In December, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg outlined his plan to build or renovate 65,000 homes over the next five years, he was praised for his ambition. It represented the most significant housing proposal in the city, many said, since 1986 when Mayor Ed Koch promised to build some 100,000 new homes.
But as the details of the mayor's housing plan become clearer - and as lawmakers and residents of individual neighborhoods look at what it means for their communities – some say the mayor's plan falls short.
Last week in its first round of budget hearings, the City Council took the lead in voicing some of the first public criticism of the mayor's plan – of the budget, his proposed zoning changes, and conflicts with neighborhood priorities.
First, the council is concerned about the housing budget. While Bloomberg has committed $3 billion over the next five years for his plan, he has nevertheless cut the capital budget for housing by 16 percent. On top of that, the mayor is slashing specific housing programs, one of which provides legal assistance for tenants who are being evicted.
Second, a fundamental part of the mayor's plan is the difficult task of reforming the city's zoning and building codes. The mayor is particularly interested in building on abandoned waterfront and underutilized manufacturing areas across the city. While some argue that these changes are essential, local lawmakers, community groups and real estate developers all have their ideas about what should and should not be done. (Read Councilmember David Yassky's article on his ideas for the Brooklyn waterfront.)
Third, each neighborhood wants a say in what happens. New York City Council members - who have the power to vote on the fate of an individual building project, deciding whether it is built or rejected - are already saying that the mayor's plan will not necessarily help their communities.
"Only one-third of the people in my neighborhood in Harlem can participate in this program," said Councilmember Bill Perkins. "This is top down planning. And those at the bottom are getting left out."
FINDING THE MONEY FOR THE PLAN
The mayor's housing plan calls for $3 billion in spending; about two-thirds of the money will come from the city's capital budget - the portion of the budget for long-term building projects. The New York City Council – which must approve the budget - has said it agrees with many elements of Bloomberg's plan.
"It is quite similar to what I have been saying for several months, which is use the capital budget as effectively as possible … which means renovating existing apartments that are in dilapidated condition," City Council Speaker Miller said. "I'm glad the mayor is agreeing with that now."
But given the city's $4 billion deficit and a sluggish economy, the mayor is also looking for more creative ways to raise money.
The mayor's plan calls for raising $500 million through a complex system of financing. According the Independent Budget Office, the details of how this money will be raised are still unclear, but at a recent hearing the city testified that the money would indeed materialize.
The mayor's plan calls for auctioning off remaining city-owned vacant land. However, some question whether such auctions should continue and cite a recent study that found that hundreds of lots sold since 1996 remain empty and unused.
"The land has been sold away, housing costs are out of control, and vacant lots are a hazard in my community," said Marie Pierre of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). "Many landholders need to build affordable housing on their property or give it back."
The mayor is also proposing some severe cuts, which alarms housing advocates. Last year, the mayor reduced the capital budget for housing by 16 percent. In addition, the mayor is calling for $324 million in cuts to the Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development over the next four years.
"The proposed $324 million cut indefinitely defers building and preserving at least 5,000 homes for New Yorkers hardest hit by the housing crisis," said Lloyd Brown a vice president of Bank of New York and member of the coalition group, Housing First.
Also some of the City Council's favorite programs are eliminated in the mayor's plan, including legal assistance for tenants who are being evicted, grants to 60 community groups for tenant organizing, and a landlord training program that aims to educate owners on how to run a safe building.
The council said it will fight to get these programs reinstated.
It is also not just a matter of finding the money, some argue, but making sure it is spent on the people who need it most.
About half of all of the apartments to be built or renovated under the mayor's plan will go to families that make between $88,000 and $157,000 a year, according to a recent study by the Independent Budget Office. About 16 percent will be designated for families that make less than $50,000 a year and about two percent for housing the homeless.
"Most of the people who come into my office have housing complaints or are dealing with eviction," said Councilmember Robert Jackson. "My priority is ensuring that those people are helped."
REFORMING THE CITY'S ZONING
New York City's zoning laws were drafted in 1961, when the city's population was much smaller and the manufacturing industry played a more significant role in the city's economy and landscape.
"Everyone agrees that New York City's zoning and building codes are ridiculously outdated," said Michael Schill of New York University's Furman Center for Real Estate and Policy.
Mayor Bloomberg's plan calls for major revisions of the city's codes to make construction easier and less expensive. He especially wants to target abandoned waterfront and underutilized manufacturing areas like East Harlem, Long Island City, Port Morris in the Bronx, and Greenpoint, Brooklyn. (The Department of City Planning has some of these rezoning plans on its web site.)
But some caution that this will be technically and politically difficult, especially building on so-called "brownfields," abandoned lots that contain environmental hazards.
At a recent forum, former City Planning Commissioner Joe Rose called brownfield development an "expensive bureaucratic morass" and questioned if the mayor's proposed code reforms will yield the promised results. In 1999, Rose also proposed an overhaul of the city's zoning codes, but the plan eventually stalled.
The City Council – which must approve all zoning changes – will also be tested. The council has a limited staff, will face heavy lobbying from various interest groups, and because of term limits, about a third of the current council members will be forced out of office in the next two years, giving them little time to focus on complicated zoning issues.
"Right now, some council members are very concerned about how they can ensure that some of this new housing built in their area is affordable," said Councilmember Melinda Katz, chair of the land use committee.
DEFENDING LOCAL CONCERNS
Many local communities have already spent years drafting their own development plans which include housing, parks and commercial areas while paying close attention to neighborhood concerns. Many local lawmakers are wary of the mayor's specific proposals.
"We need to work with affordable housing developers and the mayor to make sure we are being creative," said Brooklyn Councilmember Diana Reyna. "We can't just have one program handed down to us."
Some council members are already clashing with the mayor.
Recently Councilmember Bill deBlasio called for a limit on the height of a proposed apartment building on Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn, unless the developer included apartments for low- and middle income residents. The move alarmed the Department of City Planning which quickly held a press conference, saying that limiting the height of buildings in that area would be "criminal."
And in the past, council members have demonstrated that they will vote against the mayor if another member asks them to.
Last April, a Bloomberg administration plan to provide 40 low-income apartments on Sterling Street in Brooklyn was halted when Councilmember Yvette Clarke opposed it. Clarke said that the tenants in the building had not been consulted on the plan. The rest of the council voted with Clarke. The administration is still working to resolve Clarke's concerns, but no definitive agreement has been reached.
Some housing advocates say that while all of these concerns – the budget, rezoning issues, and community concerns – must be taken into account, they hope that all of the parties involved can work together to move the mayor's plan forward.
"Housing is very complicated and no one wants to admit how much it costs" said Carol Lamberg of the Settlement Housing Fund. "We often spend so much time debating what would be best, that it is impossible to get anything done. I hope that everyone can step up to the plate."
Related Article:
Waterfront Housing For Everyone by David Yassky
Other Links:
Mayor Bloomberg's Housing Plan
(Gotham Gazette 12/02)
Transcript of Mayor's Housing Speech - December 10. 2002
Bloomberg Plan: "New Marketplace: Creating Housing for the Next Generation"
(in PDF format)
Come on along and listen to the lullaby of Broadway...
The familiar tune took on a melancholy air as played by a brass band during a musicians’ protest outside the League of American Theatres and Producers headquarters late last month. An increasingly tense contract dispute between the producers and the American Federation of Musicians Local 802 seemed to be heading to the unthinkable -- musical theater without live music.
The Broadway musicians’ contract expired March 2, and players voted to go on strike in a 420 to 15 vote. Though some progress was made in negotiations, the musicians went on strike at 12:01 a.m. on March 7, affecting some 325 working players and 1,000 other union members, not to mention scores of scheduled rehearsals and performances. The last work stoppage was in 1975.
The players and producers are at loggerheads over a single issue -- the minimum number of musicians that productions are required to hire under union rules. There have been minimums for decades but, over the years, the numbers have evolved to meet the changing needs of musical theater.
In 1993, Local 802’s longtime president, Bill Moriarty, renegotiated the contract in recognition of the fact that modern musicals do not all need a full-scale orchestra, just as they do not all need large choruses or kick lines. The “special situations provision” of the contract built more flexibility into minimum requirements. According to Moriarty, the provision has been applied to musicals as diverse as Smokey Joe’s CafĂ©, On the Town, Footloose, Chicago, Aida, Mamma Mia, and Movin’ Out. Producers are now required to hire between three to 26 musicians, depending on the size of the theater. For example, the cavernous Majestic, with 1,607 seats, requires 26 players, while the smaller Belasco, with 1,018 seats, and Ambassador, with 1,125, require only three.
Moriarty has said that he would be willing to revise the minimums -- perhaps decreasing them in certain cases -- but he is not willing to do away with them altogether. The union fears that Broadway producers have their eye not on “artistic discretion” to designate the number of musicians needed, as they claim, but on maximizing profits. The musicians worry that ending minimums is a slippery slope toward replacing live players with recorded sound. Indeed, some shows that flop in New York recoup their costs on out-of-town tours, where in many cases recorded sound is used to supplement, or in some cases replace, orchestras. Non-equity road tours of The Music Man and Miss Saigon currently employ Sinfonia technology, and OrchEstra synthesizers have been used in regional productions across the country, as well as in Broadway pits. Still, the technology is relatively new and untested in larger houses.
Producers, for their part, accuse the unions of “featherbedding,” pointing out that Actors’ Equity and other union contracts do not guarantee employment for their constituents. They argue that conductors and musical directors should have the right to decide how many musicians a show needs. As evidence of the problem, they point to the “walkers” provision, by which musicians are paid in order to meet quotas but do not actually play in shows. (Moriarty claims that this provision is rarely invoked, though there is currently a walker in Hairspray.)
“We are committed to allowing our artists and producers to have the freedom to create and produce the kind of theater they want,” reads an official statement from the producers. “And our tradition of live music from great composers and performed by great artists will continue -- unless the musicians refuse to play. If the musicians refuse to play, the show must go on.”
In this spirit, the producers have loudly proclaimed that they are prepared to replace the orchestras with digital music, if necessary. There are some signs that they are getting cold feet, however. The union has successfully transformed the issue into one of preserving live music against technological and commercial inroads; and many conductors, composers, and actors have rallied to their cause. In addition, there have been murmurings that the actors and stagehands would refuse to rehearse and perform should the musicians go on strike, and so far no machine has been built to replace them. Audiences would most likely protest paying full price for recorded sound.
David Chase, the musical director of Flower Drum Song, told Backstage that it’s in nobody’s interest to degrade the uniqueness of Broadway theater. “I believe 90 percent of the producers want live theater," he says. "I don't worry about them. I worry about the 10 percent that say, 'I look at the bottom line. Look at how much I can save.' I understand the bottom line. It's a commercial venture. But theater is based on certain compacts with the audience. But what happens if you change that contract with the audience? I think if you ask anybody that comes to the theater, 'Would you like to see a show with music on tape or supplied by a virtual orchestra, and pay the same price'—I guarantee that producers won't lower the musical's price—most people would say, 'I'd rather have a live orchestra.'”
After finishing her business degree, Lek Supaluk thought she could make more money working in New York City than in her native Thailand. Unable to find any employers to sponsor her working visa, she began looking for a way around the system.
“I bought an I-20,” said Supaluk referring to a document that allows foreigners to apply for student visas. “On record I enrolled in a language school but I never go to class because my school is in Los Angeles.” She thought she found a magic formula to stay in the United States.
But her luck might run out. This type of minor immigration law violation is no longer tolerated. Last month the Immigration and Naturalization Services started a new computerized system called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information or SEVIS. The $36 million system is supposed to track foreign students and close the loopholes in student visa procedure.
Schools now must report detailed information about their foreign students. The required information includes academic, personal and financial data about the students and their dependents, any disciplinary action, off-campus employment and whether they are studying full time.
“Up until now, there has never been a real system to track foreign students. They only have to register with the INS once to get the I-20.” said Peter Pachter, Director of Overseas Students at American Language Communication Center, a language school in midtown. “There were rules and regulations that students had to comply with but the INS never seemed to follow through with the enforcement.”
In 1996 Congress passed the law establishing the INS-run Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students. But the electronic monitoring system never took off because of a lack of funding.
INS spokesperson Chris Bentley has said that immigration officials historically have not scrutinized students too closely. It became an opportunity for fraud. Larry Weing, a New York immigrant inspector in the 1970s, told the Washington Post that “there were schools that were I-20 mills… Students were coming in on student visas to work rather than go to school.”
But all that changed after the September 11 terrorist attacks. One of the hijackers entered the country on a student visa. Other two came in as tourists and were requesting to adjust their status to students. In one of the major blunders in its history, the INS approved their application six months after their death.
Although SEVIS would help reduce fraud cases like Supaluk’s, many believed that it created an additional burden on foreign students who do come here to study. “People make mistakes entering data and sometimes a system can crash,” said Joana Petrova, a student from Bulgaria. ”These mistakes determine if a student has the right to remain in or return to the United States.”
New York City colleges and universities have the largest number of international students, more than 15,000, according to the INS.
“We are moving from a climate of a benign attitude toward minor violations of status, such as dropping to 11 credits or failing to renew documents in a timely fashion, to one of rigorous enforcement of the letter of the law and swift and harsh penalties,” said Gail Szenes, Director Office for International Students and Scholars at New York University.
Some foreign students said they “understand why America has to do this” but pointed out that students are not the only ones who enter this country.
“Keeping detailed information on students doesn't address the fact that 7 million people from other countries enter the United States each year, whereas 600,000 individuals are studying here at any one time,’ Szences said.
Critics also argued that SEVIS will not help in fighting terrorism and questioned if the costs and time spent on the system will be worth it.
“The system was very slow in the beginning,” Pachter said. “We had to add an additional staff member to deal with SEVIS.”
Implementing SEVIS has been a tremendous burden and cost for NYU. “We had to purchase new hardware and software, and dedicate many staff to work exclusively for the last six months to get new systems in place,” said Szences. “I do not believe that knowing when a student drops from 12 to 11 credits is going to help fight terrorism.”
An immigrant from Bangkok, Thailand, Chaleampon Ritthichai is the editor of The Citizen.