for the Times readers. It isn't, and we are left with only Sprayregen-and even he is juxtaposed against another businessman-not a property owner-who welcomes Columbia's expansion (the fact that he is a lease holder and Columbia is his landlord may just color his observation somewhat).
The article also excludes any meaningful discussion of the private university's role in the taking of local properties, or the questionable role of AKRF, the consultants who are representing both Columbia in the land use process, and the state in the condemnation process-a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't discuss the role of the $40,000 a month man Bill Lynch, Columbia's point man in all of this.
In spite of its shortcomings, the Times piece does accurately capture the sense of foreboding and the fear of displacement that the Columbia expansion effort generates in the local community. The article ends with an anecdote about a tour bus coming through the neighborhood, and the observation of a local woman; ""'They're shopping for property.'"
In the end, as it always is does Manhattan, it all comes down to property. The university, a non-tax paying institution, is going to try to use the land use process and the eminent domain process to gobble up as much property as it can. Whatever benefits the community sees will only come after the main course is served. That is, unless other variables are introduced here that allow for changes in the ubber-vision of the university. Stay tuned-don't leave the gym until the final whistle blows.
The university, of course, sees things quite differently-envisioning scientific breakthroughs in an area where currently you only hear the sounds of car engines being tuned. As the university's spokeswoman says; "'Columbia wants to work on the kinds of issues that impact humanity, like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease...'"
Why not throw in a cure for cancer while you're waxing poetic here? The issue, however isn't-or at least doesn't have to be-a zero-sum game between a beautiful new campus for Columbia and the preservation of local business and residents. It is only this way because the university makes it so. As Ms. Henriquez says, "'Columbia should work around us...They say that everything is for the students, for the students. What about us?'"
In addition, the vision that Columbia is seeking to impose on West Harlem (Manhattanville is the name the university chooses to use; the neighborhood sees itself as West Harlem) excludes other equally. or even more compelling uses. So, while some merchants welcome the change-and the new business it might bring; "...others in Manhattanville are unsure, and still others are strongly opposed, saying that the university is charging into Manhattanville just as the neighborhood begins to perk up, that they will be priced out of the revamped area and that other initiatives, like building affordable housing, are much more compelling."
Unfortunately, aside from a brief side bar discussion of our own Nick Sprayregen, we never get to meet these others-leaving the erroneous impression that Sir Nick is the lone white knight here, battling Columbia in order to preserve his own business interests. This is, of course, far from the truth; it excludes from the discussion the critical role of CB#9, the community's 197-a plan that is an alternative to the university's vision, and the actions of the Coalition to Preserve Community, a coalition of scores of local groups who are opposed to the expansion plan.
This is particularly remiss because the article does go into a rather lengthy discussion of the historic university gymnasium controversy that roiled this neighborhood in 1968. If this battle is, as the university spokeswoman suggests, a "shadow" that still hangs over Columbia's current plan, than the nature of the current opposition-aside from that of Nick Sprayregen-needs to be properly laid out for the Times readers. It isn't, and we are left with only Sprayregen-and even he is juxtaposed against another businessman-not a property owner-who welcomes Columbia's expansion (the fact that he is a lease holder and Columbia is his landlord may just color his observation somewhat).
The article also excludes any meaningful discussion of the private university's role in the taking of local properties, or the questionable role of AKRF, the consultants who are representing both Columbia in the land use process, and the state in the condemnation process-a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't discuss the role of the $40,000 a month man Bill Lynch, Columbia's point man in all of this.
In spite of its shortcomings, the Times piece does accurately capture the sense of foreboding and the fear of displacement that the Columbia expansion effort generates in the local community. The article ends with an anecdote about a tour bus coming through the neighborhood, and the observation of a local woman; ""'They're shopping for property.'"
In the end, as it always is does Manhattan, it all comes down to property. The university, a non-tax paying institution, is going to try to use the land use process and the eminent domain process to gobble up as much property as it can. Whatever benefits the community sees will only come after the main course is served. That is, unless other variables are introduced here that allow for changes in the ubber-vision of the university. Stay tuned-don't leave the gym until the final whistle blows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)