Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Upcoming Hearings by the Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (as of Nov. 30, 2004).

Subject: Upcoming Hearings by the Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (as of Nov. 30, 2004).
Date: 11/30/2004 5:23:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: bruce.lai@council.nyc.ny.us
To: Reysmont
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Hello,
I am informing all of you of the upcoming hearings that the Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council is holding. If you can, please join us. All events are open to the general public. No RSVP is necessary.

*****

On Thursday, December 9th, 2004 at 1 PM in the 16th Floor Hearing, 250 Broadway, the Committee on Technology in Government, chaired by Council Member Gale A. Brewer, will hold a hearing on Int. No. 17 and Int. No. 27.

Int. No. 17 is a local law “to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring that the department of information technology and telecommunications produce an annual technology strategy and that mayoral agencies submit annual technology plans to the department of information technology and telecommunications for publication as an addendum to the department’s annual technology strategy.” Here’s a link to the full text of this piece of legislation:

http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int 0017-2004.htm?CFID=196969&CFTOKEN=27966919

Int. No. 27 is a “local law to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring that the department of information technology and telecommunications produce a five-year information technology and telecommunications plan for the city of New York every three years.” Here’s a link to the text of this piece of legislation:

http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int 0017-2004.htm?CFID=196969&CFTOKEN=27966919

The previously scheduled joint hearing with the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce on the subject of broadband in the borough of Brooklyn has been postponed to January 2005. Details forthcoming.
*****

The Center for an Urban Future has just released their report on broadband in New York City. Thanks to Jonathan Bowles and the rest of the CUF staff for their insight and hard work.

http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/NY_Broadband_Gap.pdf

*****
The Committee has a web page now.

http://www.nyccouncil.info/issues/committee.cfm?committee_id=106

All briefing papers from the current session (beginning in January 2004) are available.
*****

If you know of people who would be interested in the Committee on Technology in Government’s activities, please feel free to forward this e-mail to them. If you know of anyone who would like to receive these e-mails, just have them e-mail me, and I will be put them on the list. Finally, feel free to post this information on any listserve you may belong to or on any website you are affiliated with.

Thank you. I look forward to seeing you at one of our hearings.

Regards,
Bruce Lai

Legislative Policy Analyst
Committee on Technology in Government
New York City Council
250 Broadway, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10007
bruce.lai@council.nyc.ny.us



City Reports on Water Tests Were Incomplete, State Says

Subject: Fwd: [RW list] FW: [CRSE] FW: NYTimes.com Article: City Reports on Water Tests Were Incomplete, State Says
Date: 11/30/2004 9:30:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC:Reysmont

Forwarded Message:
Subj: [RW list] FW: [CRSE] FW: NYTimes.com Article: City Reports on Water Tests Were Incomplete, State Says
Date: 11/30/2004 8:23:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MYaggi@law.pace.edu
To: MarianR451@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
<<>>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
The question then becomes, What else haven't they told us?

Brian Alberghinihttp://www.crse.org

City Reports on Water Tests Were Incomplete, State Says
November 30, 2004
By IAN URBINA

New York City violated federal drinking water rules overthe past six years by supplying incomplete results from itsannual tests for lead, state health officials saidyesterday. The complete results now show that the city's tap water hadslightly more than the allowable levels of lead from 2000through 2002, the Health Department officials said, butthey stressed that there was no significant threat topublic health.

The state did not issue any fines for the reportingviolation. State health officials said they would requirethe city's Department of Environmental Protection toprovide a plan by the end of this year for replacing allservice lines and pipes where lead is found to be leakinginto drinking water and to increase the frequency of leadtesting to every six months from once a year.

They will also require the city to begin a program toinform citizens how to determine how much lead is in theirtap water. "For precautionary reasons we are requiring New York City to immediately begin taking a series of corrective actions to further ensure its drinking water is of good quality andsafe for residents to consume," said Robert Kenny, aspokesman for the Health Department. "We will continue toclosely monitor this situation with the federalgovernment." With about 6,000 employees, the City Department ofEnvironmental Protection oversees the aqueducts, reservoirs, tunnels and pipes that supply more than one billion gallons of water to the city each day. It is also in charge of administering annual lead tests on drinkingwater.

The state's Health Department is supposed to collect the final data and ensure that the city remains incompliance with federal regulations.

Charles G. Sturcken, a spokesman for the Department ofEnvironmental Protection, said the city was still reviewing the state's requirements but he added that lead levels in city drinking water were within allowable range in 2003. In a sign of the confusion that exists over federal rules governing the testing of tap water, Mr. Sturcken said the federal environmental authorities issued a clarification of the rules within the past week.

"We are going to take a close look at the order issued bythe state," Mr. Sturcken said, "but we're also going to look closely at the clarification of the rules issued by the federal government, and I imagine most every water provider in the country will be doing the same.

"The Health Department began investigating the city's lead testing last month after news reports that providers of drinking water around the nation were not properly reporting the results of their tests."We think the state's action is entirely appropriate," saidMary Mears, a spokeswoman for the federal EnvironmentalProtection Agency for the New York region. She praised the state for taking action so quickly.

Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer who monitors drinking water issues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, and who has reviewed the data from the city's lead tests for the past four years, said lead levels in the city's drinking water have steadily declined since the early 1990's. The tests also reveal that in a small percentage of households, dangerous levels of lead are leaching into the water from household pipes or service lines, he said."We see no evidence that the Department of EnvironmentalProtection's violation was intentional," Mr. Goldstein said of the city agency. "But it is still a smudge on theagency's reputation, and it shows that the agency has a ways to go before it meets its responsibilities to protect the city's water." The department has been under federal supervision by a court-appointed monitor since 2001. The monitor was imposed after the department pleaded guilty to violating federal environmental laws by discharging mercury-contaminated water into a pool that flowed into an upstate reservoir and by leaving employees unprotected for more than a decade as they used machinery contaminated with PCB's.

Over the past several years, the monitor has filed reports revealing that the department has been plagued by an entrenched political culture that has led to infighting, mishaps and oversights. On Nov. 18, the monitor told the federal judge handling the case that department officials had repeatedly tried to impede investigations of possible violations of federal health, safety and environmental laws. Federal oversight of the agency, which was supposed to last three years, was recently extended for a fourth year, until Aug. 29, 2005.

On Thursday, Councilman James F. Gennaro, chairman of theCommittee on Environmental Protection, will hold a hearingto review the department's handling of health and safetymatters.

__________________________________

Messages for the mailing list should be sent to watershed@riverkeeper.org
To unsubscribe, email listserv@riverkeeper.org with the single-line message leave watershed@riverkeeper.org

Monday, November 29, 2004

CB10M: Town Hall Meeting on Distressed HDFC Co-operatives & TIL Buildings

Manhattan Community Board 10
NYC Department of
Housing, Preservation & Development
&
The HDFC Council

Present
Town Hall Meeting
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004
6:00 pm
Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Building
163 West 125th Street
8th floor


Please join Manhattan Community Board 10, NYC Department of Housing, Preservation & Development, and the HDFC Council for a solutions-focused Town Hall discussion on Housing in the CB10M district. Topics will cover:

TIL Overview - buildings in program, renovation figures, projected sales dates
Criteria to Remain in Good Standing in TIL
HDFC Overview – buildings in good standing & number in distress
Remediation for distressed HDFC’s, Tax Amnesty, Water Amnesty, 8A loans, private loans
Technical Assistance – UHAB and HEP classes
Anti-Lead Programs


For more information call: 212-749-3105.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

BY POPULAR DEMAND, TOM OTTERNESS ON BROADWAY, BROADWAY MALLS' LARGEST EXHIBITION IN HISTORY, EXTENDED THROUGH MARCH 18, 2005

Subject:
Fwd: BY POPULAR DEMAND, TOM OTTERNESS ON B'WAY, B'WAY MALLS' LARGEST EXHIBIT ...
Date:
11/29/2004 7:23:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: SBaileymcc
To: Reysmont, marittad@msn.com

Forwarded Message:
Subj: BY POPULAR DEMAND, TOM OTTERNESS ON B'WAY, B'WAY MALLS' LARGEST EXHIBIT IN HISTORY, EXTENDED
Date: 11/29/2004 1:02:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: brrosen@planning.nyc.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)

>>> 11/29/2004 12:07:25 PM >>>
Visit us at www.nyc.gov/parks for the latest in Parks news and
information.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 29, 2004
No. 108
http://www.nyc.gov/parks

BY POPULAR DEMAND, TOM OTTERNESS ON BROADWAY, BROADWAY MALLS' LARGEST EXHIBITION IN HISTORY, EXTENDED THROUGH MARCH 18, 2005

The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, The Broadway Mall
Association and Marlborough Gallery today announced the extension of Tom
Otterness on Broadway, an exhibition of 25 sculptures by New York City
sculptor Tom Otterness, through March 18, 2005.

Tom Otterness on Broadway stretches from Columbus Circle to Washington
Heights along Broadway, between 60th and 168th Streets. Spanning over
five miles, the exhibition represents the largest display of temporary
public art on the Broadway Malls.

Considered one of the premier public artists working in the United
States, Tom Otterness has exhibited widely and completed commissions in
this country and abroad. His stylized bronze figures combine into
sculptural ensembles that explore the range of human experience, from
grand ambition to common foibles, plucking imagery and themes from
popular culture and subtly transforming them into humorous commentary.

Otterness' art has been exhibited in communities around the globe. In
addition to work in the collections of The Museum of Modern Art, The
Whitney Museum of American Art and The Carnegie Museum of Art in
Pittsburgh, public commissions include installations at the United
States Courthouses in Minneapolis and Sacramento.

In New York City, he has installations at the Carl Sagan Discovery Center
at Montefiore Children's Hospital in the Bronx; mounted on piers in the
East River; at the Little Red School at the corner of 6th Avenue and Houston;
at Metrotech; at P.S.234 in Manhattan; in Nelson Rockefeller State Park in
Battery Park City; in the A/C/E/L subway station at 14th Street; and at
the entrance to the Hilton Times Square Hotel. He is currently
completing a major public commission for Museum Beelden aan Zee in The
Netherlands. Otterness, a New York resident since the 1970s, works from
a studio in DUMBO, Brooklyn.

This show includes Marriage of Real Estate and Money, as well as more
recent works that draw characters from fairy tale and myth. Reflecting
the artist's use of scale to establish complex relationships between
his sculpture and their surroundings, the work featured in Tom Otterness
on Broadway ranges in size from Boy and Dog, which measures a mere 20
inches tall, to Escaping Leg, standing over 20 feet tall. All of these
works will continue to be on view through March 18, with the exception
of See No Evil at 60th Street, which will be removed by mid-January so
that construction can move ahead at Columbus Circle.

Parks & Recreation's temporary public art program has consistently
fostered the creation and installation of temporary public art in parks
throughout the five boroughs. Since 1967, collaborations with arts
organizations and artists have produced hundreds of public art projects
in City parks. Committed to the exhibition of art by emerging and
established artists, Parks & Recreation has supported projects ranging
from international exhibitions in flagship parks to local, community
works in neighborhood parks and traffic islands.

Recent revitalization of the Broadway Malls has been made possible
through the support of the Lincoln Square BID, Columbia University,
Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, The Broadway Mall Association, the
Borough President and City Council, and volunteer organizations such as
the Jewish Community Center and the L.D. Brandeis High School/Evergreen
House. Fabrication, installation, maintenance and removal of the artwork
for this show have been paid for by Marlborough Gallery and Tom
Otterness Studio.

-----
Please do not Reply to this message.



If you would like to contact us please visit our website at
http://www.nyc.gov/parks




Friday, November 26, 2004

Hudson River Valley Greenway Winner

Subject: Hudson River Valley Greenway Winner
Date: 26-Nov-04 7:12:05 Eastern Standard Time
From: SBaileymcc
To: Reysmont


2004 Visions in Planning Award Winner

Croton-on-Hudson – pursuing the vision of a “Village in a Park”


The Village of Croton-on-Hudson’s Hudson River waterfront plan and implementation is only one part of a larger vision for the Village, the vision of a “Village in a Park”. Located along 7 miles of Hudson River shoreline, the Village may be viewed as a triangle, with the Hudson and Croton Rivers making up two sides of the community and the hills to the North and East completing the third side.

In conjunction with its Hudson River waterfront plan, the Village, with the assistance of New York State, Westchester County and Historic Hudson Valley, has completed a series of projects, resulting in the preservation of the Croton River Gorge and its parks, trails, and well field protection area. This was accomplished through the acquisition of wetlands in the lower part of the Croton River, the purchase of additional property, the creation of trails, and facilitating the addition of the Ottinger Estate to the Croton Gorge Park. At the mouth of the Croton River, with funding from Metro North, a Kayak/Canoe Launch was created and, in partnership with the DEC, the United States Army Military Academy at West Point, and Hudsonia, a study was undertaken to investigate habitat impacts resulting from the removal of rail road ties. Most recently, the Village has organized with the County, State and other interested parties in an effort to establish an intermunicipal Compact and Management plan for this tributary of the Hudson.

Completing the triangle of open space, the Village similarly implemented a variety of projects for its north and east boundaries. In place of a dense residential development, the Hudson National Golf Course was created with hiking trails that link the Saw Mill Audubon Society property to the Jane C. Lytle Arboretum and the Village’s extensive trail system. The Arboretum was created in part with Village property. Reaching beyond its border to reinforce this leg of open space, the Village fostered the placement of the extensive Blue Lake property off Route 129 into State hands.

Once this extensive trail system and open space plan was put in place, Croton-on-Hudson was able to turn its attention to strengthening its "core". Solid planning tools were used to enhance its identity and sense of place, making it more walkable and bikable, and establishing large and small parks within walking distance of most residents. The adoption of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the undertaking of numerous studies such as the Greenway Vision Plan, Open Space Plan, Trails Master Plan, and Waterfront Feasibility Plan, and the need to revise the Village’s 1977 Master Plan, led to the development and adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan. The completion of the Comprehensive Plan has resulted in recommendations to update the Village Zoning Code, the adoption of new Gateway Districts, and finally to the undertaking of a Transit District study at the Village’s transportation hub at the rail road station where it owns substantial property.

The end result of the past two decades of planning, environmental studies, train construction, and open space acquisition is that Croton-on-Hudson has truly become one of New York State’s model communities.



Last Updated: Thursday, Sep 16, 2004








Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Omnibus Bill Cuts EPA Spending Slightly, Rejects Controversial 'Riders'

Subject: Congress cuts water treatment projects funding
Date: 11/23/2004 8:53:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: HDFCCenter


Omnibus Bill Cuts EPA Spending Slightly, Rejects Controversial 'Riders'

An omnibus appropriations bill approved by Congress on Nov. 20 will slightly cut overall EPA spending, with the agency's water infrastructure loan program suffering the brunt of those reductions. At the same time, lawmakers included several “riders” that will ease environmental protections for cattle grazing and wildlife areas, while rejecting other controversial proposals that environmentalists had argued would have gutted the Endangered Species Act.

The omnibus bill, which funds 13 departments and various federal agencies, provides EPA with $8.1 billion for fiscal year 2005, an approximate $277 million cut from last year's levels, while slashing by 20 percent the agency's state revolving loan fund (SRF) for sewer and water discharge treatment projects, totaling $1.1 billion in FY05. The bill maintains the current annual spending level of $850 million for EPA's SRF for drinking water projects, but cuts by $273 million the agency's state and tribal assistance grants by appropriating $3.6 billion.

Also, Congress maintained a funding level of $1.3 billion for the Superfund program, even though EPA has acknowledged that it does not have enough money to start cleanups at numerous sites. It is the second year in a row that Congress has refused to boost funding to the White House's requested levels for the Superfund program.

Congress also included in the omnibus bill a categorical exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act for permits for livestock grazing operations, the first time such permits have been granted a permanent exclusion from the law. The bill also allows for federal land exchanges that will likely lead to oil and natural gas drilling in the Alaskan Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, and limit judicial review for logging projects in the Alaskan Tongass National Forest.

“It's safe to say we're disappointed with the riders that were included,” a source with the National Resources Defense Council says. “The practice of putting riders onto a huge appropriations bill, without public notice, and doing things in the dark of night have to stop.”

But lawmakers rejected three more controversial riders that would have amended the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and excused concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from reporting toxic air emissions. The proposals were apparently dropped because of a desire by Republican leaders to push the bill through during last week's post-election lame duck session, by avoiding including many controversial provisions.

Environmentalists became aware of congressional efforts last week to amend the ESA and were apparently successful in lobbing against the provisions. One plan that was pushed by California developers prompted allegations by environmentalists that it was an attempt to blunt three recent court decisions calling federal regulations inadequate in protecting critical habitats. Another proposal opposed by environmentalists would have excused EPA from following the ESA when making pesticide-approval decisions. Both proposals were so controversial that no lawmaker was willing to take credit for them, sources point out.

Also, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was shopping around his proposal to exempt CAFOs from reporting toxic air emissions, which is required under two environmental laws. Craig has said the amendment was necessary to clarify the law and prevent lawsuits against farmers. The lawmaker plans to renew his efforts next year, according to a source in his office.

Environmentalists came out strongly opposed to the language. A statement released by the Environmental Integrity Project said, “The amendment for the livestock industry would put many communities at risk.”

Date: November 22, 2004
© Inside Washington Publishers

Please visit our website:
http://www.newyorkwater.org/

Monday, November 22, 2004

LANDMARKS ALERT: CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON LPC

City Council SubCommittee Hearing on
Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)
Monday, November 29th at 10 AM in City Hall

click here for my original post with all the information

Crains: Zoning shouldn't be for sale

Subject: On CBA, he has some points, but his mag is hypocritical
Date: 11/21/2004 5:10:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Zoning shouldn't be for sale
Crains
By Alair Townsend
Published on November 22, 2004

Six months ago, a Harlem community leader told Columbia President Lee
Bollinger the things he should provide in order to win support for the
expansion of his campus into West Harlem. The same leader recently told me
he was disgusted that a community foundation, job training programs, job
set-asides and the like were not yet offered by the university.

From his perspective, the university has awesome might.

It charges undergraduates $40,000 a year. It has a hefty endowment and
thousands of rich alumni.

Now it wants to dramatically enlarge its campus in West Harlem to create
state-of-the-art facilities, enhance its academic standing and accommodate
growth. The first 10-year phase alone will cost $750 million. Why shouldn't
it spare some crumbs for the poor in a legally binding community benefits
agreement?

For me, the issue lies on a slippery slope between encouraging a powerful
institution to be a good neighbor on the one hand and putting zoning up for
sale on the other. I don't want to undermine the city's Uniform Land Use
Review Procedure, or Ulurp.

The current Ulurp provisions were implemented in 1976 to provide a
standardized and public process, and to end what good-government advocates
saw as the buying of favors by developers. Under the Ulurp process, the
City Planning Commission, City Council and mayor must approve projects such
as Columbia's. The local community board and the borough president also
review them. Developer-funded mitigation measures are to be related to
direct adverse impacts, such as damage to the environment. The dealmaking
is public.

Ulurp was a giant step forward. Someone who was in government and remembers
without affection the pre-Ulurp days sums up the change this way: "Having
rules of the road for developers and communities means that we don't become
Newark or other cities that are up for sale. Ulurp is a touchstone of
honest and open government."

Today, the discipline of the process is being subverted. Government and
community leaders are pushing developers to sign community benefits
agreements promising discretionary benefits that have little or nothing to
do with adverse impacts of projects. Columbia is a ripe target for demands
that it garner community--and politicians'--support by offering such benefits.

Columbia already has an ambitious set of programs for the community, many
listed on its Web site under "Neighbors." The university is also having
extensive discussions with neighborhood groups and leaders about the
project, its impact on the area and additional benefits it can provide.
Columbia is under enormous pressure.

The mayor isn't helping. His office says that the university's discussions
with its neighbors are a private, not a public concern. Of course, what
developers do to make projects less controversial deflects criticism from
him and other elected officials, if they approve the projects. I wish the
mayor understood better the slippery slope we're starting down.


Sunday, November 21, 2004

The Grand Concourse & the Henry Hudson Parkway

Subject: Fwd: The Grand Concourse & the Henry Hudson Parkway
Date: 11/22/2004 3:45:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: SBaileymcc
To: Reysmont



Click here: Columbia Spectator Online - Task Force Seeks Makeover for Hudson Pkwy
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/19/419d99f630d58?in_archive=1


News


Task Force Seeks Makeover for Hudson Pkwy

By Lauren Melnick
Columbia Daily Spectator
November 19, 2004



Amid New York City’s sprawling sky scrapers and concrete-paved avenues, an initiative is underway to protect an unexpected stretch of scenic roadway in the metropolitan jungle—the Henry Hudson Parkway.

The Henry Hudson Parkway Task Force, a subgroup of the Riverdale Nature Preservancy, has led the crusade to certify the parkway under the New York State Scenic Byways Program in order to ensure its preservation as a green space. This would be the first scenic byway in New York City.

Encompassing all of Manhattan’s West Side and a section of the South Bronx, the Parkway’s 11-mile span stretches from Battery Park to Westchester. However, the group’s focus is on redesigning the section of the parkway that runs directly through the Riverdale section of the Bronx.

On Nov. 16, New Yorkers for Parks, the only citywide parks advocacy organization, hosted an event entitled, “Putting the Park Back Into Parkway” at the Urban Center in Manhattan. The organization introduced landscape recommendations for the Bronx section of the Henry Hudson Parkway.

“Our goal is restoring equity among city parks. There are disparities between the way parks are designed and viewed,” Pamela Governale, New Yorkers For Park’s design program manager, said.

Even areas within the HHP corridor are classified differently. While the Parkway is designated as a New York City landmark as well as listed with the National Register of Historic Places from 72nd to 125th streets, the sections of the parkway in Harlem and the Bronx lack these classifications.

The byway designation would make the area eligible for federal and state scenic byway funding, eliminating competition with other transportation projects such as mass transit.

Last spring, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council approved funding to develop a comprehensive corridor management plan. All Federal money goes through the NYMTC which acts as a regional transportation planning agency, funneling funds to other agencies.

The management plan is a “greater financial benefit than the funding itself,” Hilary Kitasei, the HHPTF chairwoman, said.

The New York State Scenic Byways Program, established in 1992, is a locally-driven effort designed to bring attention to the roadway corridors in the state that have regionally significant scenic, natural, recreational, cultural, historic, or archaeological resources.

“One of our goals is to identify a greenway within the corridor,” said John Benfatti, former NYC Department of Transportation bicycle director. “Riverdale is the least developed in that aspect. Manhattan has Riverside Park, Fort Tryon Park, and Inwood Hill Park, but once you go across the Henry Hudson Bridge you’re on the street again.”

The recommendations for the Riverdale area emphasize landscaping, roadway infrastructure, and preservation of the Parkway’s historic character. HHPTF’s goals include maintaining Riverdale’s seven stone overpasses and preserving old fireboxes and police call boxes.

They are also looking to design new safety structures with the parkway’s historical aesthetic in mind. Originally, stone barriers and wooden guardrails were chosen to blend with the natural landscaping, but now concrete barriers and steel guardrails line the parkway.

Rock stabilization barriers in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan conceal natural rock outcroppings and make it difficult to remove litter or graffiti. The New York State DOT originally constructed these heavy fences and hairnets as protection from liability issues.

Philippa Brashear, Harvard University Graduate School of Design/Community service fellow, responded to these concerns.

“Safety is paramount, but we can’t lose the historic aesthetics and feel of the parkway,” she said.

While the NYC DOT has been supportive of the initiative overall, there have been conflicts of interest with the HHPTF. The area between 160th St. and Dyckman Street has had a higher than average accident rate due to the road’s dangerous S-curves. At the request of a local assemblyman, last year “DOT corrected the banking problem so that cars now lean into rather than out of the curve,” HHPTF reported. The DOT reported a dramatic decrease in accidents as a result.

However, the DOT wanted to go further by straightening the S-curves and raising the speed limit to 50 mph along the entire length. According to HHPTF, this would inevitably destroy parkland, decrease the appeal of the scenic route for motorists, encourage speeding, and cost too much. Recently the HHPTF was able to reduce the speed limit to 35 mph as an alternative measure.

A DOT representative said, “We are interested in supporting the initiative and are anxious to be a part of the corridor management study. Hopefully any differences can be worked out.”

A more local concern for the Morningside Heights community is the prevalence of signs and billboards along the waterfront from 125th to 135th streets, such as Fairways’ illuminated message billboard.

“It should be an experience for drivers as well as pedestrians and residents,” said Brashear.

Peter Rothschild, a renowned landscape architect and partner of Quennell Rothschild & Partners, commented, “More people see the Henry Hudson Parkway than the bridle trails of Central Park. This project is essential.”




NYC Council Reso. 669: CB9M Chair Testimony In Support

Hon. Jordi Reyes-Montblanc
Chair
Community Board No. 9 - Manhattan

Before

The Council of the City of New York

Committee on Technology in Government
Hon. Gale A. Brewer, Chair

Committee on Housing and Buildings
Hon. Madeline Provenzano, Chair

November 22nd, 2004



Oversight: The Feasibility of Wiring New Affordable Housing Development For Broadband

Reso. No. 669

By Council Members Brewer, Boyland, Comrie, Gennaro, James, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Rivera, Sanders, Serrano, Vann, Weprin and Jackson


Title


Resolution calling upon all relevant City Agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing




Mesdames Chairs, Honorable members of the City Council, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, Chair of Community Board No. 9 Manhattan comprising the neighborhoods of Morningside Heights, Manhattanville and Hamilton Heights in the Ville of Harlem. Our District is home to 140 HDFC cooperatives and 45 TIL buildings in the HPD DAMP pipeline for conversion to HDFC cooperatives. Therefore my District is home to the largest concentration of HDFCs in the City of New York.

Our Board and I, strongly support the actions proposed by Reso. 669 proposed by Chair Brewer and co-sponsored by our Councilmember Robert Jackson and so many of our friends in the Council.

Those of you who know me, know I can speak for hours on any subject that interest me; but I will be as brief as I can and convey our comments as directly as I can.

As stated, we strongly support Reso. 669 but we are concerned that a large number of affordable housing is being excluded, not intentionally I am sure, but excluded none the less.

I am speaking of the already existing 140 HDFC cooperatives within CB9M, of which over 120 received none to little improvements prior to being sold by the City to the Tenants Associations that converted the buildings into HDFC cooperatives.

By limiting income to 80% of the median area income you are also excluding the future HDFCs that should include those currently in the pipeline of HPD DAMP Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) Program. Those are now fixed at a maximum of either 120% or at 165% of median area income in order to create a mix of low to moderate income households that ensures success of the future cooperatives.

Now regarding the existing HDFCs. We propose that Reso. 669 includes some provisions to facilitate and promote Broadband wiring of their buildings. This facilitation can take many forms. Some readily available are the J-51 program, low interest or even forgivable loans to the HDFC cooperatives that wire their buildings for Broadband and obtain computers for their resident tenant-owners and renters.

Finally, we propose that positive consideration be given to expanding Reso. 669 to include computer peripherals such as printers and scanners.

Respectfully submitted,




J. Reyes-Montblanc
Chair
Community Board No. 9 Manhattan
November 22nd, 2004

Saturday, November 20, 2004

From Social Justice Wiki: 197-A Plan Seeks to Set Framework

SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS

197-A Plan Seeks to Set Framework
From Social Justice Wiki
Site URL: http://www.columbiaspectator.com.

197-A Plan Seeks to Set Framework for Local Development

By Jimmy Vielkind Spectator Staff Writer November 10, 2004


After years of drafting and negotiations, an overarching urban design plan that will influence developments for years to come was unanimously approved by Community Board 9 last month.

The recommendations in the 197-A plan, as the framework is called, cover everything from where specific types of development can occur to issues of transportation, housing, jobs, and the environment.

Columbia administrators said they are willing to work with the community, but are not ready to commit to the limitations of the 197-A plan.

CB9's plan will cover Columbia's proposed expansion into Manhattanville as well as the rest of Community District 9, which runs from 110th to 155th Streets west of Morningside and St. Nicholas Parks, and is seen as a means to give the local community a say in the future development of the area.

"The 197-A plan is not a reaction to the Columbia expansion at all," CB9 Chairman Jordi Reyes-Montblanc said. "What the 197-A plan does is create a framework that Columbia's expansion will have to fit in which is why so many activists, groups and individuals support CB9M's 197-A plan."

As part of its expansion plans, Columbia has requested that the City rezone the area, which involves changing the laws that determine what can be built in a given space. They ask that the proposed campus area be changed from industrial to a designation that will allows for other uses, including classrooms, retail space, and housing.

The term 197-A plan comes from the section of the 1975 City Charter which grants Community Boards the opportunity to put forth a concrete community vision and provides the means for community-initiated local planning.

CB9's 197-A plan allows for rezoning, but only with strict limitations. First, any developer, including Columbia, would have to enter into a "community benefits agreement," which is a binding contract with local residents.

The agreement would exist to "assure that the environment is protected, that housing opportunities for low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents are protected and expanded, and that high-road jobs and locally-owned businesses will be created and existing businesses preserved," according to the plan.

The plan also calls on developers to take steps toward preserving housing in West Harlem through the process of inclusionary zoning. When areas are rezoned so that higher buildings can be built, developers would be required to set aside a certain part of any new construction as affordable housing.

Now that it has been approved by CB9, the plan will be reviewed by the Department of City Planning. This process will take some time, and it is likely that revisions will need to be made. Once approved by City Planning, the 197-A will be reviewed by the Borough president before being voted on by the City Council.

But while the plan provides strong recommendations for future developers, it does not have the power of a law.

"The 197-A plan is the only community-based plans that have any community review," said Mercedes Narciso, who led the team from Pratt Institute, which drafted the 197-A plan. "But they don't have any teeth because they don't become an ordinance. It's never in the charter, it's never explained. It's just a guideline for future development in the area."

Columbia officials, while pointing to ongoing efforts to reach out to the community, are not ready to commit to an agreement in such a concrete form.

But Reyes-Montblanc was optimistic. Since the 197-A represents the will of the people, he said it was "highly respected by the City agencies" when it comes to development.

"I don't think the University is opposed to formalizing how the development will benefit the community, but the specific form of how that agreement would be reached is something the University is currently thinking about," said Jeremiah Stoldt, director of the campus plan for facilities management.

He said he thought the plan was an important step for the community and hoped that Columbia can work within its framework.

"[Columbia's plan and the 197-A are] fundamentally two different documents, but in the majority of cases, there is a good deal of overlap," Stoldt said.

Tom Demott, a member of the Coalition to Preserve Community, said the agreement could potentially be effective. "I think that we had to compromise on some points, but overall, I think that the plan--if implemented--would accomplish the goal of keeping businesses and residents, and keeping the neighborhood more or less intact," he said.

DeMott said he had originally hoped that the plan would recommend against rezoning the Manhattanville expansion site, but worked with the planners from Pratt to find a compromise through the community benefits agreement and use of inclusionary zoning.

Retrieved from "http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/197-A_Plan_Seeks_to_Set_Framework"

Friday, November 19, 2004

Private Land Conservation in U.S. Soars (11/18)

Subject: Fwd: Private Land Conservation in U.S. Soars (11/18)
Date: 11/19/2004 11:13:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: ReysmontNY@aol.com


Private Land Conservation in U.S. Soars (11/18)

Source: Land Trust Alliance
Posted by: Land Trust Alliance - archive
Posted on: Nov 18, 2004 @ 4:11 pm
Private Land Conservation in U.S. Soars

For Immediate Release
For more information:
Jim Wyerman, 202-638-4725 X 310
John Bernstein 202-638-4725 X 309


Private Land Conservation in U.S. Soars

Land Trusts Double the Acres Under Protection

Washington, D.C., Nov. 18 – As communities across America each grapple with how to deal with development sprawl that is eating up 2 million acres a year, thousands of quiet success stories lie behind the 1500 land trusts that are successfully conserving farmland, forests, coastal land and scenic vistas. These nonprofit groups have doubled the acreage protected just 5 years ago and are now protecting more than 800,000 new acres each year. Typically land trusts either buy land outright or work out private, voluntary land agreements that limit future development.

The Land Trust Alliance, a national association representing land trusts since 1982, today released its census of progress made over the last 5 years. The nation’s local and regional land trusts have conserved over 9 million acres as of December 31, 2003, doubling the acreage protected just 5 years ago and creating an “everlasting legacy on the land,” according to the Land Trust Alliance’s President Rand Wentworth. Indicating their growing popularity at the local level, new land trusts are being formed at the rate of 2 per week, with the fastest-growing region being the West.

Said Wentworth, “The mission of land trusts is not just to save land, but to protect the traditional lifestyles of a community, a way of life that remains connected to that land. This can mean saving the family farm, setting up a community garden or urban park, ensuring the sustainability of a Southeastern forest, or conserving ranchland in the American West.”

He attributes the success of land trusts to their grassroots nature and their entrepreneurial spirit. “These groups—many of them all volunteer—represent the best of community spirit in America, bringing people together to protect some unique piece of land that, for them, helps define what makes their community unique.” Wentworth stressed that land trusts work solely through voluntary private transactions, often fulfilling a landowner’s wish to keep their land as it is for their children and future generations.

Despite this progress, Wentworth and his land trust colleagues cite cause for alarm. "The current rate of development essentially means that we have at most 20 years to protect our most cherished landscapes before they are lost forever," said Wentworth. "Private land trusts are our last best hope, particularly now that deficits will severely limit the ability of the federal government to conserve new lands. Land trusts are vitally needed to do this work.”
The National Land Trust Census, the nation’s only tabulation of the achievements of the private, voluntary land conservation movement, describes how people in their own communities are helping to safeguard water quality, preserve working farms and ranches, and protect wildlife habitat and other natural areas. The Land Trust Alliance’s Census identified several milestones:

• Local and regional land trusts have now protected 9,361,600 acres of natural areas, an area four times the size of Yellowstone National Park. This is double the 4.7 million acres protected as of 1998. Although this Census tallies data only from local and regional land trusts, national land trusts have protected an additional 25 million acres.

• A record 5 million acres were protected through voluntary land conservation agreements, more than triple the amount (1.4 million acres) protected just five years ago.

• A record 1,526 local and regional land trusts were in operation in 2003, a 26 percent increase over the number (1213) that existed in 1998.

During the last five years, the land trust community has seen growth in many areas:

• California, Maine and Colorado led the nation in the amount of acreage protected by local and regional land trusts. Land trusts in the Northeast (ME, NH, MA, NY, CT, VT, RI) protected a total of 2.9 million acres.

• Percentage increase in land protected was highest in the Pacific and Southeast. In the Pacific (CA, NV, HI), protected lands jumped 147 percent to 1,521,007 acres, up from 614,796 acres protected as of 1998. In second place, the Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN) experienced a 123 percent increase in protected acreage – 648,895 acres in 1998 compared to 291,413 acres five years earlier.

• The Southwest (AZ, CO, NM, OK, TX, UT) and Pacific regions saw the most rapid growth in the number of land trusts. Southwest region land trusts numbered 70 in 1998 versus 107 in 2003. Pacific land trusts grew from 127 to 189 over the same period.

• California now leads the nation in numbers of land trusts with 173, followed by Massachusetts, the birthplace of land trusts, with 154 nonprofit land conservation organizations. Connecticut is third with 125.

Land trusts protect different land types, with the most common ranked as: 1) habitat for plants or wildlife, 2) open space, 3) working farms or ranchlands, and 4) working forests. “The dramatic growth of land trusts and acres protected show that private conservation initiatives are successful at the local level. We are doubling the pace of conservation and we are doing it in a nonregulatory way that respects private property and is supported by local communities,” said the Land Trust Alliance’s Wentworth. “Land trusts are the vanguard of land conservation in the 21st Century.”

Additional information about the National Land Trust Census, along with a state-by-state summary of acreage protected, is available on the Land Trust Alliance Web site, www.lta.org. The Land Trust Alliance is headquartered in Washington, DC, with regional offices.
1331 H St, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. Phone 202-638-4725. Fax 202-638-4730.

New York Council Calendar for the week of 11/22/2004 to 11/26/2004:

Subject: RE:Council Calendar
Date: 11/19/2004 4:05:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: webmaster@council.nyc.ny.us
To: Reysmont@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



New York Council Calendar for the week of 11/22/2004 to 11/26/2004:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, November 22, 2004
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* General Welfare, Chairperson(s):Bill de Blasio
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced


COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Governmental Operations; Health , Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn, Bill Perkins
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:

Int. 121 - By Council Members Perkins, Quinn, Baez, Barron, Boyland, Clarke, Comrie, Foster, Gentile, Gerson, Gioia, Koppell, Liu, Lopez, Martinez, Nelson, Recchia, Reed, Rivera, Serrano, Stewart, Weprin and Brewer - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the creation of a pest control board.


COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Sanitation & Solid Waste Management, Chairperson(s):Michael E. McMahon
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced


COMMITTEE: Youth Services, Chairperson(s):Lewis A. Fidler
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

Oversight - The Summer Youth Employment Program

Res. 653 - By Council Members Fidler, Baez, Barron, Clarke, Dilan, Foster, Gennaro, Gentile, Gerson, Jackson, James, Koppell, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Quinn, Recchia, Rivera, Sanders, Seabrook, Serrano, Stewart, Vann and Weprin - Resolution - calling upon the Mayor and the State to negotiate and finalize funding for the Summer Youth Employment Program in advance of the budget process in order to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the SYEP.


COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Disability Services, Chairperson(s):Margarita Lopez
TIME: 10:30 AM LOCATION: Red Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

Oversight - Understanding the Impact of PROS Mandatory Agencies in your Community


COMMITTEE: Fire & Criminal Justice Services, Chairperson(s):Yvette D. Clarke
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

Proposed Res. 263-A - By Council Members Clarke, Foster, Gerson, James, Koppell, Lopez, Martinez, Perkins, Sanders, Vann, Jackson and Palma - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Department of Health to abide by federal law requiring that incarcerated individuals are returned to Medicaid rolls immediately upon release, by suspending, rather than terminating, the Medicaid benefits of people incarcerated in city jails.

Res. 283 - By Council Members Clarke, Barron, Brewer, Foster, James, Jennings, Lopez, Sanders, Stewart and Comrie - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Legislature to ensure that people with convictions are not automatically barred from a wide range of jobs for which they may be qualified and for which they would not endanger the public.


COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Public Safety; Oversight and Investigations , Chairperson(s):Diana Reyna, Peter F. Vallone, Jr., Eric N. Gioia
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:

Oversight - NYC Council Report "NYCHA - Access Granted" Broken Locks, Doors and Intercoms.


COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Small Business, Chairperson(s):Domenic M. Recchia, Jr.
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced


COMMITTEE: Joint Meeting. Housing & Buildings; Technology in Government , Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano, Gale A. Brewer
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:

Oversight - The Feasibility of Wiring New Affordable Housing Developments For Broadband.

Res. 669 - By Council Member Brewer - Resolution - calling upon all relevant City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.


*************************************************************
DATE: Tuesday, November 23, 2004
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Rules, Privileges & Elections, Chairperson(s):Leroy G. Comrie, Jr.
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:

M 326 - Communication from the Kings County Republican County Committee - Recommending the name of Nancy Mottola Schacher to the Council regarding her appointment to the New York City Board of Elections, to serve a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2008.

M 327 - Communication from the Queens County Democratic Organization - Recommending the name of Terrence C. O'Connor to the Council regarding his appointment to the New York City Board of Elections, pursuant to Section 3-204 of the Election Law of the State of New York.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY


COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Finance, Chairperson(s):David I. Weprin
TIME: 10:15 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

LU 318 - Partnership New Homes Program, Stebbins/Bristow, Bronx, Community District 3.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY


COMMITTEE: Transportation, Chairperson(s):John C. Liu
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

Proposed Int. 98-A - By Council Members McMahon, Vallone, Rivera, Gioia, Baez, Avella, Brewer, Comrie, Fidler, Gennaro, Jackson, Martinez, Monserrate, Nelson, Provenzano, Quinn, Reed, Sears, Stewart, Weprin, Liu, Katz, Reyna, Addabbo, Sanders and Gonzalez - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the prohibition on the sale, lease, rental or operation of motorized scooters.

M 362 - Communication from the Mayor - Mayor's veto and disapproval message of Introductory Number 98-A, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the prohibition on the sale, lease, rental or operation of motorized scooters.


COMMITTEE: , Chairperson(s):
TIME: 1:30 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

Stated Council Meeting Ceremonial Tributes......... - 1:00 p.m. Agenda.............................................................................. - 1:30 p.m.


*************************************************************
DATE: Thursday, November 25, 2004
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: , Chairperson(s):
Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:

THANKSGIVING DAY OBSERVED


*Selected Commitees are not listed.
This is an automated mailer, so please confirm these dates by checking the Hearings and Meetings Calendar on our website, for the schedule may change at the last minute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Webmaster of the New York City Council

Area Businesses Fight Eminent Domain

http://www.nysun.com/article/4857


November 16, 2004
Edition > Section: New York



Area Businesses Fight Eminent Domain
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 16, 2004

The stage is set for an eminent-domain battle pitting the city and state governments against owners of neighborhood businesses who fear their Manhattanville properties will be condemned to make room for Columbia University's proposed expansion.

Several businesses, including moving-and-storage companies, recently hired an attorney, Norman Siegel, the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to ward off condemnation of their properties within the mostly industrial area bounded by 125th and 133rd streets and Broadway and Twelfth Avenue. In April, Columbia announced preliminary plans to add classroom space and laboratories there over the next 30 years.

The dispute between the owners and government over the future of the 18-acre area is emerging at a time when battles over governments' seizure of private property are raging across the country.

The Supreme Court agreed in September to hear a case involving an eminent-domain dispute between homeowners and New London, Conn. The town condemned their property to make room for a waterfront hotel, conference center, and office space. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the homeowners and overturns the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling in March in favor of the city, the decision could affect Columbia's efforts to shape the neighborhood.

The central legal question in the Connecticut case is whether a municipality may seize land to make room for private development. Under the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment, government may take private property as long as there is "just compensation" and it's for "public use."

If New York State's Empire State Development Corporation begins condemnation proceedings in Manhattanville, in an area zoned for manufacturing, the key issue likely to arise is to what extent the expansion will serve a public purpose.

A spokesman for the state corporation, Chapin Fay, said it was "premature" to comment on the possibility of condemnation. Mr. Siegel, the neighborhood businesses' lawyer, said transferring property to Columbia would violate the Constitution because the university is a private entity. He said he is prepared to sue the state if it condemns the property.

Columbia is said to own 42% of the land in the expansion area. The rest is owned by businesses, the city, and the state. Mr. Siegel said he fears the New York City Economic Development Corporation, in a study it is conducting of West Harlem, will deem the neighborhood "blighted," which would be a first step toward a possible condemnation. The corporation has completed a rough draft of the blight study, according to Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, chairman of Community Board 9.

David Dana, a professor at Northwestern University Law School who specializes in property law, said Mr. Siegel's case would be weakened if the city designates the area blighted. "It would change the court's perception," Mr, Dana said.

A Columbia official, who declined to be named, said the university will continue to negotiate with businesses to purchase the properties "in a way that addresses the needs of individual owners and tenants" and "meets the university's objectives and brings economic prosperity to the larger Manhattanville community."

"Eminent domain is a power that can only be deemed appropriate and exercised by the State, or other public authorities, not by the University," the official said in a written statement.

Columbia officials have argued that the university's expansion into Manhattanville will dramatically improve economic development of the community. Columbia, which has the least square footage per student of any Ivy League school, has said if it doesn't expand the university will soon run out of space.

In September, the university released statistics from its own economic impact survey showing that the expansion, in its first 5-to-10-year phase, would generate $324 million in revenue for the community and almost 3,000 permanent jobs. Those numbers would be more than quadrupled upon completion of all three phases in the 30 year plan, according to the university. The first phase would also produce $13 million a year in tax revenue for the city and state, the survey said.

Columbia, which has consulted with community leaders in developing its plans, is working on completing its environmental impact statement, which will cover its rezoning proposals, to be submitted to the Department of City Planning and community leaders.

Columbia plans to open an employment office early next year, at what was once a Mexican restaurant, on Broadway near 125th Street. That center is to serve as a central walk-in center for people looking for jobs at Columbia.

The assistant vice president for human resources at Columbia, Judith Dorsey, said the employment center will make Columbia "more community friendly." She said the center "will help make jobs more accessible."

"It's motivated by the need to improve the hiring process and increase transparency," Ms. Dorsey said.

The eighth largest non-governmental employer in the city, Columbia has more than 13,000 full-time employees.

Printer-friendly version Email this article

Q&A with Kenneth Knuckles

Click here: Center for an Urban Future
http://www.nycfuture.org/content/reports/report_view.cfm?repkey=143&search=1

November 10, 2004

Q&A with Kenneth Knuckles
By Jonathan Bowles

Harlem is awash in plans for new commercial development, from Columbia’s expansion into Manhattanville and the construction of a Marriott Hotel on 125th Street to the arrival of the community’s first auto dealership in 50 years. With so many projects on tap, the Center for an Urban Future’s Jonathan Bowles recently sat down with Kenneth Knuckles, president and CEO of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, to talk about the proposed developments and other issues facing a community that is undergoing rapid transformation while still suffering from disproportionately high unemployment. In addition to his role with the Empowerment Zone, Knuckles is also a member of the City Planning Commission. He previously served as commissioner of the city’s Department of General Services during the mayoral administration of David Dinkins, and as a vice president at Columbia University. He has headed the Empowerment Zone since early 2003.
CUF: There are so many developments under way in Harlem. What are you most excited about?

KN: I’m excited first and foremost about the interest that now is focused on Harlem. I think market forces have discovered what those of us who have been around Harlem for a long time have already known: its strategic location, its excellent transportation and excellent housing stock. You have an underserved market and you have an underutilized workforce. I think all of those things argue for the kind of interest you see in Harlem. There’s been a lot of housing development over the last several years, much of it subsidized with city, state and federal money, and that’s a good thing. At the empowerment zone, we see as our mission supporting the housing development that is going on, all of which is needed, with commercial and retail projects that will serve these thousands of people who are now returning in many instances or for the first time coming to upper Manhattan.

CUF: In the past, was there not enough focus on commercial, job-generating projects?

KN: No, there was not. I think the significance of the Harlem USA project is that it sent a signal to the larger investment community that upper Manhattan and 125th street was a good place to invest. Aside from the brands it brought—like Modell’s and Old Navy and the Magic Johnson Theater—it produced 300 jobs. These are customer service jobs, low barrier entry jobs that a lot of people from this community could access. Subsequent to that, you saw the development of Gotham Plaza and Harlem Gateway. Those projects, I contend, would not have come about if not for Harlem USA.

CUF: So it’s kind of like what Disney did for 42nd street?

KN: That’s exactly right. It was a catalyst for the subsequent development. We provided roughly 20 percent of the financing for Harlem USA. Our $11.5 million leveraged an additional $50 million for that project. In the case of Gateway and Gotham Plaza, I believe we lent between $2 and $3 million to each project. That was cheap capital that probably in the absence of which, those projects wouldn’t have happened. I know that’s the case with Harlem USA.

CUF: What else is happening?

KN: The auto mall is a very significant project as well. It is in East Harlem and it will be the first new auto dealership north of 96th street in 50 years when it opens in 2005. It will employ 250 people. At the urging of Congressman Charlie Rangel, Potamkin has agreed to provide space for an automotive technical center that would use an outside technical school to train residents of East Harlem and Upper Manhattan to obtain those jobs. Automotive technician jobs are highly skilled positions to have. When we were doing the research for this project and making our determination to fund it, I visited the Potamkin Auto Center down on 57th street. The average salary down there is well in excess of $40,000 a year, so that will be very meaningful to residents of upper Manhattan. And there is the potential for upward mobility.

CUF: What about fears that development in Harlem won’t result in jobs for people in the community?

KN: It’s a concern. One of our primary planks in our investment strategy is workforce development. We’re going to work with the one stop employment shop that’s run by the Department of Small Business Services up here on 125th street and we’re going to make sure [that] wherever we invest our capital—be it in an auto mall or in a retail facility or a hotel—there will be corresponding job training, so that those people will be in a position to obtain those jobs. Moreover, anyone that obtains funds from the Empowerment Zone must have a job quota. So you cannot get our funds unless you make a commitment to hire upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone residents.

CUF: In the past, was workforce development not part of these economic development projects?

KN: They were. There were several different initiatives that the zone had funded, and I would describe them as having mixed success. STRIVE, in East Harlem, did very well as did the East Harlem Community Corporation. Some did less well. We think with a finite period and a finite amount of resources, we do better by focusing on having job training directly related to where the jobs are going to be. And it ought to be hand in hand with our investment strategy. Again, if we’re going to create a hospitality environment here, then we need people who are trained in that area, so they can obtain the jobs rather than having folks come from outside to get those jobs. So our workforce development will focus on the job creation areas that are brought about by our investment.

CUF: Is Columbia’s planned expansion a good thing for Harlem?

KN: Under the right set of circumstances, that expansion could be of great benefit to upper Manhattan. I think it’s a real potential. Manhattanville, at least that portion that’s west of Broadway, is analogous to midtown west. It is underdeveloped. It is mostly small one-story and in some cases two-story manufacturing businesses. I think there may be 1000, maybe 1500 jobs there. To the holder of the job, that’s a vital job. But I think there’s a greater economic development potential there, and the burden of Columbia is to demonstrate to the community that this expansion will not come at the expense of the surrounding community.

CUF: What needs to happen?

KN: Columbia has to be sensitive to, and facilitative of, relocation efforts. It’s got to work with the businesses that are there. But Columbia has at least three things to offer its neighbors: procurement opportunities, its spending power and jobs. It’s the single largest employer in upper Manhattan. I want to work with Columbia around workforce development. Columbia is made up of more than professors. There are technical jobs, there are facilities-management jobs, and there are administrative jobs that people from the surrounding community should have access to. We need to find a way to break down the barriers.

In fairness to Columbia, they’ve been open to this. I think they recognize the need to bring greater levels of assurance to surrounding communities that their expansion does not mean the marginalization of the surrounding communities. I think they can provide jobs, I think they can provide opportunities for local entrepreneurs. They should find a way to work with entities like us to invest in projects in a reasonable kind of way that benefit the surrounding community.

CUF: Why is there so much opposition?

KN: Unfortunately, there are still echoes of 1968, and what we know now, with years of hindsight, was a misguided attempt to expand into Morningside Park. But I can say, that starting with George Rupp [predecessor to Columbia president Lee Bollinger], Columbia has made it a real priority to be better neighbors. I think that they understand the issues, which certainly couldn’t be said of the situation in 1968. I just think they’ve got to continue to dialogue with community leaders and elected officials, and at the end of the day make a commitment to doing tangible things.

CUF: One aspect of Columbia’s expansion involves the creation of labs for biomedical research. Could this lead to growth in biotechnology jobs in upper Manhattan?

KN: I think it could, because that corridor that they’re looking at, the upper reaches of it, at 133rd street, goes right to the southern edge of City College. So you have there, in even closer proximity than now, two major universities. I would think that businesses like biotechnology and other kinds of technology that benefit by being in proximity to universities would be attracted to it. You could have a technology corridor there, right up Broadway, that could yield significant benefits.

CUF: Are there still untapped opportunities in Harlem?

KN: There certainly are. The anchor projects have been very successful and we want to do more of them because they create jobs and are catalysts for development around them. But we also are going to focus a lot of energy on small business development. Small businesses make up the backbone of the economy up here. So we are going to provide technical assistance to these businesses to the extent that they need it and we’re going to do a kind of equitable lending, which is to say that we’re going to take each business and partner with it and hopefully structure a lending scenario that recognizes their strengths and shores up their weaknesses.

CUF: Is this a new focus on small businesses?

KN: It was there before, but one of the constant complaints of the local community is that the Zone was only concerned about big projects. That’s not true in terms of the expenditures we’ve made. We’ve given millions of more dollars in grants than we have in loans. But perception is reality to many people. They see the Harlem USA’s, these big projects. They don’t hear about the smaller projects, which are the typical projects that we do. The critique on the small business-lending program before was that it takes two dollars to lend a dollar. It’s so labor intensive; that’s why banks don’t do it. But we’ve got to do it. We’re a lender of last resort. But we have to also enable these businesses to be ready to go to conventional lending sources after they leave us. That’s why we will bring essentially the same critique that a conventional lender would, but the bar would not be quite as high.

Because we want viable businesses, they’ve been in existence, they’ve demonstrated that the businesses can exist, but they haven’t been able to move to the next level. The BRISC (Business Reinvestment Service Center) is really set up to get people capital in the short term and enable them to do the subsequent borrowing and expansion through convention lending sources. The other thing that we’re going to do for small businesses is micro-lending. We’re doing that as we speak, working with Accion. We started in mid summer a program over in East Harlem. They’ve done probably 12 to 15 loans already, generally on the average of less than $10,000 per loan.

CUF: Is there an untapped opportunity for cultural entrepreneurship in Harlem?

KN: I think Harlem’s context in the larger economy of New York City is culture. One of the things we intend to do through our investments is re-establish Harlem as a cultural corridor. That’s the aim of bringing a hotel up here, that’s the aim of the investments we’ve made in restaurants up here. Virtually of the new restaurants over the last several years—Bayou, Amy Ruth’s, Londel’s, Revival—have all received Empowerment Zone funding. We believe that there’s significant cluster potential up here for just those types of businesses: media, entertainment, fashion, cultural products. We just passed at our Empowerment Zone board meeting a $1 million loan to a business called Nubian Heritage over on 126th street and Fifth Avenue. This comes on the heels of a prior loan of a little less than $400,000.

This is an entrepreneur that offers Afro-American-centered cultural products, books, cosmetics, DVDs, hair products. This is a fellow who started out selling incense and oils to the street vendors that you see along 125th street and out in Brooklyn. The conventional lending sources didn’t understand who would buy their products. There are not many banks today that could really understand an economy that’s based on the sale of incense and oils. But he’s built that business, which he started 10 years ago, into a $10 million platform. That’s a business that is prototypical of the kind that we believe we’re going to see more of in Harlem. We’re looking to help bring that about.

CUF: Do you see these opportunities in these creative areas beyond just retail establishments?

KN: Absolutely. Nubian Heritage started in Brooklyn. They have a store around Union Square and in Queens and now this store. They sell nationally. So yes, we think this is the beginning, at least in the case of Nubian heritage, of having real growth potential. But we see others. There’s a great cutting-edge advertising company up here called New America. They’re up here on 125th Street. We hope to work with them to expand.

Harlem’s brand is sold all over America, is sold all over the city. What we need to have is more of the people selling the brand of Harlem to be in Harlem. We need more commercial office space for that reason.

CUF: How do you nurture the next Nubian Heritage or New America?

KN: That’s why we have a small business-lending program. That’s why we have a micro lending program. But we also need to send a message to these entrepreneurs, to publicize what we’re doing with Nubian Heritage, to let people know that a New America type of company is here in upper Manhattan. Harlem has always been known for culture. Now that the economic fortunes have turned, we’ve got to make sure that when people come to the Apollo there are more restaurants for them to go to, there’s more shops like Nubian heritage where they can buy cultural artifacts and more businesses that are cultural in character that will bring people to Harlem. The tourism interest is here. What we need is more in the way of cultural infrastructure so people will have an even greater reason to come up.

CUF: When you talk about cultural infrastructure, what are the first couple of things that need to be done?

KN: We need to strengthen the 9 or 10 primary institutions that we have here. We have invested funds in several of those organizations and we’re going to continue to work with them. There is a second layer of mid-sized organizations, like the Mama Foundation, the Classical Theater of Harlem; the Hadley Players… there are 200 to 300 small artistic groups here in Harlem of varying kinds of artists. If we continue to build on the critical mass that we already have, then Harlem will once again be known as this cultural corridor—that when people come to New York City, they come primarily to see Broadway plays and come to Harlem.

There’s only one place like this. I say Harlem because it’s well known. But there’s East Harlem, which has a tremendous cultural potential. The birthplace of Latin music as we know it, wonderful kinds of cuisines. We’re working with a cross section of community and business leaders over there, to take 106th street, which is a glorious street from Fifth Avenue to the river, and create a cultural corridor through lighting and signage and trying to create an environment where we can bring more restaurants over there. You have El Museo del Barrio, the [Julia de] Burgos Cultural Center. You have these wonderful assets that have to be built upon.

CUF: It seems that there are a lot of neighborhoods, whether it’s Washington Heights or East Harlem, that have unique cultural assets that people still don’t know about. Have we as a city not promoted these neighborhood assets to the extent we should?

KN: We need to do a better job. We work very closely with the Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Heights Chambers of Commerce. We need to have an overall marketing strategy that really takes into greater account these various assets that we have here. I’m a member of NYC & Company; from our urging and the urging of others, they have made a greater effort to include upper Manhattan in their marketing tools. But the primary responsibility lies with us. That’s one of the things we really need to improve, and we intend to.

CUF: What would you suggest to city and state economic development officials?

KN: I think we’ve got to stop defining economic development as only meaning midtown Manhattan, lower Manhattan and now downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. I think there’s a recognition of that, but I would certainly want upper Manhattan—as a cultural economy and a place where you have two major universities—to be seen as part of the economic equation. We need to look at economic development more broadly and look at the assets that the entire city offers.

CUF: Why hasn’t that been the case historically in New York?

KN: I think we were still operating on assumptions that took root in the early 20th century about where business was. Business was downtown. Neighborhoods were uptown. 42nd Street was where plays were. Now midtown Manhattan consists of far more than just theaters. We’re looking at Long Island City now as a fourth business district. What has forced us, I think, to change the way we look at these things is market forces. We’ve simply run out of space.

CUF: Is it a matter of equity or opportunity?

KN: It is both. But it is really now opportunity. The reason why Harlem is hot is because the market forces are almost saturated below 96th street.

CUF: Some say the Empowerment Zone was slow in getting out the gate. Why was that and what are you doing differently?

KN: In fairness, we have the benefit of seven years of operation. So when I came in, in early 2003, I had the opportunity to look at the Zone’s operation from its very inception, which started in 1996. The pact [for creating the Zone] was made initially by Charles Rangel, Mayor Dinkins and Governor Cuomo. Well, two of those three parties changed. Suffice it to say, there had to be a workout period. So, it took two years to get the Zone up and running. And it was unique. There had never been, nor has there been since, an urban investment act of anything like this.

There was also the question, and this is a very big issue, of expectations. This is a community that had been undercapitalized, underemployed, still has employment issues. So there’s a great deal of expectation. You talk about $300 million coming into a community like upper Manhattan and the south Bronx. That raises lots of expectations. So I think [former Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone CEO] Debbie Wright obviously had to put the operating structure together and she had to deal with a lot of these expectations as well as the political waters that had to be smoothed. Well, that’s happened now. We have good working relationships with both the Bloomberg administration and the Pataki administration, and there’s a collective sense that now is the opportunity to get things done. I have the benefit of being here when there is this collective sense of mission to get things done.


Beginning with this interview, the Center will post a new Q&A each month with some of the city’s top policy experts, business leaders and government officials about key economic development issues facing the city and its neighborhoods.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

CB9 Chair Reassures Worried Residents

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/19/419d9ac8ea461?in_archive=1

News


CB9 Chair Reassures Worried Residents



By Matthew Carhart
Spectator Senior Staff Writer
November 19, 2004



At yesterday’s full board meeting of Community Board 9, the atmosphere was a lot more relaxed than it was at the board’s Housing Committee meeting on Tuesday.

Some attendees walked out of the Housing Committee meeting in anger because they feared that Columbia was prepared to buy two Manhattanville buildings from New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). Yesterday, tensions calmed during the full board meeting as CB9 chair Jordi Reyes-Montblanc assured board members that the city had no plans to sell and Columbia had no plans to buy.

The board also passed four resolutions yesterday with little argument, and the Nominating Committee presented candidates for the slate of officers for next year’s board.

Reyes-Montblanc distributed a memorandum he had previously sent to CB9 about his correspondence with both Columbia and HPD. In the document, Reyes-Montblanc wrote that HPD representatives had told him that the department would swap with Columbia the two buildings in question—3285 Broadway and 3287 Broadway—only if Columbia acquired two other local buildings, rehabilitated them, and sold the housing units to tenants.

Reyes-Montblanc wrote that he has “today confirmed with highest authorities at both HPD and CU that no such sale as reported has taken place, nor is it in progress.”

Also according to Reyes-Montblanc’s correspondence, University Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin told Reyes-Montblanc that Columbia would buy the buildings if possible, but that the University has not done so and would inform the board of any deal.

The nominations for next year’s seven officer positions included five officers who will run unopposed, including Reyes-Montblanc for chair, Carolyn Thompson for first vice-chair, Ted Kovalov for secretary, and Barbara Marshall for treasurer. All of these candidates already hold these positions in this year’s board. Only second vice-chair and assistant secretary will be contested.

The meeting began with a presentation by the New York City Economic Development Corporation on some of its plans for the redevelopment of 125th Street. The plans are still in the development stage and may include widened sidewalks, new street lighting, and investment in transportation along the street. The design portion of the project will be funded by Columbia, while 80 percent of the construction of the project will be funded by the city and 20 percent will be funded by local sponsors.

Also yesterday, Amelia Schwarz of the New York Public Library announced that the Morningside Heights branch will be closed from Dec. 20 to Dec. 27 for construction work on the circulation desk.


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

City Council Landmarks Oversight Hearing 11/29/04

LANDMARKS ALERT!

FROM: The Women’s City Club of New York (Arts and Landmarks
Committee)

PARTICIPATING GROUPS: Defenders of the Historic Upper East
Side, Hamilton Heights-West Harlem Preservation Community
Organization, Historic Districts Council, Landmark West!,
Morningside Heights Historic District Committee, and the
Society for the Architecture of the City.

SECOND CITY COUNCIL OVERSIGHT HEARING SCHEDULED

When: Monday, November 29, 10:00 AM
Where: City Hall, large Council Chamber on second floor

In response to overwhelming public interest and concern, the
City Council’s Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting and
Maritime Uses has scheduled a continuation of the October
20th oversight hearing on the Landmarks Preservation
Commission (LPC).

Please plan to attend and testify on November 29! For those
many of you who were prevented from participating in the
first hearing due to insufficient accommodations, this is
your chance to make your voice heard. Even if you were
among the small number of people who were able to testify or
submit written testimony on October 20, please come to show
your continued support for meaningful improvements to the
landmarks process.

REMEMBER
• There is a 2- to 3-minute time limit for testimony
• Please bring at least 10 copies of your written testimony
to distribute to the Committee members
• Topics may include a) the need for increased funding for
the LPC; b) the need for greater transparency,
responsiveness and opportunity for public input in the LPC’s
designation and regulatory processes; c) the importance of
sustaining high standards in preserving our landmark
buildings and neighborhoods; and/or other matters related to
the administrative practices of the agency.

Please confirm that you will attend and send a copy of your
testimony to mpfaelzer@wccny.org or 212-228-4665 (fax). With
any questions, please call or email LANDMARK WEST!,
212-496-8110, landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org.

Sincerely,

Laura Ludwig and Annette Rosen, Co-Chairs
The Arts and Landmarks Committee of the Women’s City Club
33 W. 60th Street, New York, N.Y. 10023











Estchester sues NYC over Bronx Water Treatment Plant

Subject: Yet another group sues NYC on the filtration plant
Date: 11/17/2004 9:15:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
To: KingmontNY



Eastchester sues NYC
By KEN VALENTI
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: November 17, 2004)

The town is suing to block New York City from building a water treatment plant in the Bronx, arguing that if the city chose to build its plant in Mount Pleasant — an option that was considered — the need for a treatment facility on Eastchester's residential streets would be reduced.

Using the state's environmental review law, the town argues that New York City did not fully examine the effects of its decision, as required. The town argues that, with a treatment plant farther north, United Water New Rochelle would not need to build a planned 7,600-square-foot treatment plant on California Road, replacing a small pump station.

If the city's plant were built in Mount Pleasant, "it would not be necessary for United Water to expand its treatment plant to the size that they are proposing," said Eastchester town attorney John Sarcone.

Lawyers for Eastchester, New York City and United Water appeared yesterday before state Supreme Court Justice Francis Nicolai in White Plains.

Susan Amron, an attorney for New York City, said the city's plans for a plant in the Bronx, at Van Cortlandt Park, are not connected to United Water's plans for a 7,600-square-foot treatment facility in Eastchester.

"We think the two are really unrelated," she said.

Indeed, United Water spokesman Richard Henning said yesterday that the company would need to build the Eastchester plant, at the size planned, even if New York City did build its plant in Mount Pleasant.

But Eastchester opponents of the plant believe they could avoid the United Water plant at California Road and Route 22, at least as it is planned now, by moving the city's facility farther north.

"I don't think people understand what takes place on what appears to be an innocent corner of this town," Judy Blau, a member of the citizens group Safety Always First For Eastchester, or SAFFE. She said the organization has joined with groups in New York City to fight the Bronx plan.

"We are not yet tying ourselves to trees, although that has been discussed," said I.C. Levenberg-Engel, president of the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality. He said the construction would disrupt a crowded neighborhood and, as one effect, would raise dust that would worsen asthma suffered by children in the area.

Charles Sturcken, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, said the construction of the $1 billion filtration plant would include methods to control noise, dust and odors.

The city chose the site because the plant there would cost less to build and operate, and would sit closer to the main lines and distribution system, making the overall system more flexible, and making it easier to keep the water clean, according to a July 16 report by the city.

In the brief appearance before Nicolai, Michael Zarin, a lawyer for Eastchester, told the judge that the town was willing to agree to the city's request to change venue for the trial to either Manhattan or Queens, where other cases against the city are pending, with the final decision to be reached with the other attorneys.

Nicolai is also considering the latest lawsuit brought by Eastchester against the water company

Please visit our website:
http://www.newyorkwater.org/

AREA BUSINESSES FIGHT EMINENT DOMAIN

Click here: In the News - Full Article, In the News, News and Events, School of Law, Northwestern University
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=1576
In the News - Full Article
November 16, 2004
New York Sun

AREA BUSINESSES FIGHT EMINENT DOMAIN

By Jacob Gershman, Staff Reporter of the Sun

The stage is set for an eminent-domain battle pitting the city and state governments against owners of neighborhood businesses who fear their Manhattanville properties will be condemned to make room for Columbia University's proposed expansion.

Several businesses, including moving-and-storage companies, recently hired an attorney, Norman Siegel, the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to ward off condemnation of their properties within the mostly industrial area bounded by 125th and 133rd streets and Broadway and Twelfth Avenue. In April, Columbia announced preliminary plans to add classroom space and laboratories there over the next 30 years.

The dispute between the owners and government over the future of the 18-acre area is emerging at a time when battles over governments' seizure of private property are raging across the country.

The Supreme Court agreed in September to hear a case involving an eminent-domain dispute between homeowners and New London, Conn. The town condemned their property to make room for a waterfront hotel, conference center, and office space. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the homeowners and overturns the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling in March in favor of the city, the decision could affect Columbia's efforts to shape the neighborhood.

The central legal question in the Connecticut case is whether a municipality may seize land to make room for private development. Under the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment, government may take private property as long as there is "just compensation" and it's for "public use."

If New York State's Empire State Development Corporation begins condemnation proceedings in Manhattanville, in an area zoned for manufacturing, the key issue likely to arise is to what extent the expansion will serve a public purpose.

A spokesman for the state corporation, Chapin Fay, said it was "premature" to comment on the possibility of condemnation. Mr. Siegel, the neighborhood businesses' lawyer, said transferring property to Columbia would violate the Constitution because the university is a private entity. He said he is prepared to sue the state if it condemns the property.

Columbia is said to own 42% of the land in the expansion area. The rest is owned by businesses, the city, and the state. Mr. Siegel said he fears the New York City Economic Development Corporation, in a study it is conducting of West Harlem, will deem the neighborhood "blighted," which would be a first step toward a possible condemnation. The corporation has completed a rough draft of the blight study, according to Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, chairman of Community Board 9.

David Dana, a professor at Northwestern University Law School who specializes in property law, said Mr. Siegel's case would be weakened if the city designates the area blighted. "It would change the court's perception," Mr, Dana said.

A Columbia official, who declined to be named, said the university will continue to negotiate with businesses to purchase the properties "in a way that addresses the needs of individual owners and tenants" and "meets the university's objectives and brings economic prosperity to the larger Manhattanville community."

"Eminent domain is a power that can only be deemed appropriate and exercised by the State, or other public authorities, not by the University," the official said in a written statement.

Columbia officials have argued that the university's expansion into Manhattanville will dramatically improve economic development of the community. Columbia, which has the least square footage per student of any Ivy League school, has said if it doesn't expand the university will soon run out of space.

In September, the university released statistics from its own economic impact survey showing that the expansion, in its first 5-to-10-year phase, would generate $324 million in revenue for the community and almost 3,000 permanent jobs. Those numbers would be more than quadrupled upon completion of all three phases in the 30 year plan, according to the university. The first phase would also produce $13 million a year in tax revenue for the city and state, the survey said.

Columbia, which has consulted with community leaders in developing its plans, is working on completing its environmental impact statement, which will cover its rezoning proposals, to be submitted to the Department of City Planning and community leaders.

Columbia plans to open an employment office early next year, at what was once a Mexican restaurant, on Broadway near 125th Street. That center is to serve as a central walk-in center for people looking for jobs at Columbia.

The assistant vice president for human resources at Columbia, Judith Dorsey, said the employment center will make Columbia "more community friendly." She said the center "will help make jobs more accessible."

"It's motivated by the need to improve the hiring process and increase transparency," Ms. Dorsey said.

The eighth largest non-governmental employer in the city, Columbia has more than 13,000 full-time employees.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

CB9 Housing Meeting Leaves Many Questions

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/17/419afe0336642?in_archive=1


News


CB9 Housing Meeting Leaves Many Questions



By Lindsay Schubiner
Columbia Daily Spectator
November 17, 2004



Tempers flared at a meeting of the Community Board 9 Housing Committee last night because of suspicions that Columbia may be moving forward with plans to buy residential buildings in the proposed expansion area.

Community members stormed out of the meeting after learning that buildings at 3285 and 3287 Broadway will no longer be under by the West Harlem Group Assistance Program, which was administering the buildings for the City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

The Coalition to Preserve Community, a group that has raised concerns about the expansion, had encouraged community members to attend the meeting with the belief that representatives from HPD would discuss Columbia’s expansion plans. But due to a miscommunication, these representatives were not prepared to speak on the issue. Jordy Reyes-Montblanc, CB9 chair, claimed responsibility for the mistake.

A group of attendees was still eager for answers, however, and asked Disha Marte, a representative of West Harlem Assistance, about the buildings. She had not originally planned to address the issue, but she said, “These two buildings were in our cluster. And they were taken away from West Harlem Assistance.”

Before negotiations began, the city had owned the buildings. Many community members assumed that Columbia was behind the change and had plans to purchase the buildings.

A spokesperson for Columbia said that as a matter of policy, the University does not comment on properties that it does not own within the proposed development area.

After the meeting, community members milled about outside the board expressing frustration.

“We’re going to have to try to challenge HPD,” said Tom DeMott of the Coalition to Preserve Community.

Other community members, however, seemed resigned to their fate. Otto Arenas, a tenant of a neighboring building at 3289 Broadway, said, “We’re waiting to hear when we’re going to move.”

Community Board Chairman George Goodwill said that the board tried to work with the community and stated that “it’s not fair for everybody to walk out.”

Earlier in the evening, the meeting addressed community tenants’ worries about the Tenant Interim Lease program. The program is a city initiative to help tenants of city-owned apartments buy their buildings. It moves tenants into unoccupied city housing while the city makes improvements on the buildings. After the work is finished, the tenants move back into their original apartments and buy the buildings collectively.

Former tenants of 610 West 136th St. and 470 Convent Ave., who are now living in temporary city housing, were upset that they have been unable to enter their buildings to check up on the work being done. Some community members concerned about potential liability issues also complained that the sidewalks in front of 610 West 136th St. were uneven.

A representative from HPD repeatedly assured the group that the agency would fix the sidewalk and explained that the buildings were not open because they were unfinished and therefore unsafe.

Community members did not seem satisfied. Board member Dr. Vicki Gholson said, “Nobody trusts HPD, including the people that work for it.” Many in the audience thanked Gholson for her input, suggesting that the feeling is widespread.

After the discussion, the community members voted unanimously to have the board recommend that the city council approve the pre-sale agreement for the two buildings. This would pave the way for the next stage of the TIL plan, in which former tenants would buy their buildings from the city.



Note: Because of an editing error, the sixth paragraph of this article contained inaccurate information in print. This version has been corrected. Spectator regrets the error.