Hundreds gathered in the Capitol rotunda in Washington D.C. this summer, beneath the painting of George Washington and allegorical figures representing the 13 colonies, to mark the 200th birthday of the painter who created it, Constantino Brumidi. Several senators spoke, paying tribute to a man who, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "came to this country to find a better life and, in the greatest tradition of our nation made an indelible mark on our history."

But while Washington has heralded Brumidi, New York, the site of his other major American work, has been less kind. Brumidi's paintings grace the interior of Our Lady of the Scapular and St. Stephen's Church on East 28th Street. But despite 40 years of effort by preservationists, the building is still not a designated landmark. Many in the community, including those of us on Community Board 6, hope the bicentennial of Brumidi's birth will spur the city Landmarks Preservation Commission to act. We think the church is worthy of preserving and would like to see the process that began with Landmarks hearings in the 1960s, move forward.

The delay at St. Stephen's, as the church is popularly called, brings into focus a problem facing landmarking in New York. All too often the landmarks commission, perennially short of staff and money, does not act until a crisis is at hand. The case of St. Stephen's also serves as an example of the limits on what the community boards can do in such instances. A Romanesque brownstone church, St. Stephen's was designed and built from 1850 to 1854 by noted architect James Renwick, who also designed St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue, Grace Church in Greenwich Village and the original building of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. But it is the interior of St. Stephen's that is truly remarkable. Light pours through 100 stained glass windows created by Meyer of Munich, Germany. And then there are the Brumidi's. These include murals - such as a large crucifixion scene over the altar - and paintings depicting a variety of religious themes, including the Stations of the Cross. Brumidi also employed trompe l'oeil. What seem to be sculptures of figures such as David on closer examination turn out to be paintings. Similarly what on first glance looked like columns and stonework throughout the church were actually paintings. Much of this work, though, was covered over in the 1940s.

As he worked at St. Stephen's, Brumidi was also busy at the Capitol, creating not only the paintings in the rotunda but other works in the building, including much of the frieze of American history. Brumidi finished his painting at St. Stephen's but died in 1880 before he could complete his Capitol frieze.

Beyond its artistic merit, St. Stephen's played a role in New York's religious and political life. In 1860, it was the largest Catholic parish in the country with 24,000 members. The pastor at the time, Edward McGlynn, had an interest in the arts and brought Brumidi to the church. Later McGlynn became active in social and economic issues of the day, taking positions that ran counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time. This led to his excommunication and departure from St. Stephen's.

So, given such an illustrious architectural, artistic and social history, why hasn't the landmarks commission acted on the designation? After all, no one has publicly come out in opposition to the idea.

For one thing, the building has not been in any immediate danger. My experience with the Landmarks Preservation Commission is that it rarely rejects a building for landmarks designation after holding a public hearing. Even if there is not enough support to landmark the building, the commission will usually not vote to deny the application -- unless the owner wants to tear the structure down. This seems to largely be a question of staff and money. Even in good financial times, certain city agencies get the short end - and the Landmarks Preservation Commission is among them. In the case of St. Stephen's, the Archdiocese of New York, which owns the building, has never expressed any interest in altering or destroying it. And so the landmarks commission has never been forced to act.

And landmarking St. Stephen's poses at least one major problem. The hearings in the 1960s dealt with designating the exterior of the building a landmark, but much of the current research and interest in the building centers on the interior, particularly the murals. The city's landmarks law does allow that interiors or parts of interiors of buildings be designated as landmarks - but, perhaps because of constitutional concerns about the separation of church and state -- not if the building is an active house of worship. And mass is still held at St. Stephen's every day.

A campaign is underway to raise millions of dollars needed to restore the murals. Some of the framed paintings have already been restored. Apparently there are some federal funds available to restore interiors of houses of worship - as long as the money goes to art and architecture, rather than promoting religion. Protecting the exterior of the church by designating it a landmark might generate publicity that would help the fundraising campaign for the murals.

This year, two things sparked renewed interest in getting landmark status for St. Stephen's. One is the Brumidi bicentennial. The 200th anniversary of his birth seemed to present a good opportunity for honoring Brumidi's work and doing what we could do, within the bounds of the law, to protect it. The other is that the archdiocese has been closing schools and merging churches. Although they have not said they have any plans to close St. Stephen's - which is already the result of a merger between two congregations - the downsizing has renewed concerns about the fate of St. Stephen's

Responding to these events, the community board examined the issue for about two or three months earlier this year. Then, we passed a resolution endorsing landmarks designation for the facade of St. Stephen's, supporting the restoration work on the murals, and urging that the interior be landmarked if St. Stephen's ever ceased to be a church. Our interpretation of the law is that the restriction on landmarking for churches, synagogues, mosques and so on only concerns active houses of worship. If the congregation was no longer in the St. Stephen's building -- even if the archdiocese still owned it -- we feel the interior would be eligible for landmarking, but I guess that would be for the lawyers to determine.

As much as the community board supports landmarking for the church, our role, unfortunately, is limited. The city charter gives the community boards only the authority to recommend. Our resolutions have the power to express the point of view of the community but they do not have the power of law.

This is in contrast to changes in land use or zoning, the city's process -- the Unified Land Use Review Process, or ULURP -- requires that the community board review and pass resolutions supporting or opposing the recommended change. The city does not have to follow our recommendation but the very fact that it is required by law to get our opinion gives our viewpoint more influence than it would otherwise have.

Decisions on landmarks, though, are not part of this process. The community board does not have to be consulted.

Any courtesy or consideration the Landmarks Preservation Commission gives to the community boards is voluntary on their part. Community Board 6 has passed resolutions asking that landmarks be put under some sort of review similar to ULURP where an application would have to go to the community board for recommendation before landmarks ruled on it. This would require that they have our input, but, unfortunately, this idea hasn't gone anywhere. In the meantime, we do try to consider any landmark decisions that arise in our area.

We have had more success with the so-called Certificate of Appropriateness, which comes into play when an owner wants to make changes to a landmarked building. Owners applying for one are told to first go to their community board. This is a voluntary process and a new policy, but, as far as we are concerned, it is working so far.

Despite the limits on our role in designating landmarks, we do get involved. St. Stephen's is one example. Another is Stuyvesant Town. Met Life, which owns the housing complex, is opposed to making the development a landmark, including the outside green spaces, or ovals. The community board did vote to landmark, but the Landmarks Preservation Commission has not yet put it on their calendar. When they do act on this, on St. Stephen's and on other landmarks issues on the East Side, we at Community Board 6 hope they will consider our recommendations.

Gary Papush is chair of the parks and landmarks committee of Community Board 6 on Manhattan's East Side.

 

DEVELOPMENT
-Nets Arena in Brooklyn?
-New Stadium for Yankees?
-New Stadium for Mets?

For the last three years, Michael Bloomberg made the city's 2012 Olympic bid and a proposed stadium on the West Side of Manhattan a major part of his administration's agenda. All of the Democratic candidates for mayor opposed the stadium. But when leaders in Albany rejected the stadium and New York did not get the Olympic bid, the plan died.

But there are others projects that have not generated the same amount of controversy.

In downtown Brooklyn, developer Bruce Ratner has proposed a 21-acre, $3.5 billion project which will include a Frank Gehry designed basketball arena for the Brooklyn Nets. The plan also calls for housing as well as commercial and retail space. The developer recently signed a "community benefits agreement" with neighborhood representatives that promises that 50 percent of the 4,500 rental units will go to low and middle-income residents, with 10 percent of these set aside for seniors. It also sets aside 35 percent of the jobs for minority workers and another 10 percent for women.

The New York Yankees and the New York Mets have also proposed building new stadiums. Although the stadiums will be paid for by the teams, taxpayers will have to pay for various "infrastructure improvements" to make them usable.

At Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, the city will provide $135 million and the state will pay $70 million for parking garages along 164th Street and for some road work.

At the Mets stadium in Queens, the city will contribute a total of $105 million to cover infrastructure and planning for the baseball stadium, and the state will pay $75 million to cover infrastructure improvements.

Fernando Ferrer

Fernando Ferrer said he supports the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team, because it also includes affordable housing and a commitment to give jobs to local residents.

"I happen to like 50 percent affordable housing," Ferrer said at a recent forum. "I happen to like the idea of a "community benefits agreement" that if this mayor were serious about in this entire city, with the stroke of a pen we'd bring down unemployment."

However, Ferrer said he is troubled by the "the lack of a public process" and fears that the MTA will not get fair market value for the land.

Ferrer has not offered a clear opinion on the stadium for the Yankees. (His campaign has not responded to a request for a position.) Although Ferrer has said that the current stadium should be preserved as a historic landmark. "I've never believed they should leave that stadium," Ferrer said. "It's a perfectly fine place to watch a baseball game."

When the proposed Mets stadium was unveiled as part of a revamped Olympic plan, Ferrer said he supported it.

In a recent interview, he said he would support a Queen's stadium of the New York Jets, but not at taxpayer expense.

"I think it's a good idea. I'd commit a lot of my time persuading them to come here, but I wouldn't commit a city dollar," Ferrer told the Times Ledger. "If there are legitimate infrastructural improvements - for example, roadways - those are things that legitimately need improving. But if you want me to pay for part of a stadium, I wouldn't do it even for my beloved Yankees."

C. Virginia Fields

C. Virginia Fields says she supports the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team because it also includes affordable housing and a commitment to give jobs to local residents.

"Because so many of the benefits are related to what I believe in, and what I have fought for, and what I like to see moving forward with these large scale developments, I too have supported the project," Fields said at a recent forum.

Fields has not offered a clear statement on the stadiums for the Yankees. (Her campaign has not responded to a request for a position.)

When the proposed Mets stadium was unveiled as part of a revamped Olympic plan, Fields said he supported it.

Gifford Miller

Gifford Miller supports the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team.

"I think it would be great if we could bring the Nets here," Miller said at a recent forum.

Miller also touts the affordable housing and jobs that the plan is supposed to create and called on the MTA "to get the best price that it can" for the rail yards.

Miller also supports the new stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets.

Anthony Weiner

Anthony Weiner supports the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team. Like other officials, he is concerned about the process and he sent a letter to MTA Chair Peter Kalikow calling for greater transparency in the bid process that will sell the yards to developers.

"I support the Ratner plan," Weiner said. "But these steps would give all parties involved the time and information to make sure we get the absolute best deal and that all voices are heard."

Weiner has not offered a clear opinion on the Yankee stadium. (His campaign has not responded to a request for a position.)

Weiner suggested that the city make a bid for the 2016 Olympics, with the stadium in Queens as a centerpiece.

Michael Bloomberg

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been an outspoken proponent of the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team. The plan also calls for housing and new commercial and retail space.

""The $3.5 billion project will create 8,500 permanent new jobs, 4,500 mixed-income apartments, substantial new commercial, retail, open space and host the first major league sports team to play in Brooklyn since the Dodgers," said Bloomberg.

Bloomberg also supports the proposal for a new Yankee stadium in the Bronx and a new Mets stadium in Queens.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Eminent Domain: What The Supreme Court Ruling Means
Zoning Instead of Planning in Williamsburg and Greenpoint
Big Projects And Bad News
NYC's Proposed Stadiums and Arenas
The Sports Economy
NASCAR: The Largest Proposed Sports Stadium of Them All

 

 

In the climactic Battle of the Bands in Jack Black's 2003 movie "School of Rock," a band of fifth grade preppies out rocks the older, better-known competition. But the preteen rock group was not the only underdog in that scene. The theater where the battle took place - the St. George on Staten Island - also faced long odds and, for now, seems to have overcome them.

Once an ornate showcase, the St. George had fallen into disrepair by the time "School of Rock" was filmed. Efforts to revive it as a roller rink and nightclub had proved unsuccessful and so, while never officially shut down, the theater remained largely vacant and unused.

Today, the St. George has been restored to much of its former glory - without the benefit of landmark status or government money. The revival of the St. George Theater is largely the work of one family that set out to save it and create a showcase on Staten Island.

The story of the St. George is the story of what a few individuals can do. But the theater also provides evidence that buildings without landmark status can be saved. The St. George Theater is among many notable buildings - various houses of worship and the New Victory Theater are among the others -- that have been preserved without receiving landmark status. Meanwhile some landmarked buildings, such as the Bronx Courthouse, stand vacant and in danger of deterioration, and the landmarked smallpox hospital on Roosevelt Island remains a ruin.

The St. George Theater opened in the St. George section of Staten Island, a short walk from the ferry terminal, on December 4, 1929. Designed by Eugene DeRosa, with the assistance of Staten Island architect James Whitford, its exterior was nothing particularly remarkable. But, inside the building offered an array of lavish and ornate detailing, much of it with a Spanish flavor -- faux wrought iron balconies, heavy chandeliers and painting of bullfighters and villas. The 3,000-seat theater also offered some amenities that were notable for its time, including much unobstructed seating, a $25,000 Wurlitzer organ, and an advanced heating and cooling system.

The theater thrived as a setting for live performances until the 1950s. Then it served as a movie theater until the 1970s. Various attempts were made to convert it to other uses - the orchestra pit was filled for its brief incarnation as a roller rink - but, except for the "School of Rock" filming, the theater remained largely shut down for 25 years.

In 2001, then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani proposed using city money to help turn the theater into a cultural center. But according to the St. George Theater's Web site, the plans were derailed by the September 11, 2001 attacks. Those who valued the theater worried that it might be demolished, and in 2002 preservationists launched a drive to save it. But that effort faltered.

Then Rosemary Cappozalo entered the picture. A dance teacher known on the island as Mrs. Rosemary, Cappozalo and her daughters, Doreen Cugno and Luanne Sorentino, set out to save the St. George. They persuaded the theaters owners to transfer the lease to their non-profit group, the Richmond Dance Ensemble (the owner got a tax deduction) -- and began making renovations. The ensemble remains the legal owner and operator of the theater.

The St. George posed a real challenge. "It hadn't enjoyed a good life in 30 years," Cappozalo said. "When we came in, the ceilings in the bathroom were on the floor with water coming in…Some of the holes in the wall were larger than our own bodies." Broken cinder blocks littered the floor, the plaster was broken, the skylight above the stage was beyond repair.

Cappozalo began by fixing the roof, then continued from there, doing the necessary things first. The seats have been replaced or reupholstered and the stage features a new $70,000 fiberglass curtain. She sewed curtains for the bathrooms and dressing rooms and has arranged artificial flowers. Much of the plaster has been restored, though the rotunda still needs work. "We did try to restore and not modernize," Cappozalo said.

The detail work is astounding. Virtually no surface in the theater is without decoration. Fancy plaster medallions adorn some ceilings, while more plaster -- borders, swirls and relief work of all types -- frames paintings and bedecks balconies. Much of this needed to be fixed and painted. A dispute with the city over fire regulations further complicated the renovation.

So far, Cappozalo has paid for most of the renovation herself, using hundreds of thousands of dollars of her life saving from 41 years as a dance teacher on Staten Island. She will not linger on the question of why she took on the project. She knew the theater from her years in dance in Staten Island and developed an appreciation for it. "There are so few theaters across the country like this," Cappozalo said. If no one had stepped in to save it, she said, "it would be destroyed or become a mini-mall."

Cappozalo has sought donations for the theater from individuals and foundations. But her main focus is to stage shows and rent out the space both to bring people into the theater and to raise money for future work. In her restoration she focused first on work that had to be done so the theater could open and function. "We had to get this place to feed itself," she said.

Since the theater officially reopened last December, a number of shows have appeared there, including plays for children, "Beatlemania," a concert by comedian Howie Mandel, and a Christmas show similar to the one at Radio City. Later this year, the theater will be the scene for a Golden Oldies show, performances by Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater II and another Christmas extravaganza.

With any money that comes in, much remains to be done, Cappozalo said, including repairs in the basement, a restoration of the marquee and more plaster work.

Cappozalo has not applied for landmark status for the building and says she does not want it. If the building were landmarked, she says, any renovation would take too long, making it difficult for her to generate the income she says she needs to keep the theater going.

Some critics might say that, in going this route, Cappozalo has had to cut corners - to change the building more than purists would like. For example, restoring the 1929 pipe organ would take years, she said. And so the theater uses a very large electric organ instead.

But her efforts have generally met with enthusiastic praise, and she has received a number of awards for the project.

Some worry that, without landmark status, the theater will survive only as long as Cappozalo and her daughters have the money, the energy and the will to keep it going. These fears are fueled by efforts to develop St. George, an area that had fallen on rough times but which Cappozalo says is "up and coming." The Staten Island Yankees minor league baseball stadium is nearby, luxury housing is planned for the area and a Chamber of Commerce Web site announces, "Remember Park Slope, Hoboken and Williamsburg? Downtown Staten Island is next."

On a Web page about the theater a reader wrote in, "You guys better get this theatre its landmarks status. There are plans in the works for someone to buy it back … and to level the entire block to make way for a tall residential tower, as well as commercial space."

"The theater will not be sold," Cappozalo's daughter, Doreen Cugno responded,"

And Cappozalo is focused on future plans for the St. George and the Richmond Dance Ensemble. "We envision a good life for the theater," she said.

 

The recent debate about the rezoning plan in Greenpoint - Williamsburg, Brooklyn is one of many signs that there’s a revived interest in the city’s waterfront. For centuries the city's waterfront served as a gateway, connecting continental America to the rest of the world. But by the mid 20th century, many docks and piers were virtually deserted. Now suddenly, what was "an abandoned, seedy no-man's-land" (in the words of Phillip Lopate, author of Waterfront: A Journey around Manhattan) has seen the construction of new parks, recreational facilities, commercial space and luxury condos.

View Slideshow  

When he came into office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg admittedly did not consider homelessness a top priority. But in the last 12 months, homelessness and housing issues have gained progressively more attention. The mayor has said ending homelessness in the city is a top priority for his second term, if he wins one. The city’s policies to help homeless people began to shift as homelessness continued to surge

Not every homeless advocate in the city gives the administration glowing reviews. But at the annual conference earlier this month in Washington D.C. of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, those attending from across the nation seemed considerably more impressed as Linda Gibbs, the commissioner for the Department of Homeless Services, and others outlined what they have been trying lately.

Among the changes made in the city, three decisions stand out:

• Ending the use of Section 8 vouchers to pay for housing for homeless people
• Introducing two new rent subsidies to help poor people pay rent
• Enlisting community-based organizations to help prevent homelessness

Turning Shelter Subsidies Into Rent Subsidies

Late last year, the city ran out of Section 8 vouchers, the federal rent subsidy. To hear Linda Gibbs talk about it at the conference, this turned out to be a good thing.

“The housing authority gave us as many Section 8 vouchers as the city needed,” Gibbs said. “We got so good at what we were doing that we used them up. We were creating a draw into the [shelter] system." What she was saying was that because a person in a homeless shelter would be given preference for a section 8 voucher (which could be used to rent a real apartment), and because there were 150,000 people on a waiting list for these vouchers, the city came to believe that an incentive was thus created for people to enter a shelter just in order to get the voucher.

“We made a high-risk decision to de-link Section 8 from homelessness,” she told an audience of workshop participants (meaning stop giving preferences to people who were in shelters). The decision, she believes, paid off. “We saw a 20 percent drop [of the number of people entering homeless shelters] attributed to de-linking.”

The shelter system is very expensive – it costs about $35,000 a year to provide shelter services to a family of four – and that money could be used more effectively to help people pay rent.

With that in mind, the city introduced two new rent subsidies: Housing Stability Plus, whose aim is to increase the number of families leaving shelters for permanent housing, and the Family Eviction Prevention Supplement, which tries to prevent families from losing their housing and becoming homeless in the first place.

The subsidies are not nearly as generous as Section 8, and they have a time limit. Section 8 is available to working poor people, but the city’s Housing StabilityPlus program is only available to people receiving public assistance. (That means that at least one in five people in city shelters are not eligible.)

The Housing Stability Plus subsidy also declines by 20 percent each year over five years, leaving many to wonder how poor families would be able to pay such increases.

Gibbs did not appear too worried about that.

“Maybe landlords won’t act on evictions – when the rent goes down, they’ll let it go,” she said. “Our real fears are the years after that.

“Landlords will forgo some of the rent,” she said. “I think we are lucky in that we have a contingent of landlords who do care about homelessness.”

So far, 2,700 families have been signed up for Housing Stability Plus, Gibbs said. And, she added, “we’re saving money on the shelter side as we spend money on the rental assistance side.”

Dennis Culhane, one of the nation’s influential homelessness researchers, said while the city’s new subsidies were not as good as Section 8, they are a step in the right direction given current political realities.

“There was no cost containment in the New York City shelter system,” Culhane said. “I think they’ve gone far” by introducing the subsidies.

Anti-Eviction In The Bronx

The Civil Court’s Housing Help Program, a pilot project in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx, was also a subject of discussion at the national conference. Judge Fern Fisher offered promising statistical proof of the effectiveness of providing legal services to people facing eviction, combined with comprehensive social services to address other factors that lead them into a housing crisis. The project is working: Since it started, Fisher said, not one family has been evicted from housing in the 10451 ZIP code.

“We’re still only six months into this pilot,” Fisher said during a break at the conference. “It’s too early. And we cannot be satisfied with just one ZIP code; it needs to be expanded.”

Enlisting Community Organizations To Prevent Homelessness

At the national conference and for the first time, the city publicly released data about homelessness risk factors collected via its HomeBase programs, launched last September. The programs enlist community-based organizations in homelessness prevention efforts in the six community board districts that send more people to city shelters than any others. Each of the six organizations is receiving $2 million annually over the next three years to prevent homelessness in those areas.

The organizations meet regularly with the Department of Homeless Services to discuss their efforts. Each organization has hired case workers to help people facing housing problems in a wide variety of ways: They help pay their rent, help them find apartments, help them find better jobs, help them defend themselves in housing court cases, get them into job training programs, send them for substance abuse counseling and family counseling, and more.

Advocates at the conference welcomed the city’s HomeBase initiative and praised Gibbs for developing it. HomeBase allows the community-based organizations implementing homeless prevention programs leeway in how to do that – as long as they actually achieve that goal.

“One of the reasons the provider community gets so frustrated is because their hands are tied,” said Susanne Beaton of One Family, Inc., in Boston. “And here you have a commissioner saying, ‘Be creative, you know this community.’ It’s an act of faith in the provider community. I’d think I’d died and gone to heaven.”

Learning Why People Wound Up In Shelters

When people have sought help at HomeBase programs, the city has collected data about why they were facing becoming homeless. The answer is not simple – it’s usually a combination of factors. At the national conference, Jay Bainbridge, the assistant commissioner for policy and research at the NYC Department of Homeless Services, presented a list of “destabilizing events” that eventually lead people to seek help at city shelters:

• Job loss was a factor in 69 percent of shelter entries.
• Eviction was a factor in 47 percent of shelter entries.
• Loss of public assistance was a factor in 42 percent of shelter entries.
• Physical and emotional problems are factors in 43 and 39 percent of entries.
• Loss of a housing subsidy, such as Section 8, was a factor in 32 percent of entries.
• Household conflict was a factor in 28 percent of entries.
• Domestic violence was a factor in 21 percent of entries.
• Substance abuse was a factor in 19 percent of entries.
• Incarceration was a factor in 19 percent of entries.

Further, the data indicated that more than half the people seeking entry to city shelters had never had contact with any social service agencies prior to coming to city shelters. Massive outreach is necessary to address that problem, Bainbridge said.

In a workshop where researchers presented their views of what works and what doesn’t, providing rent subsidies was clearly emphasized as the most successful approach to dealing with homelessness. Addressing other issues a homeless person may be having might simply use up money that could be used to fund rent subsidies.

“My best prediction is that it’s not going to make a huge difference to expend resources on those factors," said Beth Shinn, a New York University researcher of homelessness. “But I think it’s really important to try. We need to see what works. I would love to be shown to be wrong.”

Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations.  

Last month, by a 5 to 4 margin, the United States Supreme Court upheld the broad use of eminent domain (In PDF format) -- the power of government to take people's property in exchange for just compensation – to promote economic development, even where property will be transferred from one private owner to another. The court allowed the City of New London, Connecticut, to proceed with its plans to take the property of 15 homeowners who did not wish to sell them, in hopes of revitalizing their city’s moribund economy. New London plans to transfer the property to developers who will build office space (including research and development space related to a new Pfizer research center nearby), a hotel and conference center, new housing, and a riverfront esplanade.

What does this mean for New York City?

New Yorkers interested in several recent and proposed development projects were watching the case closely.

• Forest City Ratner Companies is proposing to take dozens of homes and businesses near the MTA railyards in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn (they have already acquired many through private acquisition), in order to build Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (designed by Frank Gehry), a basketball arena for Ratner’s (now New Jersey) Nets and 6,000 units of housing (at least 2,250 affordable) in a series of towers as high as 60 stories.
• Columbia University wrote the Empire State Development Corporation last summer, seeking to begin the process of taking a series of industrial buildings to build a new campus in Manhattanville, about 15 blocks north of its current one (designed in part by architect Renzo Piano).
• And the New York Times’ new headquarters (developed with partner Forest City Ratner and also designed by Renzo Piano) is already going up on land taken from unwilling sellers who took their case to the New York State Court of Appeals.

In each case, existing owners (and neighbors) have fought against the takings, and were looking to the Kelo vs. New London case to restrain eminent domain for private development.

At least on first glance, opponents of these projects found little to cheer. The court upheld the broad power of cities and states to use eminent domain. Despite the arguments of Susette Kelo and the other owners that this taking was in violation of the Fifth Amendment because it was not narrowly for “public use” – a park, a school, or other municipal facility – Justice Stevens wrote for the majority of justices that since the 19th century, the court has “embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as a ‘public purpose,’” and that a carefully considered plan by local government to promote economic development meets that test.

Furthermore, the eminent domain sought on all three New York City projects rely on the slightly different claim (under New York law) that the areas in question are “blighted” – although it stretches credulity to make that claim: $1 million condos in Prospect Heights hardly constitute blight; Times Square is booming; several new businesses have opened recently in Manhattanville. Once an area has been declared blighted by a public agency, it can be taken through eminent domain, even if what will follow is exclusively private development, on the argument that the removal of blight serves a broader public purpose.

So Bruce Ratner, the New York Times, and Columbia don’t have too much reason for concern. And we can expect more eminent domain in New York City’s future economic development plans. The Department of City Planning’s recent Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning laid the groundwork for future takings there, and the city is now moving toward an economic development project at the corner of Boerum Place and Fulton Mall. The NYC Economic Development Corporation recently collected responses from developers for Requests for Expressions of Interest to redevelop the Willets Point area on the Flushing River (near the site for the new Mets Stadium in Queens), despite the fact that the entire area is privately-owned.

Taking(s) Sides

Still, Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn – which opposes Forest City Ratner’s proposal for Brooklyn Atlantic Yards, and who recruited lawyer/civil rights activist Norman Siegel to write a brief siding with Kelo against eminent domain – sees some hope in the concurring opinion of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy wrote to emphasize that while there was no suggestion in New London that the plan was intended to favor any individual developer, ''a court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see it if has merit.'' Develop Don’t Destroy plans to argue that the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards site presents a case of the “impermissible favoritism” that Justice Kennedy was warning about. (This is assuming that the MTA awards the site to Ratner, rather than to their preferred developer, Extell Development Corporation, who recently submitted a bid that would build fewer and smaller towers, have no arena, include less overall and affordable housing, and involve no eminent domain.)

However, Paul Sonn of the Brennan Center for Justice, says that because Kennedy also signed on to the broader majority opinion, his concurring opinion will likely have little effect. Sonn also notes the unusual political alliance that emerged on this case. Norman Siegel and opponents of the projects in question (his brief was not only for Develop Don’t Destroy, but also for businesses in West Harlem opposing Columbia’s proposal) present a politically progressive case against corporate developers, but their champions on the Supreme Court were conservative Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and O’Connor. Much of the support for Kelo’s side of the case came from conservative property-rights advocates. Writing for Reason Magazine Online, Jason Sullum criticized the New York Times’ praise for the Supreme Court’s decision, writing that “property rights are human rights,” and in fact that “all rights are property rights.” And closer to home, Julia Vitulo-Martin of the market-oriented Manhattan Institute has blasted both the Supreme Court and Ratner, calling eminent domain for economic development “government theft.”

Is this an alliance of the political left and right? David Goldberg, formerly counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, says no. Goldberg has been collaborating with Community Rights Counsel, a DC-based group which works with community groups and municipalities seeking to preserve the power of the government to regulate development; for example, to require affordable housing or land conservation. They were concerned that the Kelo case was one more effort by right-wingers to weaken the ability of cities and states to guide development for public purposes. So Goldberg prepared an amicus brief for supporters of the Ratner project (the Carpenter’s union, Rev. Herbert Daughtry, and BUILD). Goldberg challenges the claims of Norman Siegel and others that these cases involve “differential impact” on low-income people. While the Robert Moses-style urban renewal of the 1950s and 1960s often displaced low-income tenants – rendering “just compensation” meaningless since they did not own the property and usually received very little for their displacement – in these cases it is primarily middle-class homeowners and businesspeople, who are being paid fair market price for their property.

Steps Toward More Accountable Development

We do need local governments to have the power to promote planning and development that serves public purposes, beyond the vicissitudes of the market. If the highest value in the marketplace always determines what we get, we will lose an enormous amount of what we want and need in our (or any) city: universities, affordable housing, manufacturing jobs, even sports stadiums and the paper of record. Sometimes this will mean applying smart regulation (like inclusionary zoning or zoning that protects industrial jobs), and sometimes it will mean eminent domain. It will be better when the eminent domain begins with public planning, rather than behind-the-scenes moves by private developers; but even then, affected owners will often, of course, be opposed.

Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that states and localities can decide what public purposes are good enough, we need a more robust debate in New York about what standards we want to place on publicly-supported development. Far too often, we give away the store to developers – applying eminent domain, and offering subsidies and tax breaks with too little public scrutiny or requirements. The public benefits in Ratner’s proposal come from the developer’s smart moves to gain support for the project, not from meaningful public process or standards.

New York City and State each took a half-step forward toward more accountable development last month. The City Council and Mayor Bloomberg agreed to increase reporting requirements for developers using subsidies from the city’s Industrial Development Agency, or IDA. And in Albany legislators agreed to a one-year extension of IDAs and public authorities statewide, rather than a full reauthorization, to give time to consider broader reforms that would better promote both accountability and minimum standards for subsidized development.

But we are still behind other cities and states seeking to insure that publicly-supported developments meet a minimum set of standards – living wages and benefits for the jobs, affordable housing, and broader community benefits. The plans for Willets Point and the site on Fulton Mall in downtown Brooklyn include no reference to job quality or affordable housing. Growth and development for their own sake are not an adequate public purpose in a city where development too often increases inequality and segregation, where too many of the new jobs pay poverty wages and offer no benefits, and where too many of the environmental burdens of development (solid waste, power plants) are borne by low-income communities. We need a better, more consistent process to insure that publicly-supported private development

• helps to reduce income inequality
• creates jobs that enable people to support their families and move toward the middle class
• creates affordable housing
• lives better within its “environmental footprint”
• addresses the challenges of traffic and transit
• helps create better neighborhoods
• and makes those neighborhoods places of opportunity.

This is a lot to ask, but it is a fair trade for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidy and the power to take people’s homes.

Brad Lander is the director of the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development

Related Articles:

Condemning (for) Private Businesses2002-03-04

 

A new design for the Freedom Tower proposed for Ground Zero was presented to the public on June 29, almost a year to the day after Governor Pataki officially kicked off construction by laying the building’s cornerstone on July 4th, 2004. The new design more closely resembles the original Twin Towers than it does the previous designs. The only feature retained from the original idea for the building is its height of 1,776 feet.

If the focus of the previous versions of this building was symbolism, the new design is clearly centered on safety. The tower's base is a windowless block of steel and concrete rising 200 feet up from the street. This area will be filled with mechanical equipment, and sheathed with a decorative metal facade. The building will also now be considerably further away from the street.

These changes are meant to make the tower less vulnerable to car or truck bombings, a fear that served as the primary justification for the new design. This spring, the New York Police Department became increasingly vocal in its concerns about security. Officials were eventually forced to address these concerns with major architectural changes.

But the changes have virtually eliminated the ideas of architect Daniel Libeskind, who first conceived the tower in his master plan for Ground Zero in 2002. Libeskind's Freedom Tower was a slender building with an asymmetrical spire, which he intended to evoke the outstretched arm of the Statue of Liberty. This spire rose to a height of 1,776 feet, a tribute to the American Revolution.

In an unhappy collaboration, Libeskind and architect David Childs redesigned the building in December 2003. The new design envisioned a larger tower that twisted to a height of 1,100 feet, with an open-air shaft of windmills surrounded by cables rising 400 feet further. The building was topped by Libeskind’s asymmetrical spire.

The new Freedom Tower does not twist. It has no windmills, and lacks a Statue of Liberty spire. Above the 20-story concrete base, the 77-story building tapers as it rises to 1,362 feet in the air, the same height as Tower Two of the original World Trade Center. Its façade is designed to be reminiscent of the Twin Towers. A centered antenna rises to a total height of 1,776 feet.

By all accounts the building will now be safer. But it seems to have inspired little genuine enthusiasm, at least initially. Michael Goodwin of the Daily News complained of "design fatigue."

New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff saw the design as an indication that political priorities have trumped architectural sensibilities at Ground Zero.

“It is exactly the kind of nightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happen here: an impregnable tower braced against the outside world,” he wrote. “The temptation is to dismiss it as a joke.”

Frank Rich, also in the Times, made the same point more succinctly, renaming the skyscraper "Freedom Bunker."

In the Chicago Tribune, Blair Kamin described the building as “monumentally ordinary,” writing that “it does not turn out to be a persuasive synthesis of armor and aesthetics.”

Newsday’s Justin Davidson said the building was "better than many expected and not nearly good enough.”

Others wondered whether the building can be built at all. Construction is now slated to begin early next year, but the revisions will delay its completion, from the initial promise of 2008 or 2009, to 2010. It is unclear how much the changes will add to the building's $1.5 billion budget.

Looking ahead, skeptics wonder whether there is sufficient demand for the tower’s space, or for the space of any building at Ground Zero. Nearby Seven World Trade Center remains tenantless, even though its construction has gone on without a hitch and is scheduled to be completed in early 2006.

 

It is, in the view of many members of the upper middle class, a natural rite of passage to go away to college, and then, upon graduation, to move to the big city and live on your own. In fact, though, an increasing number of new college grads are moving back in with Mom and Dad

They have been dubbed the "Boomerang Generation." A new advice book aims at them: "Boomerang Nation: How to Survive Living with Your Parents the Second Time Around." For those finding living back at home difficult, help is available from "I Need My Own Place Self-Action Workbook"

But if some college grads do move back home, many never leave to begin with: They could not afford to reside in the dorms, or did not attend a four-year residential college.

About 30 percent of all New York City college grads aged 21 to 25 live with one or more parents in the metropolitan region, according to an analysis of data from the 2000 census, as do 15 percent of those 26 to 30, and eight percent of those 31 to 35. (See Table 1.)

But there is a sharp difference between college grads who went away to school and those who did not. When one looks at those aged 23 to 26 who went away to college, only about eight percent are living with their parents. By contrast, almost three-quarters of those who did not go away continue to live at home.

The college graduates in this age group who went away to college and are now living on their own are more likely to be female, married, white, employed and earning more money. Those who boomeranged (went away to college but now live in their childhood home), make less money, are less married, and less white.

Those that boomerang may not enjoy the experience of moving back home, but what about those who never had the chance to leave?

NOTE: This analysis was based upon data from the 2000 Census Public Use Micro-data file, which includes information about where people lived five years before. That information was used to assess who "went away" to college, as well as other characteristics.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone. 

Before the Rent Guidelines Board voted on the latest rent increases on June 21, housing advocates had spent the year pushing for a rent freezefor the nearly one million apartments in New York City that are rent-stabilized. They thought this might be possible this time around, because of the political calculus involved in an election year. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, running for re-election, appoints the members of the board, which are made up of five “public members,” two who represent landlords and two who represent tenants.

It is possible to say that the Rent Guidelines Board came closer than it has ever come to a rent freeze, because, for the first time in the board’s 35-year-old history, one of the five public members of the nine-member board actually voted for a rent freeze.

But ultimately, the Rent Guidelines Board voted 6 to 3 to allow landlords a 2.75 percent increase on a one-year lease and a 5.5 percent increase on a two-year lease. This is close to the low end of what they had been contemplating since April.

Martin Zelnik, the public member who voted for the rent freeze, said he had “no clue” he had made history. Even though the rents were in fact raised, “I think symbolism is important. The public should know that public members are being sensitive to the public’s concerns.”

In discussion of the motion to increase rents, Zelnik said the board’s annual deliberations shortchange tenants in the city because the board does not consider the broader impact of rent increases on tenants.

“The system is inherently unfair to evaluating the tenants’ side,” Zelnik said. “It doesn’t take into account the quality of life costs for tenants. We have heard very, very little about the issues facing tenants,” he said, citing increases in transit fares, college tuition, food and other items as examples.

After the meeting he said he voted for the increase because it was the best he feared that voting “no” could have led to a higher increase. “You try to arrive at the best level you can,” he said. “I was hoping it would be lower, but it could have been higher.”

Zelnik’s stand in favor of a rent freeze won him support among advocates -- but not much.

“It’s so hypocritical of these public members to say we have an affordable housing crisis and we should study this, and then go ahead and vote for an increase,” said Michael McKee of Tenants and Neighbors.

But board members differed on what role the board plays in addressing the crisis.

While Marvin Markus, the board’s chairman, indicated in his remarks at the vote that the board was charged with keeping rents affordable, the board as a whole apparently believes that allowing landlords to recoup increased operating costs trumps tenants’ financial issues. The city’s record level of homelessness did not move one landlord representative, Howard Lubell. Among other arguments, landlords contend that if rents are not increased adequately, they do not have enough money to pay for building repairs and maintenance.

“We have 38,000 homeless people out of 8 million people in New York,” Lubell said after the vote. “That is not solved by creating more distressed housing.”

Days before the vote, housing advocates had promoted a set of provisos that would have ruled out increases in rents for certain rent stabilized apartments. But the provisos, introduced as a “friendly amendment” by Zelnik during the meeting, were flatly rejected by Markus, who deemed them unfriendly.

One proviso would have given a smaller increase in rent on apartments in buildings where 25 percent or more of the apartments had been decontrolled. Rent stabilized apartments can be decontrolled if their rents reach $2,000 and they are vacated, or if they are $2,000 per month or more and the household income is $175,000 or more for two consecutive years.

Markus also deemed “unfriendly” a second Zelnik amendment that would have given owners of buildings with 10 or fewer apartments where an apartment rents for $400 or less a higher increase in rent.

If tenant advocates were left seething at the outcome of the board meeting, an optimist could discern at least one more positive sign. Everyone on the board this year agreed that the city faces an affordable housing crisis. This is a change from the past. A year ago, the board’s chairman flatly said no such crisis existed.

Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations.