Thursday, September 30, 2004

September-October 2004

MTA to sell $1B in land, including 5M sf on West Side

By Jennifer Benepe

The announcement by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority this past month that it will sell a large amount of land to finance future capital construction has the real estate community guessing about what property will be sold and for how much.

The problem is that the MTA doesn't know either."We're doing an inventory of everything there, what the value is, and what we would get if we sold it," said Tom Kelly, a spokesperson for Peter Kalikow, MTA chairman.

Published reports have put the amount of land to be sold at $1 billion, but Kelly said the agency was still looking carefully at what unused land, right-of-ways, and land adjacent to MTA bridges and tunnels that have no real purpose could be sold.

The biggest pieces for sale will involve the rail yards along Manhattan's West Side and land in Downtown Brooklyn for a Nets stadium, but most of the parcels will likely be small ones."Some of that property people may have taken as their back yards," said Kelly. "Are we talking about 50 extra feet on both sides of an MTA property? We don't know."The extent of the task is daunting. According to an MTA document, the agency "possesses billions of dollars of real estate physical assets, including over 14,000 properties, nearly one thousand stations, and over 1,000 right-of-ways, and numerous bridges and tunnels."

As detailed in their 2003 financial report, the MTA owns $124 million of land, and $10 billion in buildings and structures, both making up well over a third of the agency's total fixed assets.

According to a senior member of the real estate group, the MTA advertises available property in the local newspapers, such as the New York Post and New York Newsday, but there is no schedule or notification system for large-scale property disposals.

The MTA's hottest properties are a pair of rail yards on Manhattan's far West Side which are potential sites for a multibillion dollar sports arena and mixed use development.

While developers don't want the tracks themselves, the air rights are expected to have hefty price tags. While the proposed Jets stadium is to be built over the western rail yards, the eastern rail yards land would be sold and used to house over 10.7 million square feet of mixed commercial, residential and cultural buildings, and a park land about the size of Bryant Park.

Once decking over the yards is completed, the eastern rail yards are estimated to yield 5.7 million square feet of development space. Currently the land is valued at $812 million, a price tag of $159 per square foot.

But this valuation has been questioned by city and state officials, who say it does not represent the number that developers will pay once the amelioration of the surrounding area has been completed. The price is more than likely to double or more after the city has completed the decking, built street improvements, added the No. 7 subway line extension and completed new commercial zoning.

Despite government wrangling, developers' interest in the properties is strong. Once the plan moves forward, the city's Economic Development Corporation will offer three major mixed office and residential development parcels for bid. These will be built close to the proposed park and cultural building, which would raise the value of the land.

"I would love to be involved down there, though it is too preliminary to know whether we can get the density we want," said Peter Murray, vice president of Loewen Development, a private firm that has developed 15 properties in the city over 12 years. Zoning densities are projected with a FAR, or floor area ratio, of six and over.

A bill introduced in the New York Assembly by Speaker Sheldon Silver in July attempted to subject the MTA sale to the land-use review process that other city properties must undergo before a sale is completed. The bill would have allowed the city council, community boards and the public to weigh in on the sale of the land, but the bill has languished in the Senate and is unlikely to pass, according to city and state officials.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

CB9M Resolution In Opposition to Eminent Domain

Community Board N. 9 - Manhattan CB9M

September 24, 2004

Hon. Michael Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, New York 10007

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

At it's regularly scheduled monthly meeting held on Thursday, September 23, 2004 the following resolution re: Opposition to Eminent Domain was passed by a vote of 29 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions:

Whereas, Community Board No. 9 Manhattan is undergoing an on going regeneration process through the preparation of its 197-A Plan; and

Whereas, This process has called for a review of past policies; and

Whereas, The Board has never condoned the use eminent domain for private gain; and

Whereas, Several States have officially repudiated and legally curtailed improper use of the Eminent Domain statute; and

Whereas, Review by our consultants from Pratt Institute has confirmed that conditions in our Manhattanville are not "Blighted"; and

Whereas, Property owned by individual tax paying businesses are in excellent condition; and

Whereas, Properties displaying the most need for remediation belongs to the City or to a non-profit holder; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That Community Board No. 9 Manhattan declares its opposition to the use of condemnation through a "Blight" studies or any other method, as a vehicle toward eminent domain; and be it further

Resolved, That Community Board No. 9 formally requests that no government agency present an offer of eminent domain, whether for or not-for profit, to any private persons seeking development in the Board 9 Manhattan District.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either me or District Manager, Lawrence T. McClean at (212) 864-6200.


Jordi Reyes-Montblanc

Hon. Charles B. Rangel, U.S. Congressman
Hon. Eric Schneiderman, State Senator
Hon. David A. Paterson, State Senator
Hon. Daniel O'Donnell, Assemblymember
Hon. Keith Wright, Assemblymember
Hon. Herman D. Farrell, Jr., Assemblymember
Hon. C. Virginia Fields, Manhattan Borough President
Hon. Robert Jackson, City Councilmember
Hon. Bill Perkins, City Councilmember
Community Board Offices [City-Wide]
NYC Council

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

As It Seeks More Room, Columbia Treads CarefullyA planned $5-billion development in neighboring Harlem reawakens old animosities
New York

Columbia University would seem to have it all: Top-shelf professors. Students skimmed from the upper percentiles of their high-school classes. An Ivy League pedigree. A 36-acre campus in what many deem the world's greatest city. And a $4.3-billion endowment.What it doesn't have is space.

Located on one of the most crowded and affluent islands in the world, Columbia is feeling squeezed. At least a half-dozen of its peer institutions (which include, for this reckoning, Berkeley, Stanford, and the University of Michigan) have campuses that offer more than twice the square footage per student, Columbia's officials say. A concern for many years, the university's space constraints are beginning to threaten the institution's reputation for excellence, top administrators say. The university's president, Lee C. Bollinger, has made it clear that a solution must be found on his watch.

"To fulfill our responsibilities and aspirations," Mr. Bollinger said in his inaugural address in 2002, "Columbia must expand significantly over the next decade."

To that end, Columbia has proposed a $5-billion campus expansion that would claim 18 acres of Harlem real estate. Columbia's ambition, though, has collided with a local strain of New York skepticism and mistrust that has festered for most of the past four decades. Mindful of past slights by the university, a vocal faction of Harlem residents is adamantly opposed to Columbia's growth plan.

In Harlem, where jobs and affordable housing are scarce and gentrification is rampant, Columbia's attempts to tread carefully as it pieces together the multibillion-dollar expansion have received mixed reactions. Some say that Columbia is set on erasing their West Harlem neighborhood. And many don't believe that Columbia will follow through on its promises to compensate the community with thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in new economic activity.

Columbia's dilemma in many ways mirrors tensions nationwide between urban universities and the neighborhoods that surround them. Like much in New York, though, the stage here is larger, and the stakes are higher. Opponents of the expansion plan have a say in whether the city grants Columbia's request to rezone the site of its intended growth. That rezoning is the linchpin of the entire undertaking and would allow Columbia to build the mixed-use high-rises envisioned for the new campus. If Columbia can't win over the opposition, it may have to revamp, or even scrap, its plans.

Mr. Bollinger and others acknowledge the possibility that Columbia might not prevail.
"Columbia has a history with this community, and many people in this community could care less about what Columbia wants," says Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, chairman of Manhattan Community Board 9, a New York City Council advisory group that represents the district that includes the Columbia expansion site. "Columbia has to convince the community that what they want to do is beneficial to the community."

A Legacy of Distrust

The intractable distrust that exists between Columbia and Harlem first crystallized in a flash of anger and resentment in 1968.

Columbia had proposed building a gymnasium in Harlem with separate entrances: one for the mostly white students of Columbia, and another for the mostly black residents of Harlem.
At the time, Columbia students were already angry about the institution's membership in a consortium of universities that did research for the U.S. Department of Defense. A protest at the site of the proposed gym turned into a sit-in at Columbia's Hamilton Hall and finally grew into a weeklong takeover of five buildings on the campus by about 800 students and their supporters. Hundreds of people were arrested and more than 100 were injured, according to press reports at the time. The gym opened elsewhere six years after the protest.

Also in the 1960s, Columbia built a faculty-apartment complex whose front door faces away from Harlem.

In the 1980s the university snapped up local apartment buildings to alleviate a student-housing shortage -- which triggered evictions in the neighborhood and heightened town-gown tensions.
A more recent faux pas: A year ago, Columbia opened an elementary school for the children of its faculty and used a lottery system to admit neighborhood students. But at the last minute, school administrators filled four openings with students who hadn't entered the lottery, triggering a local outcry.

Mr. Bollinger, well aware of the strained relations between Columbia and Harlem, says the institution has to "put the ghost of the gymnasium behind it." So this time around, Columbia has been taking its time and trying to do things right.

The Search for Space

Over the last decade or so, Columbia has scouted the New York area for room to grow. It looked in the suburbs and at land on the West Side of Manhattan that is owned by the real-estate magnate Donald Trump. Columbia, the city's eighth-largest employer, also thought about putting up new buildings wherever it could find room in the city.

But shortly after Mr. Bollinger became president, the West Harlem sector called Manhattanville, near where Columbia's limestone campus has been since 1897, won out. The proposed northward expansion, Columbia officials reasoned, could serve as a link between the university's main campus and its health-sciences complex about two miles north.

"My belief is that the strongest universities are those that are mostly contiguous," Mr. Bollinger says. "Psychologically, this is our home."

To strengthen its claims, Columbia has for several years been circulating a document that shows how its crowded campus puts the institution at a competitive disadvantage. Columbia, the document says, has 326 square feet per student, while Princeton, Yale, and Stanford offer 800 or more square feet per student.

Meanwhile, Columbia has put unprecedented energy into cultivating community support for its growth plans. The university formed a 38-member community-advisory committee in early 2003 to consult with administrators about the expansion. Faculty and student committees were formed as well. The university has also held town-hall meetings.

"We knew we couldn't treat this as business as usual," Mr. Bollinger says.

To counter the mistrust, Columbia has been forthcoming about its plans, says Robert A. McCaughey, a history professor at Barnard College and author of Stand, Columbia: A History of Columbia University in the City of New York.

"I think the strategy of the earlier administrations, after making some passing efforts at community relations, was to just go ahead and do it," says Mr. McCaughey of putting up new buildings at Columbia. "For Bollinger to have laid out a 30-year plan, that is very different from Columbia announcing that the construction team will be there on Tuesday."

Harlem's "second renaissance," which began over the last decade and spawned a retail mecca of sorts on 125th Street, has largely bypassed Manhattanville. That made it an easy target for Columbia, which wanted to expand on a grand scale.

The land Columbia is eyeing for a tree-lined extension of its campus is a mostly industrial area of roughly five city blocks that is bordered by an elevated subway track, a highway viaduct, and two housing complexes. It is a gritty swath of warehouses, auto-repair shops, and car washes -- a testament to the area's having been zoned for manufacturing. Residences, which house mostly working-class people of color, are few. The university says 140 legal apartments, one-third of which are not occupied, are affected by its plans.

Zoned for Manufacturing

The site is home to two neighborhood institutions: La Floridita, a Cuban restaurant, and Fairway, a mega-grocery store on the Hudson River waterfront. People can often be seen casting their lines for fish just off the store's parking lot. Both neighborhood landmarks would remain after the expansion, Columbia officials say, although La Floridita would get a new location.

The first phase of the 30-year expansion, to be completed over a decade, would include building a new School of the Arts and a science building, which Columbia says it desperately needs to keep attracting top researchers, professors, and students.

"Our science building is four or five decades old," says Jeremiah Stoldt, director of campus planning. "Those types of restraints don't really lend themselves to cutting-edge research."
Columbia's plans for the first phase also call for setting aside 200,000 square feet of space in the ground floors of some buildings for retail that would serve the campus and the community. The university says it is too soon to know what construction will come next.

Columbia has been buying land in Manhattanville over the last year or so. Officials say the university now owns or leases about half the land it wants to develop. It is negotiating to buy the remaining property. For property that it can't buy -- and some owners are indeed holding their ground -- Columbia would have to turn to the state to help it get the land through eminent domain. It is an option the institution has not publicly ruled out.

"I think we want to go in with the assumption that we can buy everything we need," Mr. Stoldt says.

For all of its attempts to do things right this time around, Columbia still faces entrenched opposition. Some people like Maritta Dunn, a member of Community Board 9 and a Manhattanville resident of 44 years, says Columbia hasn't learned much in the 36 years since the massive student protest.

Ms. Dunn says Columbia's refusal to say that it will not use eminent domain to oust property owners from their land kills the spirit of partnership that the university says it wants with Harlem. And she is not impressed with Columbia's outreach efforts, dubbing them a "public relations" ploy at best.

Mr. Reyes-Montblanc, the Community Board 9 chairman, says that sentiment is somewhat widespread.

"My problem with Columbia is they use the same format over and over again," says Ms. Dunn, who also leads the Harlem Valley Heights Community Development Corporation. "They definitely need to expand, but this doesn't require them sucking up a whole neighborhood. The plan as it stands is ambitious -- to be nice. And invasive -- to be real."

Columbia officials have "been making a tremendous effort to communicate what they want," Mr. Reyes-Montblanc says. "But there is a sense in the community that the communication is one way."

Local activists have become increasingly vocal in their opposition.

"We're just simply trying to do our best to build a coalition that will make it clear to Columbia that we don't want their expansion in our neighborhood," says Tom DeMott, a founder of the Coalition to Preserve Community. The coalition exists, Mr. DeMott says, "to attempt to defend the neighborhood from what we see as a tremendous onslaught on the community to push out longtime residents and businesses."

Mr. Bollinger says he knows there will be "people who will continue to oppose" the institution's expansion plans no matter what.

The community's frustration spilled over at an April meeting, attended by more than 150 people, in which the university officially unveiled its expansion plans. As if making an academic presentation, Columbia officials turned to a sprawling three-dimensional model of the project, stacks of paperwork, and a polished PowerPoint presentation to pull everything together. Mr. Bollinger stood before the crowd to speak.

When he finished, members of the audience peppered him with pointed questions, revealing their skepticism about the project and the university's intentions. "I felt they were denouncing me and denouncing Columbia," Mr. Bollinger says of the meeting, which was held by Community Board 9.

'Palatable' Opposition

The neighborhood, however, is by no means monolithic in its opposition. Barbara Hohol, a local activist and self-described "wide-eyed moderate" says she believes that Columbia has good intentions to be a part of the community.

The expansion, Ms. Hohol says, should be "more palatable" because it is not imminent -- thanks to the 30-year timetable that the university has for the project. "But I do think their feet should be held to the fire," says Ms. Hohol.

More palatable still, Columbia has promised that the expansion would create 9,000 new jobs and pour $4-billion into New York's economy. Columbia also says it will provide minority construction contracts and the relocation of businesses and residents.
But in Manhattanville, Columbia's word is not enough.

The community advisory committee, in a report it produced in June, recommended that such promises be put in writing. Other neighbors are pushing to get the university to sign a community-benefits agreement as well. Such a document, which Columbia isn't obligated to sign, would outline more specifically how Harlem would be improved because of the project.

The advisory committee's report recommended that Columbia provide job training for the new positions it plans to provide, play a role in the development of affordable housing, preserve more of the area's historic landmarks, and improve the quality of education in the schools surrounding its campus, among other things.

"I do think they have to make some assurances that the jobs created will be to the extent possible filled by people in the neighborhood ... and not just simply Ph.D.'s from other parts of the country," Mr. McCaughey says.

Columbia appears to be reluctant to sign such a contract, saying that doing so would bind the hands of future administrations.

"I think they are perplexed and divided over the issue of a community-benefits agreement," says Joseph Wilson, a Columbia alumnus and director of the Graduate Center for Worker Education at Brooklyn College who helped write the committee's report. "There are some who would like to see a pledge and others who are more cautious to committing the university to anything in writing."
Mr. Reyes-Montblanc, chairman of one of the handful of governmental entities that will have a say in Columbia's rezoning request, says a community-benefits agreement is key.

"The rezoning they will receive is dependent on that," Mr. Reyes-Montblanc says. "Most people in the community are not against developing the area. The question is whether what Columbia is proposing is the best solution."

Friday, September 10, 2004

Columbia University
Community Advisory Committee

June 21, 2004

Dorothy Désir and Dr. Joseph Wilson Editors
This document renders all previous CAC draft reports null and void.

Subcommittee Members..........................i
Executive Summary...........................1
Subcommittee Reports
· Culture...............................4
· Housing. ............................8
· Economic Development.......................10
· Employment.........................13
Conclusions & Recommendations.......................16
References & Sources........................19a

CAC Subcommittee Members
Peter Arndtsen, Barbara Hohol, Joan Levine, Joan Morford, Norma Ramos Esq.,
Eric Washington
Chair Ms. Dorothy Désir

Cecil Corbin-Mark, Nancy O'Hara, Norma Ramos Esq.
Chair Ms. Peggy Shepard

George Goodwill, Dr. Eliot Kahn, Dan Victor
Chair Dr. Joseph Wilson

Economic Development
Peter Arndtsen, Maritta Dunn, Hope Knight, Lucille McEwen Esq., Moises Perez,
Kerri Rogers
Chair Reverend Dr. Earl Kooperkamp

Fatima P. Fernandez-Torres, Debby Figueroa, Hortencia Gonzalez, Carolyn Kent, Barbara Lowry, Rev. Sixto Quezada, Ana Soler, Andrea Vaghy
Co-Chair Ms. Altagarcia Hiraldo Co-Chair Mr. Zead Ramadan

We thank Columbia University President Lee Bollinger and the Board of Trustees for continuing to facilitate community input concerning the Manhattanville in West Harlem Campus Project, and the University's need to expand. The University is to be commended for its creation of the broadly based, Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide feedback and recommendations in this ongoing process.

Engaging the communities immediately impacted by the University's expansion plans in civil dialog reflects a measure of the University's sensitivity, progress, and leadership.

We recognize Emily Lloyd, EVP Government & Community Affairs for thoughtfully enabling through the CAC, community leaders to independently articulate the concerns of our constituents. Warren Whitlock, Director of Construction Coordination and liaison to the CAC is acknowledged for his commitment to the communities of Northern Manhattan and fostering campus-community dialogue.

Thanks also to Project Coordinator Claudia Huerta, for assistance throughout this process.

We thank the CAC's membership for their public service, diligent research and outreach to their constituents.

Subcommittee Chairs; Dorothy Désir, Altagracia Hiraldo, Reverend Dr. Earl Kooperkamp, Zead Ramadan, Peggy Shepard, and Dr. Joseph Wilson are acknowledged for their service in creating this document.

We are very grateful to CAC participants, University administrators, consultants, elected officials, civic, cultural and business leaders for sharing their expertise in this purposefully democratic exercise. Our collective efforts reflect a general consensus and proposed plan of action.

ii CAC Report
Executive Summary

The CAC was convened by Columbia University to provide feedback and guidance from a broad spectrum of community leaders concerning the Manhattanville in West Harlem Campus Project. This report is the summation of a multitude of meetings, discussions, documents and original research generated by the CAC as a whole. Presented are a set of principles, recommendations and guidelines for consideration and implementation by Columbia University's current and future administrations.

Columbia University, located in/adjacent to Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12 is situated in a city with one of the world's greatest concentrations of wealth. However, a majority of the local residents struggle daily with staggering poverty, limited resources and inadequate social services.

Local disparities between poverty and wealth underscore social, economic and culture tensions and the fragile nature of the communities adjacent to Columbia. Recognition of unique community characteristics and the endangered condition of the local populations will foster parity, equity and integrity by recognizing and strengthening the spirit of each resident.

To be a world-class 21st century urban university, Columbia must play a leading role in shaping the future of the metropolitan area in ways that are mutually beneficial to the campus and greater community.

Community engagement must continue to be embedded in University development plans, recognizing the University cannot be an island unto itself.

Sustaining the culture of our communities enables current and future generations to meet challenges in education, science, communication, housing, employment, and technology. A strategic collaborative partnership with Columbia University promotes a culture of empowerment that mutually enhances our collective body of shared knowledge and human possibilities.

Culture in its complexity and diversity is central to the economic development and sustainability of Columbia University's expansion plans.

The primary objective of the CAC's report is to provide a framework for Columbia and Upper Manhattan residents to generate dialog and create mechanisms for social engagement and mutually beneficial economic opportunities. This can be achieved through education, vocational skills training, employment, and economic participation. Its contents detail the impact of Columbia's objectives on our communities. An accord based on this document can and must create new opportunities for historically disenfranchised working
people, women, and people-of-color who live in proximity to the University.

Our collective quality of life rests on the existence of affordable and low-income housing; human scale architecture; a safe, clean, green environment; and further cultivation of a culturally and economically diverse landscape.

We advocate community inclusion in the University's strategic economic development plans. This includes strengthening the capacity of existing businesses and community institutions as they prepare for the future. Columbia must continue to advance the kinds of economic development that creates opportunities for new ventures including non-profit organizations. We encourage Columbia to adhere to the principle of re-investment in the local economy, including access to capital, creation of businesses and service providers to meet the requirements of local residents, including University students, faculty and staff.

The CAC recognizes that housing is not a core University activity. Nor is the University responsible for the growing crisis of affordable and low-income housing in New York City. However, given Columbia's substantial real-estate holdings, planned development and range of current construction projects, the University will have a profound economic and social impact within the Manhattanville footprint, and in surrounding communities. Real-estate values, housing availability, community amenities and the quality of life for the residents of greater Upper Manhattan will all be affected. The housing crisis stemming from growing gentrification and displacement undermines the University in relation to the ideals of community and campus diversity.

Columbia has the historic opportunity to be an exemplary neighbor by setting a high standard. Columbia can symbolically and substantively enable development of affordable and mixed-use housing, helping to realize President Bollinger's goals and vision of economic and social diversity within and around the Columbia community. President Bollinger also has the opportunity to take bold and immediate steps to redress the historic disparity of under-representation of people-of-color on Columbia's staff, faculty and senior administration.

This document is the foundation for a social contract. In essence, it is a Memorandum of Understanding between Columbia University, diverse constituents and community interests represented by the CAC. While we do not expect Columbia to fulfill the letter of all that it demands, we do however expect the University to honor its spirit and process.

A holistic, integrated approach to development that meaningfully recognizes the human, ecological and material assets of the communities of Northern Manhattan, Manhattan Valley, Morningside Heights and West Harlem or Manhattanville in particular will enable the possibility for an honest, manageable, and sustainable collaboration between Columbia University and its neighbors.

Divided in five sectors: Culture; Economic Development; Employment; Environmental; and Housing; the CAC's principles, priorities, suggestions and recommendations for the University's expansion must be given serious consideration. We recommend a negotiated Community Benefits Agreement and a concrete action plan memorializing the following:
· Community orientation and engagement
· Transparency and accountability
· Diversity, equity and fairness
· Accessibility and permeability
· Economic and cultural sustainability
· Community employment
· Green environment
· Mixed income housing and non-displacement.

Objectives: Early in the CAC process, a cultural impact study was recommended. A formal investigation of Manhattanville's tangible and intangible assets is still warranted. This report serves as prelude to that exercise.

Connections between communities: academic and residential, transient and permanent from Heights to Heights, transcending ethnic, racial, linguistic, and class boundaries allows for a unique topographic and urban landscape that could be as much a cultural corridor as an academic one for Upper Manhattan. With the expansion of Columbia University's campus, and building a new home for the School of the Arts, the notion of cultivating a creative community within its immediate environs is essential to long term sustainability and growth, as is the willingness and ability of artists to live and work in Northern Manhattan.

By working in meaningful partnerships with existing and new cultural organizations and institutions, we foresee the development of culture as a tool for equitable development within our communities.

1. Programmatic
Multilayered collaboration to promote social engagement and animate democracy across racial, class, and other social barriers is a critical component of community viability. Cultural activities should be designed with the intent of creating intellectual and economic gains for campus and community residents.

· The University's new facilities and liaisons with key
organizations in the Greater Harlem and Washington Heights communities have the potential to expand the horizons of under-served, under-represented people by creating opportunities to work in broadcast, multimedia, technology and other industries under consideration. These must include area artists, technicians, producers and distributors. An arts film house and other cultural incubator efforts are called for;

· Campus-community multi-use facilities should house and
incubate non-profit organizations, especially cultural groups, allowing innovative administrative practices, increased resources and maintenance of Harlem's cultural and civic legacy;

· The new and old communities of West Harlem/
Manhattanville should have no physical or psychological barriers preventing social interaction. By fostering workshops, seminars and other public service activities Columbia can promote sustainability, human development and capacity building.

These include:
- collecting oral histories from the Harlem community
- presenting oral narratives
- social rituals (block parties; outdoor concerts)
- walking tours
- providing access to information technology
- exhibitions organized by community residents, faculty, and students
- jointly sponsored theatre programs
- public art: temporary and permanent indoor and outdoor art projects

2. Built Environment
· Historic Preservation: The rehabilitation of
Manhattanville should be fashioned in a manner that reflects its historic prominence. The unique elements of the area's physical characteristics, i.e., the existing elements that give it a sense of place; that define it as a community; and inhabit memory should, when possible, be preserved and conserved. An inventory of community landmarks should be instigated. Pending its outcome, arrangements that permit the care and protection of these assets should be put in place. For example, local tourism would enhance economic development by employing local residents as tour guides;
· Basic Design Premise: The new urban design should
contain a healthy balance of human scale structures that incorporate multiple small green spaces in addition to the large plaza conceived by the architects. The streetscape program should include the following: art galleries, Internet café, information center, ethnic restaurants, boutiques and smaller shops.

3. Cultural Enterprise
Subsidized provisional or permanent live/work space for artisans involved in light industry such as carpentry, tile making, masonry, glass etching, industrial design and other crafts related to the housing industries is recommended. The example of the Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center in Brooklyn is noteworthy. An apprenticeship program borne out of this space can provide area residents with immediate job training and life long skills. A complex consisting of artisans especially in the home design industry might serve as a viable, affordable, creative alternative for homeowners and regional residents to the larger, more generic design building supply chain stores.
· Columbia should consider developing and funding a program that provides the facilities for and training of, local residents interested in entering the crafts industries or the building trades.

Objectives: To address the current and ongoing community environmental concerns, the Environmental Subcommittee offers the following recommendations:
1. Sustainable Development
· Newly constructed or renovated buildings should be energy-efficient and a world-class showcase for green building design, materials and feature high-performance components;
· Columbia should oppose the proposed reopening of the 135th Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS);
· The Earth Institute should dedicate some of its resources to assist Northern Manhattan communities achieve environmental justice;
· Columbia should utilize Leadership Energy and Environmental Design Standards (LEEDS) as advocated by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2.Transportation and Air Quality
· All off-road construction vehicles used by Columbia contractors should use lowest-sulfur fuel and particle traps on tailpipes to reduce the diesel emissions of fine particles that exacerbate respiratory and cardiac disease. Columbia should comply with the City Council's Local Law 110, which mandates diesel retrofits on all city-contracted construction;
· Require that all contractors adhere to and demand compliance with anti-idling laws;
· Explore the development of an off-site truck receiving facility to prevent diesel pollution;
· Mitigate traffic congestion;
· Promote pedestrian travel and parallel bike paths;
· Establish a policy of encouraging vendors to use
alternative fuel vehicles by stipulating desired outcomes in contracts fostering the establishment of "green truck zones" at delivery sites on the new campus;
· Enhance public transportation facilities, including train and bus stations;
· Encourage Metro North to develop a 125th Street and Hudson River station stop to re-invigorate the Harlem Corridor;
· Invest in electric, natural gas or other cleaner fueled vehicles for deployment into University fleet vehicles/shuttles, which will operate between campus centers;
· Support the community's waterfront park recommendations
for closing Marginal Way Street to increase open space and allow safe pedestrian access to the planned waterfront park. Exposure to diesel exhaust must be minimized exiting and entering the West Side Highway.

3. Solid Waste Export and Reduction
· Columbia should oppose the City's Commercial Waste Study, which recommends that residential and commercial waste streams be combined for export. The consequence of
adopting this recommendation would mean the 135th Street MTS would again revert to being a 24-hour operation that could receive 400 garbage trucks per day. This is not a viable option from the communities' perspective;
· Columbia should study its waste stream and target ways to reduce, reuse and recycle;
· Require recycling and waste reduction in its leases with commercial tenants;
· Establish a zero-waste policy for the campus and encourage the location of a reuse center on the new campus; aggressively compost waste that is suitable for composting; · Columbia's successful campus initiatives on recycling should be continued and expanded to provide training to local commercial operations and local residential building maintenance staff on best recycling practices.

4. Streetscape Enhancements
· Utilize every opportunity to plant trees, shrubs and greenery throughout the Manhattanville area including rooftops (where possible) to enhance aesthetics and air quality;
· Work to create a people-oriented, safer, pedestrian friendly environment while mitigating vehicular traffic.

5. Extend Open Space and Waterfront Park
We envision the corridor as a destination point. The notion of the "campus as fortress" is unacceptable to the greater community. The CAC instead promotes seamless physical and social interaction between residents and Columbia students, faculty and staff. To that end, the University should reexamine its existing plans to build on the Southeast corner at 125th Street and Broadway (currently McDonald's venue) and instead create a green corridor at this site that will draw interest and activity towards the new campus and the Hudson River.
· Continue active support of the planned waterfront park
by any combination of the following: committing funds for
the support, maintenance, management and programming of the park;
· The design program of new buildings should not block views of the River from Manhattanville tenants and should not block sight lines at 125th and Broadway;
· Develop a community/academic partnership to create an environmental education center near the waterfront that benefits New York and neighborhood school children. This was a recommendation of the Harlem-on-the-River process that has not been fulfilled by the Economic Development Corporation
because they do not own space for the proposed center.

Objective: To enable Columbia to attain the status of the world's preeminent urban university campus, internal University housing needs and expertise should be linked with community initiatives to insure the growth of a culturally diverse and intellectually dynamic shared community in Manhattanville and Upper Manhattan areas. President Bollinger's public commitment to racial justice should be a guiding principle implicit and explicit in all phases of the Manhattanville development. Social, cultural and economic diversity; and affordable housing were identified as areas of priority and overlapping University-community common interest.

Columbia is one of the largest real-estate-holding entities in New York. The University's regional expansion, particularly the proposed Manhattanville campus, increases its geographic preeminence in the City. Given Columbia's historic role and influence, the CAC urges the University to proactively support existing affordable and low income housing, as well as, create new affordable units. Affordable housing is in the best interest of community residents, Columbia's faculty, staff, students, and future generations.
Columbia currently estimates that about 150 housing units will be directly lost as a result of Manhattanville's development. The CAC is convinced that a far greater number of affordable and low-income housing units are at risk of being made unaffordable as an indirect result of the proposed Manhattanville campus. The issue of the University's use of eminent domain has also raised community concern.

1. Gentrification and Displacement
Columbia's Manhattanville expansion is bound-up with larger gentrification patterns, as exemplified by 3333 Broadway, an 1190 unit apartment complex whose owners recently opted out of the Mitchell-Lama program, and will begin charging market­rate rents in 2005. Columbia's campus development (just one block south of this complex) will contribute to increasing rent levels, thus moving apartments out of the reach of poor and working people in this and other local buildings, causing severe economic hardship and increasing the potential for homelessness.
· Columbia should identify and mobilize significant funding for major housing development from specifically targeted HUD, state, city, private and pension funds.
Numerous local organizations have built affordable units and should be viewed as potential partners and/or collaborators;
· Special housing legislation could also be sought, given the University's public stature. Columbia should foster a policy of long-term leases to stabilize the rental market.

2. Community Stabilization
· Columbia University should replace the housing of people directly displaced by the proposed Manhattanville campus;
· Utilizing a range of potential funding sources, including federal, city and state financing, Columbia should build future housing approximating 1000 affordable, mixed income units (in addition to any specifically designated University housing), within or near the proposed Manhattanville campus. These affordable housing units should be open to non-Columbia affiliated, income-eligible members residing within Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12;
· Columbia should partner and work with community-based organizations, not-for-profits, government, and private entities to stabilize rents and develop affordable community owned housing within areas surrounding the Manhattanville footprint;
· CAC recommends creation of community owned not-for-
profit, commercial and public meeting spaces.

3. Land Trusts and Housing Models
Columbia should actively consider contributing towards and facilitating the establishment of a substantial Community Land Trust, enabling local home ownership, to preserve and develop affordable housing. Columbia should create a housing strategy based on public and private investment and mixed income housing programs. Some examples include:
-Limited-equity coops
-Assisted living facilities for moderate/low income residents
-Low income/rent stabilized apartments
-Mixed income housing with upper, middle and low-income units
-Housing stock preservation/landmark status

Economic Development
Objectives: From the CAC's perspective, economic development must be first and foremost, the development of economic equity. All aspects of economic development must be designed to enhance the economic position of local residents in terms of employment, income generation, property ownership and investment opportunities.

Columbia's approach to local business should set specific targets and goals for community economic development. An essential goal is to insure that current businesses remain viable and grow where possible. CAC is concerned with the closing of small- and medium-size businesses that have operated in the community for decades due to ballooning rent and other fixed cost increases. If their operations are disrupted through Columbia's expansion, adequate provisions and compensation should be developed.

1. Anti-displacement Measures
· Columbia should implement anti-displacement programs and consider a range of options for local businesses including rent subsidies, negotiation with commercial landlords, short term credit and loan assistance. We recognize market forces affect local businesses surrounding Columbia University beyond its Manhattanville footprint. Thus anti-displacement programs for local businesses should include adjacent areas;
· Current businesses displaced by Columbia University's expansion into West Harlem must be given first priority in relocating into new retail spaces of the proposed development;
· In partnership with governmental and private initiatives, Columbia should identify and develop public and private funding sources to facilitate local business development. For example funds can be dedicated to securing lines of credit; local business expansion; micro-lending initiatives for small and mid-size businesses and local start-up companies.

2. Incubating New Businesses
· With economic self-sufficiency and equity as goals, developing community-owned cooperative businesses and working with local residents to become the owners of their firms is encouraged;
· Specific targets for developing locally owned
businesses should reflect the University's goals for women and minority owned firms in construction projects, vendors etc. These targets should be regularly reviewed to insure compliance and set higher rates as success is achieved in meeting the goals.

3. Technology
· Columbia's technological infrastructure should be adapted for commercial and business uses and local, women and minority vendors. For example, wireless technologies that benefit academic research need to be accessible to the community.

4. Access to Capital
· Given Columbia's preliminary development plans, CAC recognizes that displacement and the creation of a competitive disadvantage for existing businesses, property owners and community partners is inevitable without University intervention. To mitigate the adverse economic impact, Columbia should work to align existing funding sources and stimulate the formation of new revenue streams to help sustain and bolster businesses, property owners, cultural institutions, community organizations and promote the development of low income and affordable housing. Columbia's capital access advocacy on behalf of community partnerships and participation in Manhattanville and surrounding neighborhoods will help make access to capital a reality;
· NYC's Controller's Office, the Empowerment Zone and private institutional investors have earmarked funds for similar types of investment. Business models for socially conscious investments already exist, and require further research to determine best practices and benchmarks for local application. The key is to provide equity for such investments and increase participation by community partners;
· A percentage of the gross value of the Manhattanville project (estimated at $5 billion dollars) should be clearly identified from a variety of sources and earmarked for community development purposes;
· Columbia should consider investing in or creating, a private offering that would focus on the community's impacted by Manhattanville. Equity investment on behalf of community partners is the proposed business model. Community partners have long been recognized as facilitators of cultural and economic development. However they have often been limited in their participation due to a lack of capital. By developing an equity pool that commands a fair return to investors and to community partners, Columbia would enable existing CAC members and their constituents to remain vested in Manhattanville, and bordering communities.

5. Radial Impact
· Columbia's Manhattanville development is having a radial impact in the surrounding communities. The New York City Planning Commissions is currently studying the feasibility of up-zoning 125th Street. Manhattanville will become a catalyst for re-zoning. Business and property owners, residents, cultural institutions and community organizations, River to River on 125th Street will be affected. The ability to sustain existing businesses, cultural and community organizations and institutions, as well as, low- income and affordable housing along the 125th street corridor will hinge upon these existing entities being able to command the equity necessary to survive development in a rapidly changing community. Columbia's analysis of the Manhattanville project's impact should therefore extend to the entire 125th Street Corridor. Specific development proposals should be evaluated in concert with the community, given the scope and potential economic impact.

Objectives: Given Columbia's status as New York City's 4th largest private employer, and its historic under representation of minority professionals and workers, it is imperative that the University engage in fair employment practices across the board. As we aim to prevent the formation of physical and psychological barriers from the urban design plan, we insist the University take immediate action to remove barriers to achieving a more representative workforce.

To achieve sustainable and credible goals, a two-fold analysis and approach that redresses issues found within the internal culture of the University and the resident
community hosting the University is proposed. The job creation and training called for must run concurrent with recommended vocational and academic educational
preparedness. At the heart of the success aimed for, are the human resources employed from the local community and institutional diversity, i.e., University educators and administrators.

Columbia must prioritize partnering with local non-profit employment organizations to fill University related job openings.
1. Hiring from the Community
Columbia should employ local residents and facilitate funding of and space for local employment, economic development and educational organizations for job training and job creation initiatives.

These initiatives should include classroom training, paid internships and on-site apprenticeships designed specifically to prepare Upper Manhattan residents to fill job openings at Columbia and its affiliated companies. Training and education may include, adult basic education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), GED instruction, health care, construction trades, building maintenance, computer and data entry skills, administrative assistance, customer service, hospitality and security.

Columbia and labor unions associated with these jobs should provide guidance and technical assistance to ensure that local residents have the necessary skills for these job opportunities.
· Columbia should hire a community liaison to maintain and distribute an on-going, up-dated list of all job opportunities resulting directly and indirectly from its expansion projects and new job openings in Upper Manhattan. This list should be available to community residents, local employment, economic development and non-profit organizations and Community Planning Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12;

· All contractors hired by Columbia should work with the University to ensure that local residents and businesses are informed of all employment opportunities. Outreach efforts may include a newsletter, the Internet, on-site recruitment through local community-based organizations, broad-based community announcements, job listings and advertisements in local community and Spanish-language newspapers and Community Board announcements;
· Columbia should make best efforts to require labor unions to appoint community liaisons to work directly with non-profit organizations in Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12 in order to facilitate union membership including women in the trades;
· Columbia should facilitate the bonding of minority contractors to enhance participation in construction projects.

2. Hiring Percentages
· To its credit, Columbia's use of goals and targets to achieve MWL participation in its construction program is acknowledged as being a good example of diversity participation targets. However, Columbia should strive to meet and exceed the following goals for Manhattanville: 30% minority-owned; 10% woman-owned; 30% local-owned businesses. From the general population, we recommend hiring at a target of:
1. 50% African American and Latino or Hispanic residents in Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and12.
2. 20% drawn from other residents in Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12.
3. Educational Institutions and Capacity-building Columbia should use its influence and academic reputation to work with the NYC's Department of Education to improve the quality of K-12 education in CBs 7, 9, 10, and 12. Efforts may include but should not be limited to:
-Participation in the establishment of a new high school in Upper Manhattan;
-Working with local schools by providing staff development and training for existing teachers, and loan forgiveness for Columbia University graduates who teach in public schools in CBs 7, 9, 10, and 12.
· In conjunction with other area colleges, institutions and agencies, Columbia is encouraged to establish, fund and staff a program to assist high school students preparing for college;
· Columbia should work with non-profit organizations to establish a community-based scholarship program;

· A leadership institute (such as the Harlem Heritage Project proposed by Columbia Professor Manning Marable) that might be available for management and staff development in social work, public administration, public health, architecture, education, and urban planning.

4. Faculty and Administration
President Bollinger publicly acknowledges the .infrastructure of diversity. (is) less well-developed at Columbia than it should be. The CAC calls the following to the attention of the University:
· Columbia's undergraduate teaching staff consists approximately of 550 faculty members. Tenured academics of color number a mere 13, with only twelve tenured African Americans and one tenured Latino professor. Faculty diversity will promote and stimulate student diversity. Increasing the presence of tenure-tracked academics and securing their status in the professorate is an imperative the University should proactively employ;
· The University must substantially increase the presence
of people-of-color at mid- and senior administrative staff levels; and create opportunities for administrative leadership in areas not traditionally occupied by people-of­African descent and Latinos such as architecture, engineering and technology management.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The CAC deems it imperative that President Bollinger meets with the CAC and provide a preliminary response to the CAC's report and recommendations. CAC considers it essential for the University to maintain an ongoing dialog, providing a specific and detailed response to the proposals, recommendations, and principles outlined herein. The culmination of this dialog should result in a Community Benefits Agreement that is binding on future Columbia administrations.

Columbia should continue vetting the Manhattanville in West Harlem Campus Project with the CAC on a quarterly basis and provide regular progress reports. A core CAC group should convene regularly with senior members of Columbia's Manhattanville Campus Plan Design Team including the: Office of the President, Facilities Management, Government & Community Affairs, and the newly created Arts Initiatives among others. The CAC should also meet periodically with the University's Faculty Advisory Committee.

Columbia should provide the Upper Manhattan community with detailed quarterly reports on all articulated objectives. Reports should include:
- number and demographics of people hired
- community investment capitalization
- types of jobs filled at Columbia and in affiliated companies
- job training and education initiatives implemented
- development of technical assistance for local businesses and start -up's
- programmatic articulation with public schools in Upper Manhattan.
- square footage build-out
- data on minority and women's businesses utilized in construction, purchasing, and Manhattanville campus plan participation
- business replacement and retention
- monitoring of low-income and affordable housing
- consistent and regular environmental monitoring

CAC advocates formation of other Columbia committees to focus on campus-community interests. This underscores and complements the importance of the CAC's representative input reflective of the concerns and interests of the community at large. As we aim for a democratic and inclusive development process, the CAC also advocates meeting with community groups omitted from this initial process.

President Bollinger recently stated:
Manhattanville in West Harlem promises room to grow not only in a coherent and thoughtful way but also in a way that is consistent with the economic and social needs of our neighbors.

More concretely, the Manhattanville project would also create approximately 9,000 permanent new jobs in an area where employment has fallen by more than 40 percent since 1984 and is now estimated at approximately 1,250 jobs. Today's modest warehouses, automotive services, and light industrial buildings would give way to vibrant, mixed-use development, including public and commercial spaces. The design and construction of the proposed facilities alone would provide an estimated $4 billion of economic stimulus to the economy of New York City.

Creating economic stimulus for the economy of New York City is formidable; however creating access to capital on behalf of the community within Columbia's immediate vicinity is a key component of economic and community development for existing local businesses, landowners, residents, and those in close proximity to Manhattanville.

The CAC's "Manhattanville in West Harlem Campus Project: Community Impact & Policy Recommendations" was carefully crafted by those very neighbors, President Bollinger references. This report offers principles, proposals, and recommendations for concrete, fair and feasible solutions to the complex challenges we face resulting from existing and future expansion plans. The CAC requests that the University recognize the concerns of residents of Community Boards 7, 9, 10, and 12, and their request for an agreement mitigating the adverse impact of change in our neighborhoods.

Columbia is in the position to make the paradigmatic shift in community development viable by formalizing a strategic and collaborative partnership between Columbia and the communities of Upper Manhattan. A mutually binding Memorandum of Understanding or Community Benefits Agreement between the various neighborhoods and the University will serve as a model for all communities and educational institutions who wish to make cultural citizenship, economic equity and environmental sustainability a tangible reality. En fin, the kinds of "capital" the CAC requests are not only economic but cultural, social, material, and political in nature.

We respectfully request a written response to our report from President Bollinger by September 15th 2004.

· CAC Membership List
· Executive Summary
-Thematic Highlights
-Integrated Development Plan (IDP) statement -Integrated Principles schematics
· Select Subcommittees:
· Conclusions & Recommendations
· Columbia University Data, General and Background
· Press Articles of Interest

Title First Last Name Title Organization
1 Mr. Andrew Albert Executive The West Side Chamber of Commerce
2 Mr. Peter Arndtsen Columbus/Amsterdam BID
3 Ms. Barbara Askins President & CEO 125th Street Business Improvement
4 Mr. Neal Clark Chairman Community Board 10
5 Ms. Dorothy Désir Principal The Cultural Assets Partnership -
Barnard College Alumnus
6 Ms. Sybil Dodson First Vice Pres Community Board 12
7 Ms. Maritta Dunn Harlem Valley Heights Community
Development Corp
8 Mr. Howard Glickberg Fairway Market
9 Mr. George Goodwill Chairman Community Board 9
10 Mr. Robert F. Herrmann President The Broadway Mall Association
11 Ms. Altagracia Hiraldo Dominican Sunday Community Service
12 Ms. Barbara Hohol The Broadway Mall Association
13 Mr. Larry Horowitz Chairman Community Board 7
14 Ms. Yasmine Hurston- Community Board 10
15 Mr. Charles Johnson Community Resident
16 Mr. Derek Q. Johnson Columbia University Alumnus - Harlem
17 Mr. Eliot Kahn Old Broadway Synagogue
18 Ms. Rita Kardeman Washington Heights Chamber of Commerce
19 Ms. Carolyn Kent Morningside Heights Historic District
20 Ms. Hope Knight COO UMEZ
21 Reverend Earl Kooperkamp St. Mary's Church,
22 Ms. Joan S. Levine Morningside Gardens Community Relations
23 Ms. Barbara Lowry Executive Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp.
24 Ms. Yvonne Matthews Manhattanville Houses Tenants
25 Ms. Lucille L. McEwen President & CEO Harlem Congregations for Community
26 Ms. Nancy O'Hara Tiemann Coop
27 Mr. Moises Perez Executive Alianza Dominicana
28 Ms. Diane Phillpotts President Harlem Community Development Corp.
29 Mr. Zead Ramadan Chairman Community Board 12
30 Ms. Norma Ramos EJ Attorney Community Resident
31 Mr. Voza Rivers Harlem Arts Alliance
32 Ms. Kerri Rogers President Harlem Commonwealth Council
33 Ms. Joe Searles President Harlem Commonwealth Council
34 Ms. Ethel Sheffer Community Board 7
35 Ms. Peggy Shepard Executive WEACT
36 Ms. Yvonne Stennett Executive Community League of West 159 Street,
Director Inc.
37 Mr. Dan Victor Community Resident
38 Mr. Eric Washington Afoot Walking Tours & Author
39 Mr. Tim Westwig Executive American Youth Hostel
40 Prof. Joseph Wilson Columbia University Alumnus - CB 7

· Thematic Highlights
· Integrated Development Plan (IDP) Statement
· Integrated Principles Schematics

Major issues and objectives:
Diversity: all
aspects/stages (construction/consultants/administrat ion/faculty/community)
Engagement and responsiveness: Community
Boards, elected officials, CBO's, residents, faculty, students, CAC
Meeting/dialogue with President Bollinger

2.Campus Design:
Public amenities
Community feed-back
Community-friendly functionalities

Mutually beneficial campus-community economic development/capacity building

Local employment/job training, pro-small business and artisan's environment

Affordable housing/non-displacement/relocation Cultural preservation Highest environmental standards

Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) University as model citizen/neighbor World's leading urban educational institution

An Integrated Development Plan

If the ULRP process approves the University's expansion agenda, our approach towards mitigation should be multi­tiered. If it is not yet the case, the University is encouraged to re-shape and consolidate its internal policy to better align itself with government regulations and address community directives. We advocate an Integrated Development Plan [IDP] and specific programmes that provide strategic guidance towards meeting mutually agreed economic and physical expansion goals, as other sector objectives are met. An IDP ensures the broad goals and objectives outlined in each sector can be incorporated consistently and
systematically at all tiers, i.e., university, government and community levels. Its success is contingent on conformity to the guiding principles enunciated in the CAC report.
Our IDP's three levels of operations include:
1. Intersectorial coordination and collaboration with development of institutional linkages among participating stake holders [University, cultural, spiritual, business, civic, educational, vocational, and environmental organizations or institutions]
2. Strategic guidance for design, integration and implementation of economic, cultural, housing, environmental, employment sectors with the spatial/physical plans and Columbia University's management team.
3. Preparation and implementation of the aforementioned sectors with the University's long term expansion plans and design programme.

See the schematics for "Integrated Principles."

Integrated Principles
An integrated development approach should maintain a balance between the values of the community, the new physical or spatial features of the urban plan and Columbia's managerial practices during the course of the expansion. The "Core Community Values" and "CU Managerial Competencies" speak to the ideal nature of relational dynamics. "Core Spatial Characteristics" are the design outcomes that reflect broader social, vocational and economic goals.

For example, the ideal streetscape should contain a cross section of retail shops, facades, interpretative signage, pedestrian-friendly spatial sensibilities and configurations reflecting the rich diversity of the newly mapped community, enabling economic and social growth. The built and green environment should facilitate the convening and interaction of individuals living cooperatively in a shared community. Columbia's managerial priority should create an inventory of anticipated job openings to facilitate and expedite training and hiring from the local community.


· Mapping New Terrain: Communities in Transition," LMCC brochure
· Darlow, Alison "Cultural Policy and Urban Sustainability: making a missing link?" Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, 291-301, 1996
· Désir, Dorothy. "On Intellectual BS and Globalization" Manhattan Times, March 14, 2002
· Green, Penelope. "An Actress Balances Art, Illness and a New Home" New York Times April 4, 2004
· Reames, Benjamin. "From the Top-Down to the Grass Roots (Or Vice Versa): The Politics of Community Building," Metropolitics, Vol. 4 No. 1 Winter 2002

· Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design

· Ali, Tanveer. "Harlem Building Ends Low-Rent Program:
Owner of 3333 Broadway to Terminate Participation in Mitchell-Lama Program for Low Income Tenants" Columbia Daily Spectator April 28, 2004
· Chen, David W. "Bush Housing Plan Stirs Anxiety Over New York's Share of Aid" New York Times February 20, 2004
· Freeman, Lance and Frank Braconi. "Gentrification and Displacement" The Urban Prospect: Housing Planning and Economic Development in New York, Citizens Housing and Planning Council Vol. 8, Number 1, January/February 2002
· McCulloch, Heather and Lisa Robinson. "Sharing the Wealth: Resident Ownership Mechanisms," A Policy Link Report 2001
· Common Ground: Innovative Solutions to Homelessness, press packet and annual report 2003
· Harlem Congregation for Community Improvement (HCCI), brochure
· Institute for Community Economics, "Why Community Land Trusts?" brochure
· Manhattanville Valley Management Company, Inc, fact sheet
· Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation, brochure and Annual Report 2002
· The West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing, Inc, fact sheets

· Marable, Manning. "Center for Contemporary Black History (CCBH): The Harlem Heritage Project, Executive Summary"
· Sellars, Morgan. "Bollinger Answers Student Demands:
Bollinger Proposes Multicultural Office: Students Unsatisfied" Columbia Spectator March 2, 2004

Sent: May 13, 2004 Subject: Manhattanville Update

· CAC minutes, notes, maps, correspondence from:
-April 14, 2003
-May 15, 2003
-June 26, 2003 -September 15, 2003
-December 22, 2003 includes maps and statistics for: i. Current Population and Development
ii. Existing Zoning and Development
iii. Existing Activity in Planning Area iv. Projected Economic Development
v. Planning Principles
-February 11, 2004
· Columbia University Campus Fact Sheets and Maps for:
-Health Sciences Campus
-Lamont -Doherty Earth Observatory
-Morningside Heights Campus
-Nevis Laboratories (Particle Physics)

· Bagli, Charles V. "Columbia, in a Growth Spurt, Is Buying a Swath of Harlem" The New York Times, July 30, 2003
· Corcoran, David. "David Truman, 90, Columbia Provost 1968 Unrest" New York Times September 1, 2003
· Lee, Denny. "On the Heights, A Chill Wind Begins to Blow" New York Times, September 14, 2003
· Watson, Jamal E. "Columbia Seek Community in Expansion Plans" April 22, 2004

References and Sources
Select Articles, Reports, and Publications
· "Developing a Creative Community in Manhattanville: A Preliminary Review of Commercial, Cultural, Retail and Community Uses," Appleseed AEA Consulting September 2003
· "The Impact of Columbia University's Proposed Manhattanville Development in West Harlem on the Economy of New York City," Appleseed November 2003
· "CUNY on the Job: The City's New Workforce Workhorse," by Center for an Urban Future, April 2004
· "Manhattanville in West Harlem: Information Open House Participant Guide," Columbia University in the City of New York, 2004
· "Manhattanville in West Harlem: Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis," Columbia University, 2003
· "Manhattanville in West Harlem Development Proposal: Presentation to Community Board #9," Columbia University April 20, 2004
· U.S. Census Bureau of the Census 2002, various studies on the demographics of poverty in Upper Manhattan by Community Studies of New York, Inc./Infoshare
· "University-Community Partnerships in America: Current Practices" Volume III by HUD January 1999
· Morningside Heights Housing Corporation By-laws
· "20/20 Vision: Smart Growth for the New York Metropolitan Region," by the Revson Foundation and the CUNY Institute for Urban Systems, May 2003 CD Rom
· Adams, Don and Arlene Goldbard. Community, Culture and Globalization, 2002
· Berry, Jeffrey; Kent Portney, and Ken Thomson. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, 1993
· Davis, John Emmeus, "Options & Issues in Creating a Community Land Trust" by the Institute for Community Economics, 2001

References and Sources continued
· Eade, Deborah. Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development, 1997
· Eger, John M., "Envisioning a Civil Society" The San Diego Union-tribune June 3, 2004
· Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class, 2002
· Gross, Julian with Greg LeRoy and Madeline Janis-Aparicio. "Community Benefits Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable" 2002
· Maurrasse, David J. Beyond the Campus: How College and Universities Form Partnerships with Their Communities, 2001
· McCann, Eugene. "The Cultural Politics of Local Economic Development: meaning-making, place-making, and the urban policy process," Geoforum 33, January 2002
· Strom, Elizabeth. Strengthening Communities through Culture, 2001
· Zukin, Sharon The Culture of Cities, 1995 Websites and CD ROMs
· Brooklyn Woods: the Woodworker Training Program
· Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC) and
· William, Allan N., Companion Guide to IDP Final Report see:
Dr. Marilyn Morris, "An Integrated Approach to Development Planning in OECS Member States: Towards a Paradigm Shift." 2004 CD Rom
· Planning for All New Yorkers: Campaign for Community-base Planning: Briefing Book of Community-based Plans. The Municipal Art Society Planning Center, 2001