CU Working To Relocate Local Tenants
University Talking to Housing Dept. About Moving Residents From M�ville
By Tanveer Ali and Erin Durkin
Spectator Staff Writers
November 30, 2005
Columbia has begun actively considering relocation options for the residents of 60 units in four buildings located within its proposed expansion zone.
Several documents obtained by Spectator under the Freedom of Information Law from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which owns the buildings, indicate that the Department has sanctioned the relocation process and issued detailed recommendations on how it should proceed.
�We�re pulling together options within CB9 for replacement housing,� Jeremiah Stoldt, Columbia�s director of campus plan, wrote in a November 2004 e-mail to Anne Marie Hendrickson, an assistant commissioner at HPD.
While Columbia has publicly committed to finding replacement housing for tenants who are directly displaced by its expansion, the University has not previously specified that this housing would be located within Community District 9, which stretches from 110th to 155th streets. Columbia has kept the substance of their discussions regarding the buildings quiet, and many residents worried that they would be forced to move farther away. The documents indicate a more detailed level of planning than revealed in filings recently released as part of a necessary environmental review process.
�The University will work with affected tenants to relocate them within close proximity to their current residences whenever possible,� University spokeswoman Liz Golden wrote in an e-mail.
According to the documents, University representatives have been meeting with HPD since at least the summer of 2004 to discuss the fate of the buildings. Columbia has gathered floor plans and information about the individual tenants in an effort to identify relocation units that meet HPD specifications, including totaling the number and size of bedrooms.
No timetable is in place for transferring the HPD-owned buildings to Columbia. Instead, they will continue for the immediate future to participate in the affordable housing programs in which they now take part.
But Gloria Calero, a resident of 3287 Broadway, said she was skeptical. Columbia �could say what they want, but they�re going to have to show some proof they�re going to do it,� she said.
Golden declined to elaborate further on the specifics of University meetings with HPD.
�It is routine for University officials to have continuing discussions about a variety of issues relevant to Columbia�s proposed Manhattanville expansion. However, it is University policy not to comment on discussions of this nature while they are still ongoing,� she said.
In September 2004, Bill Carbine, an assistant commissioner at HPD, sent a memo outlining the relocation responsibilities the Department believes that the University should assume.
�Columbia should identify relocation resources in close proximity to the affected buildings for recreation of the programs at its own expense.�
Two of the buildings, located at 602 W. 132nd St. and 3289 Broadway, are currently owned by HPD under the Tenant Interim Lease program, which allows tenants to eventually buy their buildings as low-income cooperatives. Carbine wrote that these tenants must be relocated to apartments they will be able to own, not merely rent.
�Columbia should create two buildings of similar size through rehabilitation or new construction for sale to these tenants as limited equity co-ops, with each tenant paying $250 for their shares and common charges set according to TIL guidelines. TIL tenants would be required to move, assuming HPD approves the location and the quality of the units,� Carbine wrote.
The remaining buildings, 3285 and 3287 Broadway, are owned by HPD under the Neighborhood Redevelopment Program, where city and federal funding is provided to a nonprofit developer for building rehabilitation.
�Columbia would be required to acquire and renovate 22 vacant rental units [in another location] at its own expense to accommodate the existing tenants here at 30 percent of their incomes. The units should be turned over to a HPD-approved not-for-profit to be operated with permanent affordability,� Carbine wrote.
The memo also recommended that Columbia be required to pay moving costs for the affected families. It said, however, that HPD would not demand that Columbia build any affordable housing in addition to what it would provide for relocation.
The area where the buildings are located will not be developed until the second phase of Columbia�s expansion project, meaning that construction is at least 15 years down the road.
According to an e-mail to Carbine from Matt Wambua, an advisor to Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, �We continue to operate under the assumptions that were established via the last formal conversations between CU and HPD�i.e. that HPD is going forward with the [TIL] and [NRP] developments, based on the fact that CU has noted that we should move forward, and that CU will not be able to replace the buildings any time soon.�
Both of the NRP buildings are expected �to be disposed of� to a nonprofit developer, believed to be West Harlem Group Assistance, for redevelopment in June 2006. The TIL buildings located at 602 W. 132nd St. and 3289 Broadway expect to transfer ownership to tenants in 2010 and 2009 respectively.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
NB - I seldom comment on articles posted in the Blog however I will make an exeption in this case for two reasons.
1. Columbia Spectator offered me the chance to review the documents obtanied and commment on them, however as everyone knows I have been away for the Holidays and just returned 3:30am today. And,
2. I am in possession of information relevant to the article.
All the information reported is correct and true at the time the exchanges took place.
What is not reproted is that I had contacts with HPD and Anne Marie Hendricson, Assistant Commissioner of HPD had confirmed by e-mail of these offers by Columbia University and that after due consideration the buildings were to be retained in their respective Programs and not transferred to CU, this information was widely distributed by me at several meetings as the requirements for such consideration were too onerous for CU as CU was under the impression that other City-owned property might have been available and as we all know at CB9M there is nomore City-owned prorperties available within CB9M.
Lastly, there is nothing new to be added to knowledge already in our hands and that is very valuable as we now are sure of inofrmation we had received was correct and not spinned.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Dorm Authority Hearing 28Nov05 CB9M & CPC Testimonies
NB- I have received these two testimonies presented at the NYS Dormitory Authority Hearingon November 28th 2005.
I will add other testimoniess as received. - JRM
Subject: The DASNY Hearing this morning
Date: 11/28/2005 11:42:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: CarolynCKent
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
My name is Carolyn Kent and I am testifying as Co-Chair of the Parks and Landmarks Committee of Community Board #9, Manhattan, covering Morningside Heights, Manhattanville, and Hamilton Heights, on behalf of the Chair of CB#9M Jordi Reyes-Montblanc.
For the record, CB#9M�s proposed 197-A Plan and Columbia University�s 197-C Zoning Plan for Manhattanville, to be afforded equal consideration by the City Planning Planning Commission, will proceed concurrently through the public review process (ULURP). Additionally, both CB#9M and Columbia are asked to negotiate in good faith toward achieving consensus on the two plans wherever possible. CB#9M and Columbia have just finished a series of five public discussion sessions which produced 75 oppositional testimonies in a 6 � hour Public Scoping Session vis a vis the University�s EIS in process � an EIS that will be heavily focused on questions of land use and historic resources.
It was therefore extremely surprising that prior to the public tax-exempt bonds hearing notice in the Nov. 11, 2005 NYTIMES, Columbia shared not a word about its $1/2 billion bond application with us � bonds which in part would fund development of specific historic sites under long discussion between Columbia and the community. The bond proposal decision should be delayed until Columbia clarifies for CB#9M and for DASNY its intentions toward the building development for which funding is sought.
(2) In particular, there must be clarification on the Studebaker Building (development costing $52,457,000 is specified) at the very center of Columbia�s Manhattanville re-zoning application and the historic apartment buildings forming the residential segment of the Morningside Heights Historic District now before the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (a $28,826,000 investment expenditure on these is specified). In each case, the CB#9M 197-A Plan proposes these properties for NYC Landmark designation and State/National Register listing, for which they have been found eligible.
DASNY finds that this bond issue would fund a Type II action by Columbia for which no environmental review is required. We must challenge this finding. Devised to serve the �obligation to protect the environment,� the DEC regulations in Part 617 of Title 6 NY Codes, Rules and Regulations are clear: a Type II action can �in no case have a significant adverse impact on the on the environment based on the criteria in 617.7(c)� and in 617.7 (c) are listed, as �Criteria for determining significance�,
We further point to a possible abuse of the 617 regulations which DASNY must address forthrightly: any action occurring wholly within a building listed on the State or National Register is a Type I action calling for review in terms of significant adverse impact. Yet it is the ownership of a property that must seek S/N Register listing.
If Columbia, owner of the Studebaker building, has declined to pursue State/National
Register listing for a building which nevertheless is found eligible for listing by the New York State Historic Preservation Office, DASNY can claim no genuine basis to reduce environmental review to zero. Instead, Columbia�s development of this identified historic resource is an �unlisted� if not a Type I action and through review by SHPO with reference to the criteria in 617.7(c), DASNY should assess the significance of the project it is asked to fund.
Carolyn Kent, CB#9M
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Subject: CPC Batch 1 Testimony: Coali to Preserve Community at Dorm Auth Hearing
Date: 11/30/2005 4:20:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: BFrappy24
To: BFrappy24,
TO CPC MEMBERS AND OTHERS INTERESTED: 11/30/05
Representatives from various groups expressed their opposition to the $500 million dollar bond issuance request by Columbia to the NY State Dormitory Authority at a hearing on Monday, Nov. 28. The first item on the agenda for most speakers was in unpublic nature of the supposed public hearing. First of all, we were told that a decision on the bond matter had actually been made before this hearing! This was an immediate subject of dispute. In addition, the hearing was held on the 52nd floor at One Penn Plaza on 33rd St. and security there was tight and intimidating to gain entry. The fine print notice certainly left out every important detail as to the real request for each of the buildings - what would actually be done - where bonds were being requested. Such a hearing would be a public hearing if it was held at a location close to the where the public affected by changes in the buildings were living. It would also help for it to be held at a time when the working public could attend, not at 11:00AM on a Monday morning.
More substantive complaints about the bond issuance were raised in testimony by Norman Siegel, atty for the West Harlem Business Group, as well as representatives from the West Harlem Coalition, Tenants Alliance, Historic District Committee, Community Board 9 as well as local District Leader Cynthia Doty.
Testimony by the Coalition to Preserve Community called for disapproval of the bond issuance. We paste in the comments presented below by the CPC, although there were additional oral comments made on the record by members of the CPC and others besides the written testimony. This letter does not cover all the issues raised by all those who testified who are mentioned above but does give the CPC's position. Tom D (see CPC letter below)
------------------------------------------------------------------
COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY -
United for an Open and Strong Community
POST OFFICE BOX 50 - Manhattanville Station
365 West 125th Street
NEW York City, New York 10027
------------------------------------------------------------------
CPC STEERING COMMITTEE 11/28/05
Dormitory of the State of New York
1 Penn Plaza
New York City, New York 10001
RE: Issuance of Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Columbia University Revenue Bonds (Series 2006)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am presenting this letter on behalf of the steering committee of the Coalition to Preserve Community at this hearing, Nov. 28, by the State Dormitory Authority on the issuance of bonds. Columbia University has requested a maximum total of $500,000 million worth of bonds to be used "to finance or refinance all or a portion of the cost for acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, renovating, equipping, repairing, purchasing or otherwise providing for the projects" listed according to the public notice on the "Columbia Project".
We do not believe that the issuance of bonds for Columbia should be approved. There has been no consultation with the community on this matter, nor was it even announced at the Community Board 9 where most of the affected properties are located. This may seem unimportant to you as because it falls outside of what you conceive of as the parameters of the notification policy, but there are significant issues here which you need to be aware of.
Many of these buildings are directly under consideration and review for both the community's 197A plan as well as the Columbia 197 C plan. Columbia's huge proposed expansion, estimated by the institution to cost $5 billion dollars over the next 25 years, will have a devastating impact on West Harlem and beyond. Instead of working with the community and getting a rezoning which would stop primary displacement and provide a means to mitigate secondary displacement, by conforming to the 197A plan, Columbia continues to barge full steam ahead with its bulldozer mentality.
Let us give you an example of how this bond issuance request to the Dormitory Authority will hurt taxpayers and will subsidize the removal of the neighborhood as we know it in West Harlem. Columbia is asking for $52 million in bond money for the Studebaker building (615 West 131 St.) which is located in the proposed expansion area. This is an outrage. Taxpayers, both businesses and residents in the community, are being asked to give approval to a non-tax paying institution in the precise area where that institution is trying to literally evict those very tax paying businesses and residents. (Columbia is holding the use of eminent domain over our heads. It has been harassing business owners to leave with threats of lesser dollars if they don�t accept removal before eminent domain is implemented.) Another source of abuse occurs to tax paying residents and businesses in the area just outside of the immediate expansion area. Those citizens are facing secondary displacement, and like the others facing eviction, are being asked to subsidize their own disrupted future. Are we to accept state sponsored help for the Studebaker building while tenants next door are being shown the door?
Aside from the injustice of a state agency considering support for the concept of the removal of taxpayers for non-taxpayers - since approval of the bond issuance is tacit approval of Columbia's expansion plan - there are preservationist issues to be sorted out. Many of the buildings for which Columbia is requesting bonds face historical review as laid out in the 197A plan. Columbia's carte blanche request with no consultation on this issue, is yet another reason to not approve these bonds.
If Columbia can find hundreds of thousands of dollars in its own budget to give to the Empire State Development Corporation to accelerate the eminent domain process, we do not believe that the citizens of New York should be required to authorize bond funds which facilitate the institution's urban removal plan in Harlem. If Columbia can contemplate a capital budgeting of $5 billion for this expansion, why does the state go out of its way to issue bonds when there are so many worthier projects to spend time and money on? We urge the State Dormitory Authority not to approve the issuance of bonds requested by Columbia.
At the Nov. 15 City Planning hearing on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Columbia expansion held at Roberto Clemente School there was a tremendous outpouring of anger toward Columbia and the scoping document. For over six hours, almost 80 people testified, and there was not one person who stood up to support the proposed Columbia plan. Afterwards, Robert Dobruskin, City Planning's chair of the meeting, told the Chair of Community Board 9, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, that he had never presided over a hearing where the advocates of a plan had no one speak in support of it and where such unanimity of opposition was expressed (a comment reported the next day in the Columbia Spectator, 11/16/05).
We attach with our testimony a copy of a booklet that the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC) steering committee prepared for that hearing because it has relevance at this one. We distributed this 75 page booklet to every person who attended the meeting, a total of almost 450. It lays out our concerns about the expansion plan in general and the flimsiness of the scoping document. Much of the research done for this document came out of information obtained from a Freedom of Information Letter CPC filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It presents lots of information about biotech labs including color photos of EPA violations found at Columbia labs and a list of lab accident reports nationwide. It highlights the obvious question: why build, post 9/11, such high security labs in New York City which has proved to be a primary target area for terrorists? Will the State Dormitory Authority ignore the concerns of entire Community Board and authorize these bonds? We hope not and urge you to not to approve this bond issuance request.
Thank you on behalf of the CPC steering committee and its members.
A list of our steering members is attached and you can contact Tom DeMott (212 666-6426) Nellie Bailey (212 316-2240) or Luis Tejada (212 234-3002) or contact us by email at bfrappy24@aol.com. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom DeMott Nellie Bailey Luis Tejada
For the Coalition to Preserve Community Steering Committee
Enc.
I will add other testimoniess as received. - JRM
Subject: The DASNY Hearing this morning
Date: 11/28/2005 11:42:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: CarolynCKent
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
TESTIMONY AT THE DASNY PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $500,000,000 IN TAX
ON PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $500,000,000 IN TAX
EXEMPT BONDS FOR COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005
My name is Carolyn Kent and I am testifying as Co-Chair of the Parks and Landmarks Committee of Community Board #9, Manhattan, covering Morningside Heights, Manhattanville, and Hamilton Heights, on behalf of the Chair of CB#9M Jordi Reyes-Montblanc.
For the record, CB#9M�s proposed 197-A Plan and Columbia University�s 197-C Zoning Plan for Manhattanville, to be afforded equal consideration by the City Planning Planning Commission, will proceed concurrently through the public review process (ULURP). Additionally, both CB#9M and Columbia are asked to negotiate in good faith toward achieving consensus on the two plans wherever possible. CB#9M and Columbia have just finished a series of five public discussion sessions which produced 75 oppositional testimonies in a 6 � hour Public Scoping Session vis a vis the University�s EIS in process � an EIS that will be heavily focused on questions of land use and historic resources.
It was therefore extremely surprising that prior to the public tax-exempt bonds hearing notice in the Nov. 11, 2005 NYTIMES, Columbia shared not a word about its $1/2 billion bond application with us � bonds which in part would fund development of specific historic sites under long discussion between Columbia and the community. The bond proposal decision should be delayed until Columbia clarifies for CB#9M and for DASNY its intentions toward the building development for which funding is sought.
(2) In particular, there must be clarification on the Studebaker Building (development costing $52,457,000 is specified) at the very center of Columbia�s Manhattanville re-zoning application and the historic apartment buildings forming the residential segment of the Morningside Heights Historic District now before the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (a $28,826,000 investment expenditure on these is specified). In each case, the CB#9M 197-A Plan proposes these properties for NYC Landmark designation and State/National Register listing, for which they have been found eligible.
DASNY finds that this bond issue would fund a Type II action by Columbia for which no environmental review is required. We must challenge this finding. Devised to serve the �obligation to protect the environment,� the DEC regulations in Part 617 of Title 6 NY Codes, Rules and Regulations are clear: a Type II action can �in no case have a significant adverse impact on the on the environment based on the criteria in 617.7(c)� and in 617.7 (c) are listed, as �Criteria for determining significance�,
�(iv) the creation of a material conflict with a community�s current plans or goals
as officially approved or adopted:
(v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, �archi- tectural, or aesthetic resources, or of existing community or neighborhood character.�
(3) The City Planning Commission has issued an extensively specified positive declaration with regard to the Columbia re-zoning proposal. How does DASNY dismiss this finding in terms of funding the Studebaker building�s development ($52,457,000) which is closely interwoven into the University�s rezoning application for Manhattanville.
as officially approved or adopted:
(v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, �archi- tectural, or aesthetic resources, or of existing community or neighborhood character.�
(3) The City Planning Commission has issued an extensively specified positive declaration with regard to the Columbia re-zoning proposal. How does DASNY dismiss this finding in terms of funding the Studebaker building�s development ($52,457,000) which is closely interwoven into the University�s rezoning application for Manhattanville.
We further point to a possible abuse of the 617 regulations which DASNY must address forthrightly: any action occurring wholly within a building listed on the State or National Register is a Type I action calling for review in terms of significant adverse impact. Yet it is the ownership of a property that must seek S/N Register listing.
If Columbia, owner of the Studebaker building, has declined to pursue State/National
Register listing for a building which nevertheless is found eligible for listing by the New York State Historic Preservation Office, DASNY can claim no genuine basis to reduce environmental review to zero. Instead, Columbia�s development of this identified historic resource is an �unlisted� if not a Type I action and through review by SHPO with reference to the criteria in 617.7(c), DASNY should assess the significance of the project it is asked to fund.
Carolyn Kent, CB#9M
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Subject: CPC Batch 1 Testimony: Coali to Preserve Community at Dorm Auth Hearing
Date: 11/30/2005 4:20:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: BFrappy24
To: BFrappy24,
TO CPC MEMBERS AND OTHERS INTERESTED: 11/30/05
Representatives from various groups expressed their opposition to the $500 million dollar bond issuance request by Columbia to the NY State Dormitory Authority at a hearing on Monday, Nov. 28. The first item on the agenda for most speakers was in unpublic nature of the supposed public hearing. First of all, we were told that a decision on the bond matter had actually been made before this hearing! This was an immediate subject of dispute. In addition, the hearing was held on the 52nd floor at One Penn Plaza on 33rd St. and security there was tight and intimidating to gain entry. The fine print notice certainly left out every important detail as to the real request for each of the buildings - what would actually be done - where bonds were being requested. Such a hearing would be a public hearing if it was held at a location close to the where the public affected by changes in the buildings were living. It would also help for it to be held at a time when the working public could attend, not at 11:00AM on a Monday morning.
More substantive complaints about the bond issuance were raised in testimony by Norman Siegel, atty for the West Harlem Business Group, as well as representatives from the West Harlem Coalition, Tenants Alliance, Historic District Committee, Community Board 9 as well as local District Leader Cynthia Doty.
Testimony by the Coalition to Preserve Community called for disapproval of the bond issuance. We paste in the comments presented below by the CPC, although there were additional oral comments made on the record by members of the CPC and others besides the written testimony. This letter does not cover all the issues raised by all those who testified who are mentioned above but does give the CPC's position. Tom D (see CPC letter below)
------------------------------------------------------------------
COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY -
United for an Open and Strong Community
POST OFFICE BOX 50 - Manhattanville Station
365 West 125th Street
NEW York City, New York 10027
------------------------------------------------------------------
CPC STEERING COMMITTEE 11/28/05
Dormitory of the State of New York
1 Penn Plaza
New York City, New York 10001
RE: Issuance of Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Columbia University Revenue Bonds (Series 2006)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am presenting this letter on behalf of the steering committee of the Coalition to Preserve Community at this hearing, Nov. 28, by the State Dormitory Authority on the issuance of bonds. Columbia University has requested a maximum total of $500,000 million worth of bonds to be used "to finance or refinance all or a portion of the cost for acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, renovating, equipping, repairing, purchasing or otherwise providing for the projects" listed according to the public notice on the "Columbia Project".
We do not believe that the issuance of bonds for Columbia should be approved. There has been no consultation with the community on this matter, nor was it even announced at the Community Board 9 where most of the affected properties are located. This may seem unimportant to you as because it falls outside of what you conceive of as the parameters of the notification policy, but there are significant issues here which you need to be aware of.
Many of these buildings are directly under consideration and review for both the community's 197A plan as well as the Columbia 197 C plan. Columbia's huge proposed expansion, estimated by the institution to cost $5 billion dollars over the next 25 years, will have a devastating impact on West Harlem and beyond. Instead of working with the community and getting a rezoning which would stop primary displacement and provide a means to mitigate secondary displacement, by conforming to the 197A plan, Columbia continues to barge full steam ahead with its bulldozer mentality.
Let us give you an example of how this bond issuance request to the Dormitory Authority will hurt taxpayers and will subsidize the removal of the neighborhood as we know it in West Harlem. Columbia is asking for $52 million in bond money for the Studebaker building (615 West 131 St.) which is located in the proposed expansion area. This is an outrage. Taxpayers, both businesses and residents in the community, are being asked to give approval to a non-tax paying institution in the precise area where that institution is trying to literally evict those very tax paying businesses and residents. (Columbia is holding the use of eminent domain over our heads. It has been harassing business owners to leave with threats of lesser dollars if they don�t accept removal before eminent domain is implemented.) Another source of abuse occurs to tax paying residents and businesses in the area just outside of the immediate expansion area. Those citizens are facing secondary displacement, and like the others facing eviction, are being asked to subsidize their own disrupted future. Are we to accept state sponsored help for the Studebaker building while tenants next door are being shown the door?
Aside from the injustice of a state agency considering support for the concept of the removal of taxpayers for non-taxpayers - since approval of the bond issuance is tacit approval of Columbia's expansion plan - there are preservationist issues to be sorted out. Many of the buildings for which Columbia is requesting bonds face historical review as laid out in the 197A plan. Columbia's carte blanche request with no consultation on this issue, is yet another reason to not approve these bonds.
If Columbia can find hundreds of thousands of dollars in its own budget to give to the Empire State Development Corporation to accelerate the eminent domain process, we do not believe that the citizens of New York should be required to authorize bond funds which facilitate the institution's urban removal plan in Harlem. If Columbia can contemplate a capital budgeting of $5 billion for this expansion, why does the state go out of its way to issue bonds when there are so many worthier projects to spend time and money on? We urge the State Dormitory Authority not to approve the issuance of bonds requested by Columbia.
At the Nov. 15 City Planning hearing on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Columbia expansion held at Roberto Clemente School there was a tremendous outpouring of anger toward Columbia and the scoping document. For over six hours, almost 80 people testified, and there was not one person who stood up to support the proposed Columbia plan. Afterwards, Robert Dobruskin, City Planning's chair of the meeting, told the Chair of Community Board 9, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, that he had never presided over a hearing where the advocates of a plan had no one speak in support of it and where such unanimity of opposition was expressed (a comment reported the next day in the Columbia Spectator, 11/16/05).
We attach with our testimony a copy of a booklet that the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC) steering committee prepared for that hearing because it has relevance at this one. We distributed this 75 page booklet to every person who attended the meeting, a total of almost 450. It lays out our concerns about the expansion plan in general and the flimsiness of the scoping document. Much of the research done for this document came out of information obtained from a Freedom of Information Letter CPC filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It presents lots of information about biotech labs including color photos of EPA violations found at Columbia labs and a list of lab accident reports nationwide. It highlights the obvious question: why build, post 9/11, such high security labs in New York City which has proved to be a primary target area for terrorists? Will the State Dormitory Authority ignore the concerns of entire Community Board and authorize these bonds? We hope not and urge you to not to approve this bond issuance request.
Thank you on behalf of the CPC steering committee and its members.
A list of our steering members is attached and you can contact Tom DeMott (212 666-6426) Nellie Bailey (212 316-2240) or Luis Tejada (212 234-3002) or contact us by email at bfrappy24@aol.com. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom DeMott Nellie Bailey Luis Tejada
For the Coalition to Preserve Community Steering Committee
Enc.
Columbia Spectator - State Money Request Blasted at Hearing
Columbia Spectator
State Money Request Blasted at Hearing
Columbia Request for $500 Million Scrutinized Before the Board of the State Dormitory Authority
By Tom Faure
Columbia Daily Spectator
November 29, 2005
The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York held a public hearing yesterday to discuss Columbia�s request for $500 million in loans.
The seven people who attended voiced their displeasure with the plan, arguing that the amount of money requested was unnecessarily high and that the loan application process should allow for more public input.
Columbia has requested the funds to from the authority, an agency that regularly provides low-interest loans to finance construction by private educational and health care institutions, to fund dozens of construction and renovation projects. The largest single sum, $52,457,000, will go toward completely refurbishing the Studebaker building on 131st Street, a project Columbia will complete in the first stage of its proposed Manhattanville expansion.
In response to questions from attendees, Donna Rosen, associate counsel to DASNY, revealed that the authority had already decided to request the Governor�s approval for the funds. Rosen�s announcement prompted many of those who showed up at the hearing to persuade DASNY to reject the financial requests wonder what purpose the hearing served.
Norman Siegel, an attorney who represents several Manhattanville business owners, called the hearing �with all due respect, a sham [that] raises substantial legal questions.�
�I would at least request DASNY to make an independent judgment based on the merits of this application,� Siegel said, encouraging the authority to rethink its acceptance of Columbia�s plan.
But Rosen emphasized that DASNY�s acceptance of the bonds still need to be approved by the Governor before Columbia receives any money.
Walter South, a member Community Board 9, voiced his outrage at the lack of professionalism in what he called only a �semi-public hearing.� South criticized officials for holding the meeting during work hours and at DASNY�s downtown offices rather than in the West Harlem community.
South also opposed Columbia�s intentions to use the loan to preserve landmarks such as the Studebaker Building. �$52,000,000 for the Studebaker... for a potential historical resource... strikes me as a complete gut renovation,� he said.
�Columbia should have gone to CB9� before making its financial requests, he said.
University officials have announced plans to move several offices, including the recently consolidated Columbia University Information Technology department, to the building. They have repeatedly stated that they are having ongoing discussions with community members as the proposed changes in Manhattanville move forward.
Though Rosen did not comment on the time and location of the hearing, she apologized for the inconvenience and assured the audience both before and after the hearing that she was committed to presenting the speakers� case and the passion they expression they expressed.
Carolyn Kent, another member of CB9, advocated the 197-a plan, which she said would avoid the �proposed historic resource expenditure�, the sum of which makes 16 percent of the proposed bond issue.
The financing and request for Governor�s approval will be finalized on Wednesday.
�The people who came today are very troubled,� said Siegel. �We hope that Wednesday this hearing will at least be tabled, considered... and the funds should, at a minimum, be conditioned.�
State Money Request Blasted at Hearing
Columbia Request for $500 Million Scrutinized Before the Board of the State Dormitory Authority
By Tom Faure
Columbia Daily Spectator
November 29, 2005
The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York held a public hearing yesterday to discuss Columbia�s request for $500 million in loans.
The seven people who attended voiced their displeasure with the plan, arguing that the amount of money requested was unnecessarily high and that the loan application process should allow for more public input.
Columbia has requested the funds to from the authority, an agency that regularly provides low-interest loans to finance construction by private educational and health care institutions, to fund dozens of construction and renovation projects. The largest single sum, $52,457,000, will go toward completely refurbishing the Studebaker building on 131st Street, a project Columbia will complete in the first stage of its proposed Manhattanville expansion.
In response to questions from attendees, Donna Rosen, associate counsel to DASNY, revealed that the authority had already decided to request the Governor�s approval for the funds. Rosen�s announcement prompted many of those who showed up at the hearing to persuade DASNY to reject the financial requests wonder what purpose the hearing served.
Norman Siegel, an attorney who represents several Manhattanville business owners, called the hearing �with all due respect, a sham [that] raises substantial legal questions.�
�I would at least request DASNY to make an independent judgment based on the merits of this application,� Siegel said, encouraging the authority to rethink its acceptance of Columbia�s plan.
But Rosen emphasized that DASNY�s acceptance of the bonds still need to be approved by the Governor before Columbia receives any money.
Walter South, a member Community Board 9, voiced his outrage at the lack of professionalism in what he called only a �semi-public hearing.� South criticized officials for holding the meeting during work hours and at DASNY�s downtown offices rather than in the West Harlem community.
South also opposed Columbia�s intentions to use the loan to preserve landmarks such as the Studebaker Building. �$52,000,000 for the Studebaker... for a potential historical resource... strikes me as a complete gut renovation,� he said.
�Columbia should have gone to CB9� before making its financial requests, he said.
University officials have announced plans to move several offices, including the recently consolidated Columbia University Information Technology department, to the building. They have repeatedly stated that they are having ongoing discussions with community members as the proposed changes in Manhattanville move forward.
Though Rosen did not comment on the time and location of the hearing, she apologized for the inconvenience and assured the audience both before and after the hearing that she was committed to presenting the speakers� case and the passion they expression they expressed.
Carolyn Kent, another member of CB9, advocated the 197-a plan, which she said would avoid the �proposed historic resource expenditure�, the sum of which makes 16 percent of the proposed bond issue.
The financing and request for Governor�s approval will be finalized on Wednesday.
�The people who came today are very troubled,� said Siegel. �We hope that Wednesday this hearing will at least be tabled, considered... and the funds should, at a minimum, be conditioned.�
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
LIGHTING OF THE CITY HALL HOLIDAY TREE
The Mayor of the City of New York
Michael R. Bloomberg
invites you to celebrate the holiday
invites you to celebrate the holiday
season downtown and join in the
LIGHTING OF THE
CITY HALL HOLIDAY TREE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2005
5 pm
(Rain or Snow!)
CITY HALL PARK FOUNTAIN
This is the NYC.gov news you requested for:
General New York City News and Events
To subscribe please go to this link: https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
An Eminent Domain High Tide
Subject: Times: Phooey on Eminent Domain (but not NY Times)
Date: 29-Nov-05 7:13:08 Eastern Standard Time
From: tenant@tenant.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
An Eminent Domain High Tide
Riviera Beach, Fla., wants to displace about 6,000 of its residents and
raze their homes to build a yachting and residential complex.
By John-Thor Dahlburg
LA Times Staff Writer
November 29, 2005
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. It's across the inlet from Palm Beach, but this town
mostly black, blue-collar and with a large industrial and warehouse
district could be a continent away from the Fortune 500 and Rolls-Royce set.
But Riviera Beach's fortunes may soon change.
In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the
mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear
down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront
yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.
The goal, Mayor Michael D. Brown said during a public meeting in September,
is to "forever change the landscape" in this municipality of about 32,500.
The $1-billion plan, local leaders have said, should generate jobs and haul
Riviera Beach's economy out of the doldrums.
Opponents, however, call the plan a government-sanctioned land grab that
benefits private developers and the wealthy.
"What they mean is that the view I have is too good for me, and should go
to some millionaire," said Martha Babson, 60, a house painter who lives
near the Intracoastal Waterway.
"This is a reverse Robin Hood," said state Rep. Ronald L. Greenstein,
meaning the poor in Riviera Beach would be robbed to benefit the rich.
Greenstein, a Coconut Creek Democrat, serves on a state legislative
committee making recommendations on how to strengthen safeguards on private
property.
With many Americans sensitized to eminent-domain cases after a
much-discussed ruling by the Supreme Court in June, property-rights
organizations have been pointing to redevelopment plans in this Palm Beach
County town as proof that laws must be changed to protect homeowners and
businesses from the schemes of politicians.
"You have people going in, essentially playing God, and saying something
better than these people's homes should be built on this property," said
Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights,
based in Orlando. "That's inherently wrong."
"Unfortunately, taking poorer folks' homes and turning them into higher-end
development projects is all too routine in Florida and throughout the
country," said Scott G. Bullock, a senior attorney for the Institute for
Justice, based in Washington. "What distinguishes Riviera Beach is the
sheer scope of the project, and the number of people it displaces."
In June, a divided U.S. Supreme Court approved the plan of New London,
Conn., to force some homeowners to sell their properties for a private
development that was supposed to generate more jobs and tax revenue. That
ruling has led to moves in Congress and at least 35 states, including
Florida, to restrict the use of eminent-domain seizures of private property.
In Florida, the law allows local officials to take private land for
redevelopment if they deem it "blighted." In May 2001, a study conducted
for the city found that "slum and blighted conditions" existed in about a
third of Riviera Beach, and that redevelopment was necessary "in the
interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare."
A skeptical Babson, who lives in a single-story, concrete-block home
painted aqua that she shares with parrots and a dog, did her own survey.
For three months, she walked the streets of Riviera Beach photographing
houses classified as "dilapidated" or "deteriorated" by specialists hired
by the city.
The official study, she said, was riddled with errors and
misclassifications. Lots inventoried as "vacant" (one of 14 criteria that
allow Florida cities or counties to declare a neighborhood blighted)
actually had homes on them built in 1997, she said. One house deemed
"dilapidated," she found, was two years old.
Rene Corie has lived for nine years in a custard-yellow home near the
Intracoastal. When the house was earmarked for acquisition under eminent
domain four years ago, the 56-year-old seamstress became so depressed she
couldn't put up her Christmas tree. She and her husband decided to fight
City Hall in order to keep their home, or at the least, be paid a fair
market price for it.
"We tried to elect a new mayor, we went around to churches, we stood on
street corners with signs," Corie said. "When we got home from work, me and
David would get into the truck and go door to door, and all day Saturday
and Sunday."
Corie said she could be served at any time with another letter of
acquisition for the house and the double lot it sits on. "My home is no
longer my own," she said.
Mayor Brown and Floyd T. Johnson, executive director of the Riviera Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency, did not respond to repeated requests from
The Times for an interview.
The redevelopment agency's website says the plan will "create a city
respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most
desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents,
business and visitors."
In past media interviews, Brown has said his city was in dire need of jobs,
and that if officials weren't allowed to resort to eminent domain to spur
growth, Riviera Beach could perish. '
Dee Cunningham, who made an unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2003, said the
blueprint was written to benefit developers. Her own flower shop has been
classified as "functionally obsolete" under the plan and could be razed.
"People here are so stressed out from being under threat of eminent
domain," said Cunningham. "It's like living in Iraq with a bomb threat."
The median household income in Riviera Beach in 2000 was $32,111 compared
with $94,562 in nearby Palm Beach, the U.S. Census said.
The redevelopment project designed to bootstrap Riviera Beach to prosperity
is supposed to take 15 years. It involves moving U.S. Highway 1 and digging
an artificial lagoon to serve as a yacht basin.
In September, the City Council chose a joint venture between a New
Jersey-based yacht company and a builder of condominiums in Australia to
serve as master developer. The developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties,
and the city now must agree on a contract.
Residents affected by the plan are supposed to be eligible for new homes
elsewhere in Riviera Beach and compensation for business damages. But the
uncertainties have been maddening for some.
For 25 years, Bill Mars has sold and serviced luxury sportfishing boats in
Riviera Beach. He hasn't been told yet, he said, whether a place in the
redevelopment zone has been kept for him.
Under the plan, his sales and service center is supposed to make way for an
aquarium.
"If you look at our business, we're one of the shining stars of Riviera
Beach," Mars said. "Yet no one has come to us to say, 'We're going to take
care of you and relocate you.' " That despite the plan's incorporation of a
"working waterfront," including boat sales and repair.
The owners of another business in Riviera Beach's downtown accuse local
leaders of not enforcing city codes in order to produce the decay that
redevelopment is supposed to remedy.
"They want to leave everything in a dilapidated condition so it seems to
everybody and to the government like it's blighted," said Mike Mahoney, a
Riviera Beach native who runs Dee's T-Shirts.
Some foes of the redevelopment plan have attended seminars in Washington
organized by property-rights advocates to learn how to better fight to save
their homes.
Some residents have accepted offers from developers and moved out; others
have retained lawyers to try to get a better price from the city. Still
others are waiting to see what happens, noting the troubled history of
local redevelopment efforts. "This is the fourth eminent domain CRA plan
I've seen since I've been here," said Mars. "I survived those, and I may
survive this one too."
Babson said she was counting on the Florida Legislature, as well as public
interest kindled by the recent Supreme Court case, to halt the developers.
"We're definitely in Tiananmen Square: one little guy in front of all of
those tanks," Babson said. "We've slowed them down, but we haven't stopped
them."
Date: 29-Nov-05 7:13:08 Eastern Standard Time
From: tenant@tenant.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
An Eminent Domain High Tide
Riviera Beach, Fla., wants to displace about 6,000 of its residents and
raze their homes to build a yachting and residential complex.
By John-Thor Dahlburg
LA Times Staff Writer
November 29, 2005
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. It's across the inlet from Palm Beach, but this town
mostly black, blue-collar and with a large industrial and warehouse
district could be a continent away from the Fortune 500 and Rolls-Royce set.
But Riviera Beach's fortunes may soon change.
In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the
mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear
down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront
yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.
The goal, Mayor Michael D. Brown said during a public meeting in September,
is to "forever change the landscape" in this municipality of about 32,500.
The $1-billion plan, local leaders have said, should generate jobs and haul
Riviera Beach's economy out of the doldrums.
Opponents, however, call the plan a government-sanctioned land grab that
benefits private developers and the wealthy.
"What they mean is that the view I have is too good for me, and should go
to some millionaire," said Martha Babson, 60, a house painter who lives
near the Intracoastal Waterway.
"This is a reverse Robin Hood," said state Rep. Ronald L. Greenstein,
meaning the poor in Riviera Beach would be robbed to benefit the rich.
Greenstein, a Coconut Creek Democrat, serves on a state legislative
committee making recommendations on how to strengthen safeguards on private
property.
With many Americans sensitized to eminent-domain cases after a
much-discussed ruling by the Supreme Court in June, property-rights
organizations have been pointing to redevelopment plans in this Palm Beach
County town as proof that laws must be changed to protect homeowners and
businesses from the schemes of politicians.
"You have people going in, essentially playing God, and saying something
better than these people's homes should be built on this property," said
Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights,
based in Orlando. "That's inherently wrong."
"Unfortunately, taking poorer folks' homes and turning them into higher-end
development projects is all too routine in Florida and throughout the
country," said Scott G. Bullock, a senior attorney for the Institute for
Justice, based in Washington. "What distinguishes Riviera Beach is the
sheer scope of the project, and the number of people it displaces."
In June, a divided U.S. Supreme Court approved the plan of New London,
Conn., to force some homeowners to sell their properties for a private
development that was supposed to generate more jobs and tax revenue. That
ruling has led to moves in Congress and at least 35 states, including
Florida, to restrict the use of eminent-domain seizures of private property.
In Florida, the law allows local officials to take private land for
redevelopment if they deem it "blighted." In May 2001, a study conducted
for the city found that "slum and blighted conditions" existed in about a
third of Riviera Beach, and that redevelopment was necessary "in the
interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare."
A skeptical Babson, who lives in a single-story, concrete-block home
painted aqua that she shares with parrots and a dog, did her own survey.
For three months, she walked the streets of Riviera Beach photographing
houses classified as "dilapidated" or "deteriorated" by specialists hired
by the city.
The official study, she said, was riddled with errors and
misclassifications. Lots inventoried as "vacant" (one of 14 criteria that
allow Florida cities or counties to declare a neighborhood blighted)
actually had homes on them built in 1997, she said. One house deemed
"dilapidated," she found, was two years old.
Rene Corie has lived for nine years in a custard-yellow home near the
Intracoastal. When the house was earmarked for acquisition under eminent
domain four years ago, the 56-year-old seamstress became so depressed she
couldn't put up her Christmas tree. She and her husband decided to fight
City Hall in order to keep their home, or at the least, be paid a fair
market price for it.
"We tried to elect a new mayor, we went around to churches, we stood on
street corners with signs," Corie said. "When we got home from work, me and
David would get into the truck and go door to door, and all day Saturday
and Sunday."
Corie said she could be served at any time with another letter of
acquisition for the house and the double lot it sits on. "My home is no
longer my own," she said.
Mayor Brown and Floyd T. Johnson, executive director of the Riviera Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency, did not respond to repeated requests from
The Times for an interview.
The redevelopment agency's website says the plan will "create a city
respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most
desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents,
business and visitors."
In past media interviews, Brown has said his city was in dire need of jobs,
and that if officials weren't allowed to resort to eminent domain to spur
growth, Riviera Beach could perish. '
Dee Cunningham, who made an unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2003, said the
blueprint was written to benefit developers. Her own flower shop has been
classified as "functionally obsolete" under the plan and could be razed.
"People here are so stressed out from being under threat of eminent
domain," said Cunningham. "It's like living in Iraq with a bomb threat."
The median household income in Riviera Beach in 2000 was $32,111 compared
with $94,562 in nearby Palm Beach, the U.S. Census said.
The redevelopment project designed to bootstrap Riviera Beach to prosperity
is supposed to take 15 years. It involves moving U.S. Highway 1 and digging
an artificial lagoon to serve as a yacht basin.
In September, the City Council chose a joint venture between a New
Jersey-based yacht company and a builder of condominiums in Australia to
serve as master developer. The developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties,
and the city now must agree on a contract.
Residents affected by the plan are supposed to be eligible for new homes
elsewhere in Riviera Beach and compensation for business damages. But the
uncertainties have been maddening for some.
For 25 years, Bill Mars has sold and serviced luxury sportfishing boats in
Riviera Beach. He hasn't been told yet, he said, whether a place in the
redevelopment zone has been kept for him.
Under the plan, his sales and service center is supposed to make way for an
aquarium.
"If you look at our business, we're one of the shining stars of Riviera
Beach," Mars said. "Yet no one has come to us to say, 'We're going to take
care of you and relocate you.' " That despite the plan's incorporation of a
"working waterfront," including boat sales and repair.
The owners of another business in Riviera Beach's downtown accuse local
leaders of not enforcing city codes in order to produce the decay that
redevelopment is supposed to remedy.
"They want to leave everything in a dilapidated condition so it seems to
everybody and to the government like it's blighted," said Mike Mahoney, a
Riviera Beach native who runs Dee's T-Shirts.
Some foes of the redevelopment plan have attended seminars in Washington
organized by property-rights advocates to learn how to better fight to save
their homes.
Some residents have accepted offers from developers and moved out; others
have retained lawyers to try to get a better price from the city. Still
others are waiting to see what happens, noting the troubled history of
local redevelopment efforts. "This is the fourth eminent domain CRA plan
I've seen since I've been here," said Mars. "I survived those, and I may
survive this one too."
Babson said she was counting on the Florida Legislature, as well as public
interest kindled by the recent Supreme Court case, to halt the developers.
"We're definitely in Tiananmen Square: one little guy in front of all of
those tanks," Babson said. "We've slowed them down, but we haven't stopped
them."
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
New York Council Calendar for the week of 11/28/2005 to 12/02/2005
Subject: RE:Council Calendar
Date: 25-Nov-05 4:29:53 Eastern Standard Time
From: webmaster@council.nyc.ny.us
To: ReysmontJ@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
New York Council Calendar for the week of 11/28/2005 to 12/02/2005:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, November 28, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Contracts, Chairperson(s):Robert Jackson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Technology in Government, Chairperson(s):Gale A. Brewer
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Veterans, Chairperson(s):Hiram Monserrate
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The Special Needs of Homeless Military Veterans
*************************************************************
DATE: Tuesday, November 29, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Miguel Martinez
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 9:45 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Regents Diploma Rates of Black and Latino Students
Proposed Int. 464-A - By Council Members Monserrate, Yassky, Barron, Comrie, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Koppell, Palma, Martinez, Reyna, Brewer, Clarke, Foster, Jackson, Liu, Quinn, Recchia, Reed, Rivera, Sanders, Sears, Stewart, Weprin, Dilan, DeBlasio, Lopez, Vann, Gennaro, Moskowitz, Arroyo, Nelson, Seabrook, Gioia, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the provision of language assistance services by the Department of Education.
Proposed Int. 550-A - By Council Members Martinez, Moskowitz, Barron, Brewer, Comrie, Dilan, Fidler, Gennaro, Gentile, Gerson, Gonzalez, Jennings, Koppell, Liu, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia Jr., Sanders Jr., Stewart, Weprin, deBlasio, Jackson and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring the New York City Department of Education to report on the number of temporary and non-standard classrooms in use in the public school system.
Proposed Int. 619-A - By Council Members Moskowitz, Baez, Brewer, Fidler, Foster, Gennaro, Gerson, James, Koppell, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Sanders Jr., Sears, Vann, Weprin, deBlasio, Jackson and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring the New York City Department of Education to report average class sizes in each school to the City Council.
COMMITTEE: Fire & Criminal Justice Services, Chairperson(s):Yvette D. Clarke
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Proposed Int. 295-A - By Council Members Koppell, Barron, Clarke, Gennaro, Gerson, Jackson, Jennings, Nelson, Quinn, Stewart, Yassky, Liu, Recchia, Sears and Vann - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to fire safety in places of public assembly.
COMMITTEE: Public Safety, Chairperson(s):Peter F. Vallone, Jr.
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The effectiveness of city, state and federal sex offender laws
Proposed Int. 470-A - By Council Members Addabbo, Jr., Vallone, Jr., Baez, Brewer, Comrie, Felder, Fidler, Gennaro, Gerson, Jackson, Katz, Liu, Martinez, Monserrate, Nelson, Perkins, Quinn, Recchia, Sanders, Seabrook, Stewart, Weprin, Moskowitz, Rivera, Avella, Clarke, Foster, Gonzalez, James, Palma, Reed, Sears, Vann, McMahon, Gentile, DeBlasio, The Speaker (Council Member Miller), Yassky, Koppell, Gioia, Dilan, Reyna, Barron, Arroyo, Lopez and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the police department to submit to the council reports of crime in parks and playgrounds.
Res. 976 - By Council Members Oddo, Gallagher, Avella, Nelson, Comrie, Gennaro, Gentile, Gonzalez, McMahon, Recchia Jr., Vallone Jr. and Lanza - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Legislature to adopt legislation that provides for the civil commitment of sexually violent predators to protect the public from those whose mental abnormalities makes them likely to commit sexually violent crimes.
Res. 979 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Avella, Gennaro, Gentile, Gonzalez, McMahon, Nelson, Sanders Jr., Gallagher, Lanza and Oddo - Resolution - urging support for New York State legislation requiring all sex offenders to register for life.
Res. 980 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Gennaro, Gonzalez, Nelson, Sanders Jr., Gallagher, Lanza and Oddo - Resolution - calling on the New York State Legislature to enact sex offense provisions similar to those adopted in Florida, as part of the Jessica Lunsford Act.
Res. 1089 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Gentile, McMahon, Monserrate, Sanders Jr. and Oddo - Resolution - in support of U.S Senate bill S.1086, which improves the national program to register and monitor individuals who commit sex offenses.
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Disability Services, Chairperson(s):Margarita Lopez
TIME: 10:30 AM LOCATION: The Early Childhood Center
DETAILS:
Tour: The Early Childhood Center
1731 Seminole Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Joint Meeting. Land Use; Waterfronts , Chairperson(s):David Yassky, Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Waterfront Access as an adjunct to Real Estate Development: An Assessment of Developer-Managed Waterfront Public Access Spaces
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Joint Meeting. Environmental Protection; Small Business , Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro, Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 711 - By Council Member Gennaro, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Reed, Nelson, Brewer, Comrie, Fidler, Gerson, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Weprin and Jackson - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter and the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to clarifying the authority of the environmental control board.
Int. 718 - By Council Members Reed, The Speaker (Council Member Miller), Gennaro, Nelson, Brewer, Comrie, James, Liu, Palma and Recchia Jr. - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the administrative adjudications board.
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Governmental Operations, Chairperson(s):Bill Perkins
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Int. 370 - By Council Members Perkins, Addabbo, Barron, Brewer, Gerson, Gonzalez, Jennings, Lopez, Nelson, Quinn, Reed, Sanders, Stewart and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the charter of the city of New York, in relation to mandating that the Mayor?s Management Report include citizen satisfaction survey responses that will allow the city to properly gauge how residents view the performance of their government.
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Immigration, Chairperson(s):Kendall Stewart
TIME: 1:40 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 10:30 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Proposed Int. 379-A - By The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Clarke, Perkins, Gentile, Barron, Gennaro, Gerson, James, Koppell, Lopez, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Vallone Jr., Weprin, Jackson, Brewer, Monserrate, Recchia Jr., DeBlasio, Baez, Moskowitz, Fidler, Yassky, Liu, Foster, Gioia, Sanders Jr., McMahon, Addabbo Jr., Reyna, Katz, Reed, Avella and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A LOCAL LAW - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the purchase of Energy Star certified appliances whenever appliances in certain apartments are replaced.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Finance, Chairperson(s):David I. Weprin
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Preconsidered Res. ___ - By Council Member Weprin (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the 14th Street-Union Square Business Improvement District, and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such district.
Preconsidered Res. ___ - By Council Member Weprin (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the Times Square Business Improvement District and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such district.
Proposed Res. 1242-A ? By Council Member Weprin and Nelson (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the Metrotech Area, the 34th Street, the Grand Central, the Woodhaven, the Fifth Avenue, the Fashion Center, the Grand Street, the 125th Street, the Washington Heights, the Downtown-Lower Manhattan, and the Kings Highway Business Improvement Districts, and the Fulton Mall Special Assessment District, and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such districts.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 700 - By Council Members Moskowitz, the Speaker (Council Member Miller), Quinn, Katz, Rivera, Comrie, Brewer, Sears, Reyna, Weprin, Liu and Seabrook - A Local Law - to amend the effective date of local law one of the year 2002.
COMMITTEE: , Chairperson(s):
Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Stated Council Meeting Ceremonial Tributes......... - 1:00 p.m. Agenda.............................................................................. - 1:30 p.m.
*************************************************************
DATE: Thursday, December 01, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Transportation, Chairperson(s):John C. Liu
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Weekend Subway and Bus Service: Assessing Frequency, Adequacy, and Disruption of Service in the Wake of Increased Ridership
*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
Date: 25-Nov-05 4:29:53 Eastern Standard Time
From: webmaster@council.nyc.ny.us
To: ReysmontJ@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
New York Council Calendar for the week of 11/28/2005 to 12/02/2005:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, November 28, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Contracts, Chairperson(s):Robert Jackson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Technology in Government, Chairperson(s):Gale A. Brewer
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Veterans, Chairperson(s):Hiram Monserrate
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The Special Needs of Homeless Military Veterans
*************************************************************
DATE: Tuesday, November 29, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Miguel Martinez
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses, Chairperson(s):Simcha Felder
TIME: 9:45 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: Education, Chairperson(s):Eva S. Moskowitz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Regents Diploma Rates of Black and Latino Students
Proposed Int. 464-A - By Council Members Monserrate, Yassky, Barron, Comrie, Gerson, Gonzalez, James, Koppell, Palma, Martinez, Reyna, Brewer, Clarke, Foster, Jackson, Liu, Quinn, Recchia, Reed, Rivera, Sanders, Sears, Stewart, Weprin, Dilan, DeBlasio, Lopez, Vann, Gennaro, Moskowitz, Arroyo, Nelson, Seabrook, Gioia, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the provision of language assistance services by the Department of Education.
Proposed Int. 550-A - By Council Members Martinez, Moskowitz, Barron, Brewer, Comrie, Dilan, Fidler, Gennaro, Gentile, Gerson, Gonzalez, Jennings, Koppell, Liu, Monserrate, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Recchia Jr., Sanders Jr., Stewart, Weprin, deBlasio, Jackson and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring the New York City Department of Education to report on the number of temporary and non-standard classrooms in use in the public school system.
Proposed Int. 619-A - By Council Members Moskowitz, Baez, Brewer, Fidler, Foster, Gennaro, Gerson, James, Koppell, Liu, Martinez, Nelson, Palma, Sanders Jr., Sears, Vann, Weprin, deBlasio, Jackson and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter, in relation to requiring the New York City Department of Education to report average class sizes in each school to the City Council.
COMMITTEE: Fire & Criminal Justice Services, Chairperson(s):Yvette D. Clarke
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS:
Proposed Int. 295-A - By Council Members Koppell, Barron, Clarke, Gennaro, Gerson, Jackson, Jennings, Nelson, Quinn, Stewart, Yassky, Liu, Recchia, Sears and Vann - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to fire safety in places of public assembly.
COMMITTEE: Public Safety, Chairperson(s):Peter F. Vallone, Jr.
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - The effectiveness of city, state and federal sex offender laws
Proposed Int. 470-A - By Council Members Addabbo, Jr., Vallone, Jr., Baez, Brewer, Comrie, Felder, Fidler, Gennaro, Gerson, Jackson, Katz, Liu, Martinez, Monserrate, Nelson, Perkins, Quinn, Recchia, Sanders, Seabrook, Stewart, Weprin, Moskowitz, Rivera, Avella, Clarke, Foster, Gonzalez, James, Palma, Reed, Sears, Vann, McMahon, Gentile, DeBlasio, The Speaker (Council Member Miller), Yassky, Koppell, Gioia, Dilan, Reyna, Barron, Arroyo, Lopez and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the police department to submit to the council reports of crime in parks and playgrounds.
Res. 976 - By Council Members Oddo, Gallagher, Avella, Nelson, Comrie, Gennaro, Gentile, Gonzalez, McMahon, Recchia Jr., Vallone Jr. and Lanza - Resolution - calling upon the New York State Legislature to adopt legislation that provides for the civil commitment of sexually violent predators to protect the public from those whose mental abnormalities makes them likely to commit sexually violent crimes.
Res. 979 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Avella, Gennaro, Gentile, Gonzalez, McMahon, Nelson, Sanders Jr., Gallagher, Lanza and Oddo - Resolution - urging support for New York State legislation requiring all sex offenders to register for life.
Res. 980 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Gennaro, Gonzalez, Nelson, Sanders Jr., Gallagher, Lanza and Oddo - Resolution - calling on the New York State Legislature to enact sex offense provisions similar to those adopted in Florida, as part of the Jessica Lunsford Act.
Res. 1089 - By Council Members Vallone Jr., Gentile, McMahon, Monserrate, Sanders Jr. and Oddo - Resolution - in support of U.S Senate bill S.1086, which improves the national program to register and monitor individuals who commit sex offenses.
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Disability Services, Chairperson(s):Margarita Lopez
TIME: 10:30 AM LOCATION: The Early Childhood Center
DETAILS:
Tour: The Early Childhood Center
1731 Seminole Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Joint Meeting. Land Use; Waterfronts , Chairperson(s):David Yassky, Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Oversight - Waterfront Access as an adjunct to Real Estate Development: An Assessment of Developer-Managed Waterfront Public Access Spaces
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 14th Floor
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Joint Meeting. Environmental Protection; Small Business , Chairperson(s):James F. Gennaro, Michael C. Nelson
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 711 - By Council Member Gennaro, The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Reed, Nelson, Brewer, Comrie, Fidler, Gerson, Liu, Palma, Stewart, Weprin and Jackson - A Local Law - to amend the New York city charter and the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to clarifying the authority of the environmental control board.
Int. 718 - By Council Members Reed, The Speaker (Council Member Miller), Gennaro, Nelson, Brewer, Comrie, James, Liu, Palma and Recchia Jr. - A Local Law - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the administrative adjudications board.
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Governmental Operations, Chairperson(s):Bill Perkins
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Hearing Room - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor
DETAILS:
Int. 370 - By Council Members Perkins, Addabbo, Barron, Brewer, Gerson, Gonzalez, Jennings, Lopez, Nelson, Quinn, Reed, Sanders, Stewart and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A Local Law - to amend the charter of the city of New York, in relation to mandating that the Mayor?s Management Report include citizen satisfaction survey responses that will allow the city to properly gauge how residents view the performance of their government.
COMMITTEE: DEFERRED* Immigration, Chairperson(s):Kendall Stewart
TIME: 1:40 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: Agenda to be announced
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, November 30, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Housing & Buildings, Chairperson(s):Madeline T. Provenzano
TIME: 10:30 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Proposed Int. 379-A - By The Speaker (Council Member Miller) and Council Members Clarke, Perkins, Gentile, Barron, Gennaro, Gerson, James, Koppell, Lopez, Nelson, Palma, Quinn, Vallone Jr., Weprin, Jackson, Brewer, Monserrate, Recchia Jr., DeBlasio, Baez, Moskowitz, Fidler, Yassky, Liu, Foster, Gioia, Sanders Jr., McMahon, Addabbo Jr., Reyna, Katz, Reed, Avella and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum) - A LOCAL LAW - to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the purchase of Energy Star certified appliances whenever appliances in certain apartments are replaced.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Finance, Chairperson(s):David I. Weprin
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Preconsidered Res. ___ - By Council Member Weprin (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the 14th Street-Union Square Business Improvement District, and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such district.
Preconsidered Res. ___ - By Council Member Weprin (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the Times Square Business Improvement District and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such district.
Proposed Res. 1242-A ? By Council Member Weprin and Nelson (by request of the Mayor) - Resolution - concerning the increase in the annual expenditure for the Metrotech Area, the 34th Street, the Grand Central, the Woodhaven, the Fifth Avenue, the Fashion Center, the Grand Street, the 125th Street, the Washington Heights, the Downtown-Lower Manhattan, and the Kings Highway Business Improvement Districts, and the Fulton Mall Special Assessment District, and the setting of the time and place for the hearing of the local law increasing the annual expenditure for such districts.
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
COMMITTEE: ADDITION* Health, Chairperson(s):Christine C. Quinn
TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Int. 700 - By Council Members Moskowitz, the Speaker (Council Member Miller), Quinn, Katz, Rivera, Comrie, Brewer, Sears, Reyna, Weprin, Liu and Seabrook - A Local Law - to amend the effective date of local law one of the year 2002.
COMMITTEE: , Chairperson(s):
Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS:
Stated Council Meeting Ceremonial Tributes......... - 1:00 p.m. Agenda.............................................................................. - 1:30 p.m.
*************************************************************
DATE: Thursday, December 01, 2005
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Transportation, Chairperson(s):John C. Liu
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Council Chambers - City Hall
DETAILS:
Oversight - Weekend Subway and Bus Service: Assessing Frequency, Adequacy, and Disruption of Service in the Wake of Increased Ridership
*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
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
TIPS FOR TROUBLE-FREE SHOPPING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
Subject: TIPS FOR TROUBLE-FREE SHOPPING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
Date: 11/23/2005 12:47:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.5zau4.6vv3.rs.0.5r6a0.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
TIPS FOR TROUBLE-FREE SHOPPING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) urges shoppers to know their rights and spend wisely this holiday season. Charged with enforcing the City's Consumer Protection Law, the DCA investigates complaints about deceptive advertising and sales offers, receipt and refund policy violations, and much more. Get a detailed list of shopping tips and laws from the DCA's press release and download a handy tip card (in PDF) to have with you when you shop!
Protect yourself when making these popular holiday purchases:
GIFT CARDS/CERTIFICATESCity retailers - including online NYC-based businesses - must disclose on conspicuously posted signs, the terms and conditions (i.e., limitations, fees, expiration dates) for gift cards/certificates. Retailers can list terms and conditions on the gift card/certificate itself, but only if a toll-free number is included.
ELECTRONICSStores must inform customers if they are charging more than the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). You can check the MSRP for most items by calling the manufacturer's toll-free number or visiting their Web site.
JEWELRYRetailers that sell jewelry for more than $75 must give consumers a written sales slip that includes: price, weight (if applicable), and whether the item is imitation or synthetic.
Know your rights when shopping in the marketplace or in cyberspace:
REFUNDS Merchants' refund policies must be prominently posted. If no policy is posted, consumers have a right to a full refund within 20 days. (Exceptions: food, perishables, custom-made or custom-finished goods, and items with defects that the consumer was made aware of when the sale took place.) Some merchants extend their refund periods to facilitate holiday returns.
RECEIPTSUnder the City's Consumer Protection Law, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases over $20. Upon request, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases between $5 and $19.99. All receipts must include: total amount paid, date, the vendor's business name and address, the purchased item's make and model, and DCA license number, if applicable.
SHOPPING ONLINEBy law, a company must ship your Internet purchase within the time stated or within 30 days if no time is specified.
For more information or to file a complaint, call 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK) or visit the DCA online at www.NYC.gov/consumers.
Happy holiday shopping!
Sincerely,
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested for:
Consumer Updates
To subscribe please go to this link: https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
Printer Friendly Format
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 21, 2005
-->
ATTENTION HOLIDAY SHOPPERS!CONSUMER AFFAIRS REMINDS SHOPPERS TO BEWARE OF HIDDEN GIFT CARD FEES, RETURN POLICY TRAPS, SALE OFFERS &MORE
-->
It�s that time of year again...and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) wants consumers to be careful, know their rights, and shop wisely! As we approach the busiest shopping week of the year, DCA Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz today released a list of holiday shopping tips to help visitors and residents taking advantage of everything the Big Apple has to offer.
"Even the smartest consumers buy gifts that get returned. Consumer Affairs wants gift givers to make sure they know their rights and the store�s return policies to avoid any unnecessary surprises," said DCA Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz. "While one of the true pleasures of being in New York during the holidays is great shopping, we urge consumers to shop smart. Know what to look for, know what to avoid, and know your rights."
To protect consumers and help make informed choices, the DCA offers the following tips for holiday gift shopping. The DCA urges New Yorkers to file complaints by calling 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK), the City�s 24-hour hotline, or online at www.NYC.gov/consumers.
***
GIFT CARDS
More than 50% of consumers nationwide hope to receive a gift card, according to the National Retail Federation. Gift cards have grown in popularity, partly due to the ease of purchase. New York laws protect consumers from hidden fees and unclear terms and conditions on gift cards.
Posting requirements. By law, retailers must disclose on conspicuously posted signs that there are terms and conditions (i.e. limitations, fees, expiration dates, etc.) for gift certificates or gift cards. Retailers have the option to list terms and conditions on the gift certificate/card, but only if there is a toll-free number also included on the gift certificate or card.
Illegal fees. Retailers are prohibited from charging any retroactive fees for gift certificates/cards, or charging monthly fees on cards that are used within one year.
***
RETURNS / RECEIPTS
Know the Refund or Exchange Policy. Merchants can establish their own policies, so long as it is prominently displayed. If no policy is posted, the retailer must give the consumer 20 days to get a refund in the manner in which the purchase was paid. (This does not apply to food, perishables, custom-made or custom-finished goods, and items with defects that the consumer was made aware of when the sale took place.) Some merchants extend their refund periods to facilitate holiday returns.
All limitations and conditions to a retailer�s return policy must be posted clearly and conspicuously. Merchants that track returns to protect against abuse of their return policy must post the reason why they would not accept a return.
Always Get a Receipt and Save It. Under New York City�s Consumer Protection Law, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases over $20. Upon request, you are also entitled to a receipt for purchases between $5 and $19.99. All receipts must include the total amount paid, date, business name and address, the make and model of the item you bought, and license number if applicable.
Ask for a Gift Receipt. Some stores will issue gift receipts for purchases, allowing the person who receives the gift to make an exchange. The price is not listed on gift receipts, but the original sale is maintained in the store's computer.
***
SHOPPING ONLINE
Shop with companies you know. Be wary of companies that don�t offer a phone number where you can get more information.
Learn a company�s online privacy policy. Many companies post their privacy policy on their site. It should disclose the information being collected on the site and how that information is being used - including account numbers and other personal information. If you can�t find a policy, send an email or written message to the site to ask about its policy and request that it be posted on the site.
Never give out your social security number, mother�s maiden name, or former address online.
Delivery and purchase protection. By law, a company must ship your Internet purchase within the time stated or within 30 days if no time is specified. For consumers using their credit cards to make purchases, the Fair Credit Billing Act offers additional protection. The Act makes it easier to challenge billing errors and dispute charges for unsatisfactory goods or services. If you feel uncomfortable giving out your credit card information over the Internet, shop online to choose what you want, and then order it over the phone.
***
DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING/PROMOTIONS
Don�t get tricked by bogus ads and sales offers. Classic bait and switch and sale offers that promise "Big Savings!" that sound too good to be true - probably are. These tricks and others are often commonplace during peak shopping season, so consumers beware! Special sales including "Going out of Business" or "Liquidation" sales must be licensed by the DCA. By law, advertisements or promotions that boast big savings must deliver by having the items available at the store.
***
PHOTOCOPYING CONSUMER IDENTIFICATION
Be wary of retailers that require a photocopy of your personal identification. By law, if a retailer requires a copy of a consumer�s personal identification, this demand must be clearly stated in the retailer�s credit card policy and displayed clearly. While it is not illegal to photocopy identification, doing so can increase the risk of identity theft. DCA strongly advises consumers not to allow retailers to photocopy personal information from their driver�s license while shopping, regardless of the type of purchase.
***
POSTING CREDIT CARD LIMITATIONS
By law retailers must post any credit card limitations, including purchase minimums.
***
BUYING ELECTRONICS
Stores selling electronics in NYC - computers, video/photo/audio equipment, cell phones and more - must be licensed by the DCA.
Know the warranty. If you are sold a defective product, you may be able to get a replacement or refund if the warranty says so. Always think before buying expensive additional warranties. Warranties for gray market goods especially - merchandise manufactured for sale outside the United States - are often worthless.
Avoid bait and switch. If a store offers a special deal, they must supply what they advertise, at the advertised price.
Watch out for used items sold as new. An item may look new, but it could be used or rebuilt. Any product that has been used must be marked "used," "floor model," "rebuilt" or "refurbished."
Look for the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Electronics stores must inform customers if they are charging more than the price suggested by the manufacturer of the item. You can check the MSRP for most items ahead of time by calling the manufacturer's toll-free number or website. If you shop around you should find prices at or below the MSRP.
***
BUYING JEWELRY
Requirements for jewelry items that cost $75 or more. Retailers that sell jewelry (i.e. rare gems, precious stones, and semi-precious stones) for more than $75 must give consumers a written sales slip that includes: price, weight of diamond (if applicable), and a description of item with all materials, including whether it is imitation or synthetic.
Always verify quality of expensive jewelry by an independent, reputable appraiser.
Laws protecting against deceptive practices. Retailers and appraisers are prohibited by law from misleading consumers about any jewelry characteristics including size, grade, quality, substance, origin, prior ownership, price, value, etc.
Jewelers selling estate items must be licensed as second-hand dealers by the DCA.
Date: 11/23/2005 12:47:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.5zau4.6vv3.rs.0.5r6a0.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
TIPS FOR TROUBLE-FREE SHOPPING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) urges shoppers to know their rights and spend wisely this holiday season. Charged with enforcing the City's Consumer Protection Law, the DCA investigates complaints about deceptive advertising and sales offers, receipt and refund policy violations, and much more. Get a detailed list of shopping tips and laws from the DCA's press release and download a handy tip card (in PDF) to have with you when you shop!
Protect yourself when making these popular holiday purchases:
GIFT CARDS/CERTIFICATESCity retailers - including online NYC-based businesses - must disclose on conspicuously posted signs, the terms and conditions (i.e., limitations, fees, expiration dates) for gift cards/certificates. Retailers can list terms and conditions on the gift card/certificate itself, but only if a toll-free number is included.
ELECTRONICSStores must inform customers if they are charging more than the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). You can check the MSRP for most items by calling the manufacturer's toll-free number or visiting their Web site.
JEWELRYRetailers that sell jewelry for more than $75 must give consumers a written sales slip that includes: price, weight (if applicable), and whether the item is imitation or synthetic.
Know your rights when shopping in the marketplace or in cyberspace:
REFUNDS Merchants' refund policies must be prominently posted. If no policy is posted, consumers have a right to a full refund within 20 days. (Exceptions: food, perishables, custom-made or custom-finished goods, and items with defects that the consumer was made aware of when the sale took place.) Some merchants extend their refund periods to facilitate holiday returns.
RECEIPTSUnder the City's Consumer Protection Law, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases over $20. Upon request, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases between $5 and $19.99. All receipts must include: total amount paid, date, the vendor's business name and address, the purchased item's make and model, and DCA license number, if applicable.
SHOPPING ONLINEBy law, a company must ship your Internet purchase within the time stated or within 30 days if no time is specified.
For more information or to file a complaint, call 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK) or visit the DCA online at www.NYC.gov/consumers.
Happy holiday shopping!
Sincerely,
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested for:
Consumer Updates
To subscribe please go to this link: https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
Printer Friendly Format
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 21, 2005
-->
ATTENTION HOLIDAY SHOPPERS!CONSUMER AFFAIRS REMINDS SHOPPERS TO BEWARE OF HIDDEN GIFT CARD FEES, RETURN POLICY TRAPS, SALE OFFERS &MORE
-->
It�s that time of year again...and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) wants consumers to be careful, know their rights, and shop wisely! As we approach the busiest shopping week of the year, DCA Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz today released a list of holiday shopping tips to help visitors and residents taking advantage of everything the Big Apple has to offer.
"Even the smartest consumers buy gifts that get returned. Consumer Affairs wants gift givers to make sure they know their rights and the store�s return policies to avoid any unnecessary surprises," said DCA Acting Commissioner Jonathan Mintz. "While one of the true pleasures of being in New York during the holidays is great shopping, we urge consumers to shop smart. Know what to look for, know what to avoid, and know your rights."
To protect consumers and help make informed choices, the DCA offers the following tips for holiday gift shopping. The DCA urges New Yorkers to file complaints by calling 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK), the City�s 24-hour hotline, or online at www.NYC.gov/consumers.
***
GIFT CARDS
More than 50% of consumers nationwide hope to receive a gift card, according to the National Retail Federation. Gift cards have grown in popularity, partly due to the ease of purchase. New York laws protect consumers from hidden fees and unclear terms and conditions on gift cards.
Posting requirements. By law, retailers must disclose on conspicuously posted signs that there are terms and conditions (i.e. limitations, fees, expiration dates, etc.) for gift certificates or gift cards. Retailers have the option to list terms and conditions on the gift certificate/card, but only if there is a toll-free number also included on the gift certificate or card.
Illegal fees. Retailers are prohibited from charging any retroactive fees for gift certificates/cards, or charging monthly fees on cards that are used within one year.
***
RETURNS / RECEIPTS
Know the Refund or Exchange Policy. Merchants can establish their own policies, so long as it is prominently displayed. If no policy is posted, the retailer must give the consumer 20 days to get a refund in the manner in which the purchase was paid. (This does not apply to food, perishables, custom-made or custom-finished goods, and items with defects that the consumer was made aware of when the sale took place.) Some merchants extend their refund periods to facilitate holiday returns.
All limitations and conditions to a retailer�s return policy must be posted clearly and conspicuously. Merchants that track returns to protect against abuse of their return policy must post the reason why they would not accept a return.
Always Get a Receipt and Save It. Under New York City�s Consumer Protection Law, you are entitled to a receipt for purchases over $20. Upon request, you are also entitled to a receipt for purchases between $5 and $19.99. All receipts must include the total amount paid, date, business name and address, the make and model of the item you bought, and license number if applicable.
Ask for a Gift Receipt. Some stores will issue gift receipts for purchases, allowing the person who receives the gift to make an exchange. The price is not listed on gift receipts, but the original sale is maintained in the store's computer.
***
SHOPPING ONLINE
Shop with companies you know. Be wary of companies that don�t offer a phone number where you can get more information.
Learn a company�s online privacy policy. Many companies post their privacy policy on their site. It should disclose the information being collected on the site and how that information is being used - including account numbers and other personal information. If you can�t find a policy, send an email or written message to the site to ask about its policy and request that it be posted on the site.
Never give out your social security number, mother�s maiden name, or former address online.
Delivery and purchase protection. By law, a company must ship your Internet purchase within the time stated or within 30 days if no time is specified. For consumers using their credit cards to make purchases, the Fair Credit Billing Act offers additional protection. The Act makes it easier to challenge billing errors and dispute charges for unsatisfactory goods or services. If you feel uncomfortable giving out your credit card information over the Internet, shop online to choose what you want, and then order it over the phone.
***
DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING/PROMOTIONS
Don�t get tricked by bogus ads and sales offers. Classic bait and switch and sale offers that promise "Big Savings!" that sound too good to be true - probably are. These tricks and others are often commonplace during peak shopping season, so consumers beware! Special sales including "Going out of Business" or "Liquidation" sales must be licensed by the DCA. By law, advertisements or promotions that boast big savings must deliver by having the items available at the store.
***
PHOTOCOPYING CONSUMER IDENTIFICATION
Be wary of retailers that require a photocopy of your personal identification. By law, if a retailer requires a copy of a consumer�s personal identification, this demand must be clearly stated in the retailer�s credit card policy and displayed clearly. While it is not illegal to photocopy identification, doing so can increase the risk of identity theft. DCA strongly advises consumers not to allow retailers to photocopy personal information from their driver�s license while shopping, regardless of the type of purchase.
***
POSTING CREDIT CARD LIMITATIONS
By law retailers must post any credit card limitations, including purchase minimums.
***
BUYING ELECTRONICS
Stores selling electronics in NYC - computers, video/photo/audio equipment, cell phones and more - must be licensed by the DCA.
Know the warranty. If you are sold a defective product, you may be able to get a replacement or refund if the warranty says so. Always think before buying expensive additional warranties. Warranties for gray market goods especially - merchandise manufactured for sale outside the United States - are often worthless.
Avoid bait and switch. If a store offers a special deal, they must supply what they advertise, at the advertised price.
Watch out for used items sold as new. An item may look new, but it could be used or rebuilt. Any product that has been used must be marked "used," "floor model," "rebuilt" or "refurbished."
Look for the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Electronics stores must inform customers if they are charging more than the price suggested by the manufacturer of the item. You can check the MSRP for most items ahead of time by calling the manufacturer's toll-free number or website. If you shop around you should find prices at or below the MSRP.
***
BUYING JEWELRY
Requirements for jewelry items that cost $75 or more. Retailers that sell jewelry (i.e. rare gems, precious stones, and semi-precious stones) for more than $75 must give consumers a written sales slip that includes: price, weight of diamond (if applicable), and a description of item with all materials, including whether it is imitation or synthetic.
Always verify quality of expensive jewelry by an independent, reputable appraiser.
Laws protecting against deceptive practices. Retailers and appraisers are prohibited by law from misleading consumers about any jewelry characteristics including size, grade, quality, substance, origin, prior ownership, price, value, etc.
Jewelers selling estate items must be licensed as second-hand dealers by the DCA.
Embattled With Landlord, Dance Studio May Lose Its Home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 23, 2005
Embattled With Landlord, Dance Studio May Lose Its Home
By ERIKA KINETZ
The Broadway Dance Center, which has shaped the dreams - and the legs - of Broadway-bound hoofers for more than two decades, may lose its home at 221 West 57th Street, becoming the latest example of how the heated real estate market is squeezing arts groups in the city.
The studio, one of the largest in the city, has been locked in a series of legal battles with its landlord, the Extell Development Company, since early September, when it received a notice of default on its lease. Studio representatives say the landlord is trying to push them out to develop the property; the landlord says it is an internal dispute over how to secure the building and nothing more.
Some 3,000 students attend the studio's 320 tap, ballet, hip-hop, theater dance and jazz classes each week. Students and alumni include Savion Glover, Brooke Shields, Anne Hathaway and Bebe Neuwirth. Its loss, casting agents, directors, choreographers and former students say, would be sorely felt. "I have now appeared on Broadway four times and would not have been able to do it without the center," Ms. Shields wrote in a letter of support for the studio. "I learned how to dance there."
Extell acquired 221 West 57th Street, once home to the Hard Rock Cafe, and an adjacent building in June for a reported $67.5 million. The Broadway Dance Center's lease does not expire until 2012.
"It's our feeling that they're hoping to throw in our way such high legal costs that at some point we'll have to walk away," said Allison Ellner, the chief executive officer and director of the studio. "We've already spent about $60,000 on legal fees."
"If it continues on the course it is on," she added, "we will surely be out of business."
Franklyn Snitow, a lawyer representing Extell, said the company planned to develop the property but had bought the building knowing there was a tenant in place. "The plan is to operate the building while there are existing valid leases for the premises," he said.
Either way, the Broadway Dance Center is the latest arts organization that has been forced to contend with New York City's real estate boom. Some groups have thrived amid the hurly-burly of rising property values; others have vanished.
Before buying the buildings, Extell offered to pay for the studio's relocation. Broadway Dance Center officials said they spent six months locating a new space, on West 55th Street, and estimated the cost of relocation at $3.4 million.
Ms. Ellner said that on May 10, Gary Barnett, the president of Extell, called her at home, told her the relocation cost was too high and offered her about $1 million to leave. She said she declined the offer.
Mr. Snitow would not comment on the details of the negotiations, except to say that "we were not willing to accept the dollar figure they presented."
On Sept. 9, officials at the Broadway Dance Center received a notice from Extell that they were in default of their lease for not having a public-assembly permit and that if the problem was not addressed within five days, their lease would be canceled. The center hired a lawyer and temporarily blocked the default.
Getting a public-assembly permit requires a valid certificate of occupancy, which the center does not have. Dance center officials maintain that they have been trying to amend their certificate of occupancy since 1998, but that building-wide violations prevent them from doing so. Moreover, they say that the landlord has refused to sign paperwork required for their current application to amend the certificate. Mr. Snitow said the papers had not been signed because the dance center's plans were "deficient."
The issue of security did not come up until Sept. 21, when the center was informed that as of Sept. 26, photo identification would be required of all building visitors. Two days later, they were told that they would no longer be able to use the stairwells that connect their five floors of studios.
Mr. Snitow said these changes were put in place in response to a rash of thefts in the building. "We had a security problem," he said. "We were trying to install a method to control access to the stairways, which have led to crime, as opposed to their convenience to collect money."
The Broadway Dance Center has a security system in place, which requires check-in and photo identification. "I believe the intent is more to inconvenience - I don't want to use the word harass - the patrons of the Broadway Dance Center so that it would affect business," Ms. Ellner said. "We're all for security."
By many measures, the Broadway Dance Center is thriving. The center pays $70,151.45 a month in rent and about $250,000 a year in real estate taxes. But Ms. Ellner says she cannot afford to move. "I get that a high-rise has to go up," she said. "I get that this is a great view of Central Park. But we're not rich enough to move ourselves. We're barely rich enough to defend ourselves."
"My fear," she added, "is that if someone doesn't open their eyes, Las Vegas is going to be the new Broadway."
The question of how to maintain a viable infrastructure for the performing arts amid rising real estate prices extends beyond the Broadway Dance Center. The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater moved into a new $54 million home on West 55th Street last November, and Dance New Amsterdam, formerly known as Dance Space, plans to inaugurate its $5 million home at 280 Broadway in January. Unlike the Broadway Dance Center, a for-profit company, both of those groups are nonprofits. They relied on tax-deductible individual and corporate donations, as well as government and foundation grants for financing.
Elsewhere, arts groups have struggled to maintain a foothold. Last fall, the Williamsburg Art Nexus, a theater and rehearsal space in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, closed to make way for luxury condominiums, and the Houseman and Fairbanks Theaters, both on West 42nd Street in Manhattan, have been demolished to make way for an apartment building.
The dance center was itself born from the wreckage of several small dance studios, which were unable to survive the real estate market of the 1980's. The studio moved into its present location in 1998; the site of its old home on Broadway and 55th Street has been transformed into Random House's headquarters and luxury condominiums.
For now, the hallways of 221 West 57th Street are still thick with dreams, and the air still salty with effort. On a recent Friday afternoon, Jakki Kenney, 18, headed up the stairs to take one of her 17 weekly classes. "I totally want to be in a Fosse show," said Ms. Kenney, who is from Orlando, Fla. And if the Broadway Dance Center were not around? "I'd probably go to L.A.," she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/arts/dance/23bway.html
After Complaints, FEMA Extends Deadline for Evacuees in Hotels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 23, 2005
After Complaints, FEMA Extends Deadline for Evacuees in Hotels
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 - Responding to an outpouring of criticism, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced on Tuesday that most of the estimated 150,000 hurricane evacuees still living in hotel rooms would have an extra month to find other housing before the federal government stops footing the bill.
A week ago, the agency said it would stop paying most hotel bills as of Dec. 1. The goal was to encourage evacuees to find less expensive and more permanent housing while they awaited the reconstruction of New Orleans and other cities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
But the deadline was widely condemned as unreasonable and harsh in Congress, in state capitals and in city halls across the South.
Under the new deadline, evacuees living in hotels in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, California, Tennessee, Arkansas and Nevada will be able to remain, on the government's account, through Jan. 7, the date previously set just for Louisiana and Mississippi. About 35,000 hotel rooms are occupied by evacuees in those states.
For those staying in 3,700 rooms in other states, the new deadline will be Dec. 15 instead of Dec. 1.
"We are not kicking people out into the streets," R. David Paulison, acting director of FEMA, said in announcing the revised deadlines at a news conference here. "We want families in decent housing."
The hotel program, started by the American Red Cross, has already cost the federal government about $300 million, or an average of about $59 a night per room. It was begun after emergency shelters were overwhelmed by the number of people fleeing the coast.
Mayor Bill White of Houston, one of many elected officials to criticize the Dec. 1 deadline, said he was pleased with the agency's response. Texas alone has evacuees in more than 18,100 hotel rooms, the most of any state, and the greatest number of those are in Houston.
Mayor White said FEMA should have realized all along that the Dec. 1 deadline did not make sense, a failure he attributed to excessive levels of bureaucracy between the agency's local representatives in Texas and top officials in Washington.
"Between the local people and the top seem to be about seven or eight layers of people who need to get a life," Mr. White said.
FEMA also agreed on Tuesday to back down temporarily from blocking cities like Houston from signing apartment leases on behalf of hurricane victims, Nicol Andrews, an agency spokeswoman, said. Houston has been moving about 400 people a day into apartments from hotels, offering government-financed housing with one-year leases.
FEMA wants the evacuees to sign their own leases, using federal rent subsidies. But Houston officials said they feared that would slow the pace of movement to apartments. Now, instead of banning new government-sponsored leases as of Dec. 1, Ms. Andrews said, the agency will allow cities to sign leases on behalf of evacuees at least until the federally financed hotel program has ended.
Maureen M. Balleza contributed reporting from Houston for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/national/nationalspecial/23fema.html?th&emc=th
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Thoughts on Thanksgiving
Subject: Thoughts on Thanksgiving
Date: 23-Nov-05 22:07:56 Eastern Standard Time
From: starquest@nycivic.org
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Thoughts on Thanksgiving
By Henry J. Stern
November 23, 2005
We want to wish our readers a Happy Thanksgiving, and make a few observations about the holiday. Most of you have left your offices by now, and we expect you to see this tomorrow at home or Friday or Monday morning at work. The delay will not vitiate the message, perhaps it will be more closely read if not surrounded by holiday greetings.
Historically, Thanksgiving is a day to express gratitude for the blessings we receive from God, a figure who, despite activists' objections, remains in the Declaration of Independence, although not in the Constitution. For ourselves, on a related theological topic, we would keep "intelligent design" out of the classroom; as a public school is not a madras. On the other hand, we see absolutely no harm in references on coins to the Almighty, wherever he or she may be.
If our forefathers were encouraged to rise against Great Britain because of their religious beliefs (the reason many of them came to America in the first place), then belief in God played an important role in the growth of our democratic institutions. We should respect those beliefs.
Sadly, today, an historic religion has been twisted by some adherents into violent hostility towards nonbelievers. Totalitarian states, posing as theocracies, threaten war and mass destruction. They are not true theocracies, because if God ruled, he/she would probably be much more benevolent than the monsters who would destroy His creation in His name. Nonetheless, the major mass murderers of our century; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, were primarily secular figures.
The Thanksgiving holiday suggests several of our park rules: 26-G: Every day we live is a gift of God. 19: Be kind to man and beast. And 8-F: Do not bite the hand that feeds you. Unfortunately, too many of us obsess over what we lack, whether in possessions or in tranquility. We are insufficiently grateful for the blessings we enjoy, particularly the freedom and plenty we take for granted in America.
Many cultures have festivals celebrating the harvest. In Canada, Thanksgiving is observed on the second Monday in October. In America, Thanksgiving is essentially a family holiday. It is one day of the year when people are anxious to be with others they like. It is a day for people to invite guests, and to be invited by hosts.
We wish you all the happiest of holidays, and long life and health to you, your families and friends. In the holiday spirit, we extend the same good wishes to everyone else. We wish that people we do not know have the same good will toward us that we have toward them.
Happy Thanksgiving.
#265 11.23.05 455wds
Henry J. Stern
starquest@nycivic.org
New York Civic
520 Eighth Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018
(212) 564-4441
(212) 564-5588 (fax)
www.nycivic.org
Date: 23-Nov-05 22:07:56 Eastern Standard Time
From: starquest@nycivic.org
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Thoughts on Thanksgiving
By Henry J. Stern
November 23, 2005
We want to wish our readers a Happy Thanksgiving, and make a few observations about the holiday. Most of you have left your offices by now, and we expect you to see this tomorrow at home or Friday or Monday morning at work. The delay will not vitiate the message, perhaps it will be more closely read if not surrounded by holiday greetings.
Historically, Thanksgiving is a day to express gratitude for the blessings we receive from God, a figure who, despite activists' objections, remains in the Declaration of Independence, although not in the Constitution. For ourselves, on a related theological topic, we would keep "intelligent design" out of the classroom; as a public school is not a madras. On the other hand, we see absolutely no harm in references on coins to the Almighty, wherever he or she may be.
If our forefathers were encouraged to rise against Great Britain because of their religious beliefs (the reason many of them came to America in the first place), then belief in God played an important role in the growth of our democratic institutions. We should respect those beliefs.
Sadly, today, an historic religion has been twisted by some adherents into violent hostility towards nonbelievers. Totalitarian states, posing as theocracies, threaten war and mass destruction. They are not true theocracies, because if God ruled, he/she would probably be much more benevolent than the monsters who would destroy His creation in His name. Nonetheless, the major mass murderers of our century; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, were primarily secular figures.
The Thanksgiving holiday suggests several of our park rules: 26-G: Every day we live is a gift of God. 19: Be kind to man and beast. And 8-F: Do not bite the hand that feeds you. Unfortunately, too many of us obsess over what we lack, whether in possessions or in tranquility. We are insufficiently grateful for the blessings we enjoy, particularly the freedom and plenty we take for granted in America.
Many cultures have festivals celebrating the harvest. In Canada, Thanksgiving is observed on the second Monday in October. In America, Thanksgiving is essentially a family holiday. It is one day of the year when people are anxious to be with others they like. It is a day for people to invite guests, and to be invited by hosts.
We wish you all the happiest of holidays, and long life and health to you, your families and friends. In the holiday spirit, we extend the same good wishes to everyone else. We wish that people we do not know have the same good will toward us that we have toward them.
Happy Thanksgiving.
#265 11.23.05 455wds
Henry J. Stern
starquest@nycivic.org
New York Civic
520 Eighth Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018
(212) 564-4441
(212) 564-5588 (fax)
www.nycivic.org
The Harlem Homeowner Information Symposium
Harlem Homes Realty, Inc. & West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc.
Invites you to:
The Harlem Homeowner Information Symposium
The Dempsey Center
127 W. 127th Street � 3rd Floor
Saturday, December 10th, 2005
10am � 4:00pm
127 W. 127th Street � 3rd Floor
Saturday, December 10th, 2005
10am � 4:00pm
Dear Home Owner:
It is my pleasure to invite you to attend our free Homeowner�s Symposium. We have invited various representatives from government, local, city and state agencies to provide you with information that will assist you in saving money while preserving the quality of your property.
It is my pleasure to invite you to attend our free Homeowner�s Symposium. We have invited various representatives from government, local, city and state agencies to provide you with information that will assist you in saving money while preserving the quality of your property.
Our speakers are all from organizations that require nothing of you but your time and attention for their valuable information. They will provide handouts as well as various regulatory and mandated updates and then follow with a question and answer discussion on the following topics:
Time Speaker Topic Description
10:00am Sanitation Tom FitzgeraldNYC Department of Sanitation Get the latest news on recycle laws and understand fines.
Time Speaker Topic Description
10:00am Sanitation Tom FitzgeraldNYC Department of Sanitation Get the latest news on recycle laws and understand fines.
10:30am DEP Rick GunthorpeBureau of Customer Services Learn more about the water and energy conservation measures you can implement to save on your meter bills.
11:00am Community Boards Jordi Reyes- Montbanc #9Yasmin Cornelius#10 Discuss the benefits of membership and the objectives of the community board in your area.
11:30am Fire Safety TBDNY Fire Department Learn about the common causes of household fires, how to protect against fires and what steps to take in the event of a fire.
12:00 noon 0n Break for Refreshments
12:30pm Code Enforcement Nelson Masw/Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) Find out how to avoid and resolve property violations.
1:00pm Weatherization Curtis Pender, Dir. Harlem Community Development Corp. How you can qualify for up to 80% subsidized costs to insulate you, your family and/or tenants through the cold season.
1:30pm Owner Services Program Althea Hunter, Deputy Director of HPD�s OSP Learn how to increase your home�s value and save it from tax liens and foreclosure.
2:00pm Lead & Mold Julius Wilson, HPDLead & Mold Specialist Learn how to detect and handle the potentially dangerous lead paint issues, as well as strategies for managing and preventing mold in your building.
2:30pm Drug Prevention Timothy VanceAttorney & Former NYPD Detective HPD Narcotics Division familiarizes you with what to beware of and how best to handle incidents of drug dealing in your building or on your block with solutions that work.
3:00pm CommunityDevelopment Anasa ScottWest Harlem Group Assistance, Inc. The role of a community developer as it pertains to Harlem.
3:30pm Building Safety Det. DiscottiNY Police Department Will discuss benefits of proper building security as well as the regulatory requirements.
Please feel free to sit in on only your topic(s) of interest. You may call us at (212) 961-1313 x57 to reserve your space for one or all of the sessions. Please check our website www.harlemhomes.com for updates. Thank you for your interest and participation.
Please RSVP as seats are limited.
NewYorkBusiness.com - City to turn fed-owned land into affordable homes
November 22, 2005
City to turn fed-owned land into affordable homes
by Catherine Tymkiw
For the first time, the city today announced plans to buy federally owned properties in distressed areas and turn them into homes for low-income families.
Starting early next year, nonprofit developer Restored Homes will buy and begin restoring up to 360 one-to-three family homes in areas with low home-ownership rates or a high number of foreclosures. The areas include Bedford Stuyvesant and Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, and Jamaica, Queens.
"If all goes well, which it should, it is likely that you will see the city purchase more federally owned properties for the development of affordable housing," said Paul Elliott, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Families with annual incomes of $30,000 to $70,000 a year, depending on their size, would qualify.
Acquisition and construction will be funded through a $145 million pool, including contributions from Enterprise Social Investment Corp., LISC, New York City and major financial firms.
Restored Homes, which is funded by the Housing Preservation Development, will spend up to two years restoring the homes, doing major repairs to heating, plumbing and electrical systems, damaged roofs, kitchens and bathrooms.
The homes will be sold through a city-sponsored lottery system to low-income families, which must occupy them. Military veterans who served since Sept. 11, 2001 will be given preference.
The plan is a step toward Bloomberg�s goal of creating or preserving 68,000 affordable homes by 2008. The city has completed or begun work on 28,000 units since 2002 but this marks the first acquisition of federal property, Mr. Elliot said.
�2005 Crain Communications Inc.
City to turn fed-owned land into affordable homes
by Catherine Tymkiw
For the first time, the city today announced plans to buy federally owned properties in distressed areas and turn them into homes for low-income families.
Starting early next year, nonprofit developer Restored Homes will buy and begin restoring up to 360 one-to-three family homes in areas with low home-ownership rates or a high number of foreclosures. The areas include Bedford Stuyvesant and Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, and Jamaica, Queens.
"If all goes well, which it should, it is likely that you will see the city purchase more federally owned properties for the development of affordable housing," said Paul Elliott, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Families with annual incomes of $30,000 to $70,000 a year, depending on their size, would qualify.
Acquisition and construction will be funded through a $145 million pool, including contributions from Enterprise Social Investment Corp., LISC, New York City and major financial firms.
Restored Homes, which is funded by the Housing Preservation Development, will spend up to two years restoring the homes, doing major repairs to heating, plumbing and electrical systems, damaged roofs, kitchens and bathrooms.
The homes will be sold through a city-sponsored lottery system to low-income families, which must occupy them. Military veterans who served since Sept. 11, 2001 will be given preference.
The plan is a step toward Bloomberg�s goal of creating or preserving 68,000 affordable homes by 2008. The city has completed or begun work on 28,000 units since 2002 but this marks the first acquisition of federal property, Mr. Elliot said.
�2005 Crain Communications Inc.
Third Party Transfer Program Request for Qualifications
Subject: THIRD PARTY TRANSFER PROGRAM REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Date: 11/22/2005 1:24:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.5yvk1.6ubf.rs.0.5qvln.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
"Request for Qualifications"
Third Party Transfer Program Request for Qualifications
The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) invites established real estate development firms and community based not-for-profit organizations with experience in housing management and rehabilitation to submit descriptions of their qualifications to acquire, rehabilitate, and manage tax-foreclosed, privately-owned distressed residential properties through HPD's Third Party Transfer Program.
The Round VI Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") for the program is available for download on the HPD Web site at www.nyc.gov/hpd
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested For: Request for Qualifications
To subscribe, please go to this link: https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service:
Date: 11/22/2005 1:24:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.5yvk1.6ubf.rs.0.5qvln.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
"Request for Qualifications"
Third Party Transfer Program Request for Qualifications
The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) invites established real estate development firms and community based not-for-profit organizations with experience in housing management and rehabilitation to submit descriptions of their qualifications to acquire, rehabilitate, and manage tax-foreclosed, privately-owned distressed residential properties through HPD's Third Party Transfer Program.
The Round VI Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") for the program is available for download on the HPD Web site at www.nyc.gov/hpd
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested For: Request for Qualifications
To subscribe, please go to this link: https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service:
Monday, November 21, 2005
Resolution on Restoration of Home Rule Over New York City Rent and Eviction Laws
The City Of New York
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Boroug h Of Manhattan
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Boroug h Of Manhattan
C. Virginia Fields
Borough President
November 21, 2005
Governor George E. Pataki
The Executive Chamber
Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
President Pro Tempore and Majority Leader
State Senator Joseph L. Bruno
Room 909 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
State Senate Minority Leader
David A. Paterson
Adam Clayton Powell SOB
163 West 125th Street Suite 932
New York, New York 10027
Speaker Sheldon Silver
250 Broadway Suite 2307
New York, New York 10007
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, New York 10007
Resolution on Restoration of Home Rule
Over New York City Rent and Eviction Laws
WHEREAS, New York City should have the power, through its duly elected mayor and duly elected City Council, to determine the shape and scope of its rent and eviction regulation laws; and
WHEREAS, New York City had such home rule power prior to 1971, and using that power enacted both the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law (city rent control) of 1962 and the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature and Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller enacted legislation in 1971 � known as the Urstadt Law, named for Rockefeller�s housing commissioner Charles J. Urstadt � that severely curtailed the City�s home rule powers by prohibiting enactment of laws or regulations to strengthen the city rent laws but allowing enactment of laws or regulations to weaken the city rent laws; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature and Governor George E. Pataki tightened the Urstadt Law in 2003 by prohibiting the City Council and Mayor from enacting any law or regulation affecting rents and evictions, except for periodic renewal of the city rent laws and decontrol of classes of housing; and
WHEREAS, for 34 years the City of New York and its residents have bargained with upstate legislators whose districts do not include a single rent-regulated apartment over matters that should properly be determined by duly elected New York City officials; and
WHEREAS, for 34 years the New York City real estate industry has donated money to the campaigns of these same upstate legislators to prevent repeal of the Urstadt Law; and
WHEREAS, the New York City Council passed a resolution in 2003, and a home rule message in 2005, calling on the State Legislature and Governor to repeal the Urstadt Law and restore home rule powers over rents and evictions to the duly elected New York City officials; and
WHEREAS, the New York State Assembly has, for the past 12 years, passed a bill to repeal the Urstadt Law and restore home rule powers over its rent laws to the City of New York; and
WHEREAS, the leadership of the New York State Senate has refused to allow bills to repeal the Urstadt Law to be released from committee and thus allow such bills to be debated by the members of the Senate; and
WHEREAS, the stock of rent-controlled and rent-stabilized housing constitutes the largest and most important stock of affordable rental housing in New York City, with one of every three city residents living in these apartments; and
WHEREAS, this stock of affordable housing is being constantly reduced by various decontrol amendments enacted by the New York State Legislature and the New York City Council over the past twelve years, the most harmful of which has been high rent vacancy decontrol, allowing the permanent deregulation of vacant rent-regulated units when the legal rent reaches $2,000 per month; and
WHEREAS, credible analyses of the impact of these decontrol mechanisms have shown that at a minimum the City of New York has lost 200,000 affordable apartments over the past decade, as rent-regulated apartments are converted on vacancy to deregulated, free market units; and
WHEREAS, credible analyses of the impact of these decontrol mechanisms have shown that the pace of vacancy decontrol has accelerated; and
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need for government to review and evaluate the shape and scope of rent and eviction regulation laws in New York City; and
WHEREAS, this process of review and evaluation is a proper concern for the duly elected officials of New York City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Manhattan Borough Board calls on the New York State Legislature and Governor to enact legislation to repeal the Urstadt Law and restore home rule powers to the Mayor and New York City Council; and calls on the Mayor of New York City to make enactment of this legislation a top priority for the City of New York.
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board held November 17, 2005 the Resolution passed by a vote of 16-0.
Very truly yours,
C. Virginia Fields
Manhattan Borough President
CC: NYS Tenants & Neighbors
Sunday, November 20, 2005
New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-2006
General Issues - New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-06 (1 views) Subscribe
From: Reysmont 2:16 pm
To: ALL (1 of 1) 673.1
Subject: [NYtenants-online] New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-2006
Date: 11/20/2005 9:05:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: tenant@tenant.net
To: nytenants-online@tenant.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
-----------------
NYtenants Online/TenantNet 8/21/05
=================================================================
In this issue...
New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-2006
1. It's Silly Season 2005
2. Readers Note
3. 2005 APARTMENT & LOFT ORDER #37
4. 2005 HOTEL ORDER #35
=================================================================
NOTE TO OUR READERS: Newsletter updates have been infrequent over the last
several months as we've moved to a new server and upgraded our software. We
are keeping our fingers crossed that many of the glitches (i.e., duplicate
messages) will be a thing of the past. The mailing list had gotten so large
that the entire system was bogging down.
If you do experience problems, please let us know (although we will
probably already be aware as we're watching distribution of this newsletter
closely.
As always, this remains an opt-in list. We do not sell or give away your
email addresses to anyone. Every newsletter should contain links on how to
unsubscribe, or you may always visit the list's home page at
http://www.tenant.net/mailman/listinfo/nytenants-online
=================================================================
2005-2006 RGB ORDERS
In this issue we include the full text of the latest orders of the NYC Rent
Guidelines Board. These orders, which are in effect from October 1, 2005
through September 30, 2006, affect only rent stabilized tenants.
Rent Control apartments are not affected by these orders, except that
special guidelines are included for units moving from Rent Control to Rent
Stabilization (which is one method to determine the 'Fair Market Rent' when
a tenant in a new rent stabilized unit challenges the first stabilized rent
being charged).
For most tenants, the SHORT ANSWER is that if your rent stabilized lease is
renewed during this period, the permissible increase is 2.75% for a
one-year renewal and 5.5% for a two-year renewal (where heat is provided).
For leases that commence prior to October 1, 2005, use the prior year's RGB
orders, which can be found at
http://www.tenant.net/pipermail/nytenants-online/2004-July/000268.html.
If you have questions on any aspects of these orders, please join the
TenantNet Forum at http://www.tenant.net/.WWW/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
=================================================================
2005 APARTMENT & LOFT ORDER #37
NYC Rent Guidelines Board
June 21, 2005
ORDER NUMBER 37 - Apartments and Lofts, rent levels for leases
commencing October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE NEW YORK CITY RENT GUIDELINES BOARD BY THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended,
implemented by Resolution No 276 of 1974 of the New York City Council and
extended by Chapter 82 of the Laws of 2003, and in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, that the Rent
Guidelines Board (RGB) hereby adopts the following levels of fair rent
increases over lawful rents charged and paid on September 30, 2005. These
rent adjustments will apply to rent stabilized apartments with leases
commencing on or after October 1, 2005 and through September 30, 2006. Rent
guidelines for loft units subject to Section 286 subdivision 7 of the
Multiple Dwelling Law are also included in this order.
ADJUSTMENT FOR RENEWAL LEASES (APARTMENTS)
Together with such further adjustments as may be authorized by law, the
annual adjustment for renewal leases for apartments shall be:
Where HEAT IS PROVIDED or required to be provided to a dwelling unit by an
owner from a central or individual system at no charge to the tenant, the
adjustments are as follows:
For a ONE-YEAR RENEWAL LEASE commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.75%
For a TWO-YEAR RENEWAL LEASE commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 5.5%
Where HEAT IS NEITHER PROVIDED NOR REQUIRED to be provided to a dwelling
unit by an owner from a central or individual system, the adjustments are
as follows:
For a one-year renewal lease commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.25%
For a two-year renewal lease commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 4.5%
These adjustments shall also apply to dwelling units in a structure subject
to the partial tax exemption program under Section 421a of the Real
Property Tax Law, or in a structure subject to Section 423 of the Real
Property Tax Law as a Redevelopment Project.
VACANCY ALLOWANCE FOR APARTMENTS
No vacancy allowance is permitted except as provided by sections 19 and 20
of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997.
SUPPLEMENTAL ADJUSTMENT
There shall be no supplemental adjustment for apartments renting below any
specified amount for renewal leases.
EQUALIZATION ALLOWANCE
There shall be no equalization allowance for apartments continuously
occupied for a specified period of time for renewal leases.
ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT FOR RENT STABILIZED APARTMENTS SUBLET UNDER SECTION 2525.6 OF THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE
In the event of a sublease governed by subdivision (e) of section 2525.6 of
the Rent Stabilization Code, the allowance authorized by such subdivision
shall be 10%.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR LOFTS (UNITS IN THE CATEGORY OF BUILDINGS COVERED BY
ARTICLE 7-C OF THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW)
The Rent Guidelines Board adopts the following levels of rent increase
above the "base rent", as defined in Section 286, subdivision 4, of the
Multiple Dwelling Law, for units to which these guidelines are applicable
in accordance with Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law:
For one-year increase periods commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.25%
For two-year increase periods commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 4.5%
VACANT LOFT UNITS
No Vacancy Allowance is permitted under this Order. Therefore, except as
otherwise provided in Section 286, subdivision 6, of the Multiple Dwelling
Law, the rent charged to any tenant for a vacancy tenancy commencing on or
after October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006 may not exceed
the "base rent" referenced above plus the level of adjustment permitted
above for increase periods.
FRACTIONAL TERMS
For the purposes of these guidelines any lease or tenancy for a period up
to and including one year shall be deemed a one year lease or tenancy, and
any lease or tenancy for a period of over one year and up to and including
two years shall be deemed a two-year lease or tenancy.
ESCALATOR CLAUSES
Where a lease for a dwelling unit in effect on May 31, 1968 or where a
lease in effect on June 30, 1974 for a dwelling unit which became subject
to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, by virtue of the Emergency Tenant
Protection Act of 1974 and Resolution Number 276 of the New York City
Council, contained an escalator clause for the increased costs of operation
and such clause is still in effect, the lawful rent on September 30, 2005
over which the fair rent under this Order is computed shall include the
increased rental, if any, due under such clause except those charges which
accrued within one year of the commencement of the renewal lease. Moreover,
where a lease contained an escalator clause that the owner may validly
renew under the Code, unless the owner elects or has elected in writing to
delete such clause, effective no later than October 1, 2005 from the
existing lease and all subsequent leases for such dwelling unit, the
increased rental, if any, due under such escalator clause shall be offset
against the amount of increase authorized under this Order.
SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS UNDER PRIOR ORDERS
All rent adjustments lawfully implemented and maintained under previous
apartment orders and included in the base rent in effect on September 30,
2005 shall continue to be included in the base rent for the purpose of
computing subsequent rents adjusted pursuant to this Order.
SPECIAL GUIDELINE
Under Section 26-513(b)(1) of the New York City Administrative Code, and
Section 9(e) of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, the Rent
Guidelines Board is obligated to promulgate special guidelines to aid the
State Division of Housing and Community Renewal in its determination of
initial legal regulated rents for housing accommodations previously subject
to the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law which are the subject of a tenant
application for adjustment. The Rent Guidelines Board hereby adopts the
following Special Guidelines:
For dwelling units subject to the Rent and Rehabilitation Law on September
30, 2005, which become vacant after September 30, 2005, the special
guideline shall be the greater of:
50% above the maximum base rent, or
The Fair Market Rent for existing housing as established by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the New York
City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area pursuant to Section 8(c) (1) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. section 1437f [c] [1] )
and 24 C.F.R. Part 888, with such Fair Market Rents to be adjusted based
upon whether the tenant pays his or her own gas and/or electric charges as
part of his or her rent as such gas and/or electric charges are accounted
for by the New York City Housing Authority.
Such HUD-determined Fair Market Rents will be published in the Federal
Register, to take effect on October 1, 2005.
DECONTROLLED UNITS
The permissible increase for decontrolled units as referenced in Order 3a
which become decontrolled after September 30, 2005, shall be the greater of:
50% above the maximum base rent, or
The Fair Market Rent for existing housing as established by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the New York
City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area pursuant to Section 8(c) (1) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. section 1437f [c] [1] )
and 24 C.F.R. Part 888, with such Fair Market Rents to be adjusted based
upon whether the tenant pays his or her own gas and/or electric charges as
part of his or her rent as such gas and/or electric charges are accounted
for by the New York City Housing Authority.
Such HUD-determined Fair Market Rents will be published in the Federal
Register, to take effect on October 1, 2005.
CREDITS
Rentals charged and paid in excess of the levels of rent increase
established by this Order shall be fully credited against the next month's
rent.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Rent Guidelines Board is authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
governing apartment units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended. The
purpose of these guidelines is to implement the public policy set forth in
Findings and Declaration of Emergency of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969
(�26-501 of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code) and in the Legislative Finding
contained in the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974 c. 576, �4
[�2]).
The Rent Guidelines Board is also authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
for loft units subject to Section 286 subdivision 7 of the Multiple
Dwelling Law. The purpose of the loft guidelines is to implement the public
policy set forth in the Legislative Findings of Article 7-C of the Multiple
Dwelling Law (Section 280).
Dated: June 21, 2005
Marvin Markus
Chair
New York City Rent Guidelines Board
=================================================================
2005 HOTEL ORDER #35
NYC Rent Guidelines Board
June 21, 2005
ORDER NUMBER 35 - Hotels, Rooming Houses, Single Room Occupancy Buildings
and Lodging Houses. Rent levels to be effective for leases commencing
October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE NEW YORK
CITY RENT GUIDELINES BOARD BY THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended,
implemented by Resolution No. 276 of 1974 of the New York City Council and
extended by Chapter 82 of the Laws of 2003, and in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, that the Rent
Guidelines Board hereby adopts the following levels of fair rent increases
over lawful rents charged and paid on September 30, 2005.
APPLICABILITY
This order shall apply to units in buildings subject to the Hotel Section
of the Rent Stabilization Law (Sections 26-504(c) and 26-506 of the N.Y.C.
Administrative Code), as amended, or the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of
1974 (L.1974, c. 576 �4[�5(a)(7)]). With respect to any tenant who has no
lease or rental agreement, the level of rent increase established herein
shall be effective as of one year from the date of the tenant's commencing
occupancy, or as of one year from the date of the last rent adjustment
charged to the tenant, or as of October 1, 2005, whichever is later. This
anniversary date will also serve as the effective date for all subsequent
Rent Guidelines Board Hotel Orders, unless the Board shall specifically
provide otherwise in the Order. Where a lease or rental agreement is in
effect, this Order shall govern the rent increase applicable on or after
October 1, 2005 upon expiration of such lease or rental agreement, but in
no event prior to one year from the commencement date of the expiring
lease, unless the parties have contracted to be bound by the effective date
of this Order.
RENT GUIDELINES FOR HOTELS, ROOMING HOUSES, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS
AND LODGING HOUSES
Pursuant to its mandate to promulgate rent adjustments for hotel units
subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as amended, (�26-510(e) of
the N.Y.C Administrative Code) the Rent Guidelines Board hereby adopts the
following rent adjustments:
The allowable level of rent adjustment over the lawful
rent actually charged and paid on September 30, 2005 shall be:
1) Residential Class A (apartment) hotels 0%
2) Lodging houses 0%
3) Rooming houses (Class B buildings containing less than 30 units) 0%
4) Class B hotels 0%
5) Single Room Occupancy buildings (MDL section 248 SRO's) 0%
NEW TENANCIES
No "vacancy allowance" is permitted under this order. Therefore, the rents
charged for tenancies commencing on or after October 1, 2005 and on or
before September 30, 2006 may not exceed the levels over rentals charged on
September 30, 2005 permitted under the applicable rent adjustment provided
above.
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
It is expressly understood that the rents collectible under the terms of
this Order are intended to compensate in full for all services provided
without extra charge on the statutory date for the particular hotel
dwelling unit or at the commencement of the tenancy if subsequent thereto.
No additional charges may be made to a tenant for such services, however
such charges may be called or identified.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Rent Guidelines Board is authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
governing hotel units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended. The
purpose of these guidelines is to implement the public policy set forth in
Findings and Declaration of Emergency of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969
(�26-501 of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code) and in the Legislative Finding
contained in the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974 c. 576, �4
[�2]).
Dated: June 21, 2005
Marvin Markus
Chair
New York City Rent Guidelines Board
_______________________________________________
NYtenants-Online mailing list
http://www.tenant.net/mailman/listinfo/nytenants-online
From: Reysmont 2:16 pm
To: ALL (1 of 1) 673.1
Subject: [NYtenants-online] New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-2006
Date: 11/20/2005 9:05:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: tenant@tenant.net
To: nytenants-online@tenant.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
-----------------
NYtenants Online/TenantNet 8/21/05
=================================================================
In this issue...
New Rent Guideline Board Orders 2005-2006
1. It's Silly Season 2005
2. Readers Note
3. 2005 APARTMENT & LOFT ORDER #37
4. 2005 HOTEL ORDER #35
=================================================================
NOTE TO OUR READERS: Newsletter updates have been infrequent over the last
several months as we've moved to a new server and upgraded our software. We
are keeping our fingers crossed that many of the glitches (i.e., duplicate
messages) will be a thing of the past. The mailing list had gotten so large
that the entire system was bogging down.
If you do experience problems, please let us know (although we will
probably already be aware as we're watching distribution of this newsletter
closely.
As always, this remains an opt-in list. We do not sell or give away your
email addresses to anyone. Every newsletter should contain links on how to
unsubscribe, or you may always visit the list's home page at
http://www.tenant.net/mailman/listinfo/nytenants-online
=================================================================
2005-2006 RGB ORDERS
In this issue we include the full text of the latest orders of the NYC Rent
Guidelines Board. These orders, which are in effect from October 1, 2005
through September 30, 2006, affect only rent stabilized tenants.
Rent Control apartments are not affected by these orders, except that
special guidelines are included for units moving from Rent Control to Rent
Stabilization (which is one method to determine the 'Fair Market Rent' when
a tenant in a new rent stabilized unit challenges the first stabilized rent
being charged).
For most tenants, the SHORT ANSWER is that if your rent stabilized lease is
renewed during this period, the permissible increase is 2.75% for a
one-year renewal and 5.5% for a two-year renewal (where heat is provided).
For leases that commence prior to October 1, 2005, use the prior year's RGB
orders, which can be found at
http://www.tenant.net/pipermail/nytenants-online/2004-July/000268.html.
If you have questions on any aspects of these orders, please join the
TenantNet Forum at http://www.tenant.net/.WWW/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
=================================================================
2005 APARTMENT & LOFT ORDER #37
NYC Rent Guidelines Board
June 21, 2005
ORDER NUMBER 37 - Apartments and Lofts, rent levels for leases
commencing October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE NEW YORK CITY RENT GUIDELINES BOARD BY THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended,
implemented by Resolution No 276 of 1974 of the New York City Council and
extended by Chapter 82 of the Laws of 2003, and in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, that the Rent
Guidelines Board (RGB) hereby adopts the following levels of fair rent
increases over lawful rents charged and paid on September 30, 2005. These
rent adjustments will apply to rent stabilized apartments with leases
commencing on or after October 1, 2005 and through September 30, 2006. Rent
guidelines for loft units subject to Section 286 subdivision 7 of the
Multiple Dwelling Law are also included in this order.
ADJUSTMENT FOR RENEWAL LEASES (APARTMENTS)
Together with such further adjustments as may be authorized by law, the
annual adjustment for renewal leases for apartments shall be:
Where HEAT IS PROVIDED or required to be provided to a dwelling unit by an
owner from a central or individual system at no charge to the tenant, the
adjustments are as follows:
For a ONE-YEAR RENEWAL LEASE commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.75%
For a TWO-YEAR RENEWAL LEASE commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 5.5%
Where HEAT IS NEITHER PROVIDED NOR REQUIRED to be provided to a dwelling
unit by an owner from a central or individual system, the adjustments are
as follows:
For a one-year renewal lease commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.25%
For a two-year renewal lease commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 4.5%
These adjustments shall also apply to dwelling units in a structure subject
to the partial tax exemption program under Section 421a of the Real
Property Tax Law, or in a structure subject to Section 423 of the Real
Property Tax Law as a Redevelopment Project.
VACANCY ALLOWANCE FOR APARTMENTS
No vacancy allowance is permitted except as provided by sections 19 and 20
of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997.
SUPPLEMENTAL ADJUSTMENT
There shall be no supplemental adjustment for apartments renting below any
specified amount for renewal leases.
EQUALIZATION ALLOWANCE
There shall be no equalization allowance for apartments continuously
occupied for a specified period of time for renewal leases.
ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT FOR RENT STABILIZED APARTMENTS SUBLET UNDER SECTION 2525.6 OF THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE
In the event of a sublease governed by subdivision (e) of section 2525.6 of
the Rent Stabilization Code, the allowance authorized by such subdivision
shall be 10%.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR LOFTS (UNITS IN THE CATEGORY OF BUILDINGS COVERED BY
ARTICLE 7-C OF THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW)
The Rent Guidelines Board adopts the following levels of rent increase
above the "base rent", as defined in Section 286, subdivision 4, of the
Multiple Dwelling Law, for units to which these guidelines are applicable
in accordance with Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law:
For one-year increase periods commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 2.25%
For two-year increase periods commencing on or after
October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006: 4.5%
VACANT LOFT UNITS
No Vacancy Allowance is permitted under this Order. Therefore, except as
otherwise provided in Section 286, subdivision 6, of the Multiple Dwelling
Law, the rent charged to any tenant for a vacancy tenancy commencing on or
after October 1, 2005 and on or before September 30, 2006 may not exceed
the "base rent" referenced above plus the level of adjustment permitted
above for increase periods.
FRACTIONAL TERMS
For the purposes of these guidelines any lease or tenancy for a period up
to and including one year shall be deemed a one year lease or tenancy, and
any lease or tenancy for a period of over one year and up to and including
two years shall be deemed a two-year lease or tenancy.
ESCALATOR CLAUSES
Where a lease for a dwelling unit in effect on May 31, 1968 or where a
lease in effect on June 30, 1974 for a dwelling unit which became subject
to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, by virtue of the Emergency Tenant
Protection Act of 1974 and Resolution Number 276 of the New York City
Council, contained an escalator clause for the increased costs of operation
and such clause is still in effect, the lawful rent on September 30, 2005
over which the fair rent under this Order is computed shall include the
increased rental, if any, due under such clause except those charges which
accrued within one year of the commencement of the renewal lease. Moreover,
where a lease contained an escalator clause that the owner may validly
renew under the Code, unless the owner elects or has elected in writing to
delete such clause, effective no later than October 1, 2005 from the
existing lease and all subsequent leases for such dwelling unit, the
increased rental, if any, due under such escalator clause shall be offset
against the amount of increase authorized under this Order.
SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS UNDER PRIOR ORDERS
All rent adjustments lawfully implemented and maintained under previous
apartment orders and included in the base rent in effect on September 30,
2005 shall continue to be included in the base rent for the purpose of
computing subsequent rents adjusted pursuant to this Order.
SPECIAL GUIDELINE
Under Section 26-513(b)(1) of the New York City Administrative Code, and
Section 9(e) of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, the Rent
Guidelines Board is obligated to promulgate special guidelines to aid the
State Division of Housing and Community Renewal in its determination of
initial legal regulated rents for housing accommodations previously subject
to the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law which are the subject of a tenant
application for adjustment. The Rent Guidelines Board hereby adopts the
following Special Guidelines:
For dwelling units subject to the Rent and Rehabilitation Law on September
30, 2005, which become vacant after September 30, 2005, the special
guideline shall be the greater of:
50% above the maximum base rent, or
The Fair Market Rent for existing housing as established by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the New York
City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area pursuant to Section 8(c) (1) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. section 1437f [c] [1] )
and 24 C.F.R. Part 888, with such Fair Market Rents to be adjusted based
upon whether the tenant pays his or her own gas and/or electric charges as
part of his or her rent as such gas and/or electric charges are accounted
for by the New York City Housing Authority.
Such HUD-determined Fair Market Rents will be published in the Federal
Register, to take effect on October 1, 2005.
DECONTROLLED UNITS
The permissible increase for decontrolled units as referenced in Order 3a
which become decontrolled after September 30, 2005, shall be the greater of:
50% above the maximum base rent, or
The Fair Market Rent for existing housing as established by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the New York
City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area pursuant to Section 8(c) (1) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. section 1437f [c] [1] )
and 24 C.F.R. Part 888, with such Fair Market Rents to be adjusted based
upon whether the tenant pays his or her own gas and/or electric charges as
part of his or her rent as such gas and/or electric charges are accounted
for by the New York City Housing Authority.
Such HUD-determined Fair Market Rents will be published in the Federal
Register, to take effect on October 1, 2005.
CREDITS
Rentals charged and paid in excess of the levels of rent increase
established by this Order shall be fully credited against the next month's
rent.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Rent Guidelines Board is authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
governing apartment units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended. The
purpose of these guidelines is to implement the public policy set forth in
Findings and Declaration of Emergency of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969
(�26-501 of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code) and in the Legislative Finding
contained in the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974 c. 576, �4
[�2]).
The Rent Guidelines Board is also authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
for loft units subject to Section 286 subdivision 7 of the Multiple
Dwelling Law. The purpose of the loft guidelines is to implement the public
policy set forth in the Legislative Findings of Article 7-C of the Multiple
Dwelling Law (Section 280).
Dated: June 21, 2005
Marvin Markus
Chair
New York City Rent Guidelines Board
=================================================================
2005 HOTEL ORDER #35
NYC Rent Guidelines Board
June 21, 2005
ORDER NUMBER 35 - Hotels, Rooming Houses, Single Room Occupancy Buildings
and Lodging Houses. Rent levels to be effective for leases commencing
October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE NEW YORK
CITY RENT GUIDELINES BOARD BY THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended,
implemented by Resolution No. 276 of 1974 of the New York City Council and
extended by Chapter 82 of the Laws of 2003, and in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, that the Rent
Guidelines Board hereby adopts the following levels of fair rent increases
over lawful rents charged and paid on September 30, 2005.
APPLICABILITY
This order shall apply to units in buildings subject to the Hotel Section
of the Rent Stabilization Law (Sections 26-504(c) and 26-506 of the N.Y.C.
Administrative Code), as amended, or the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of
1974 (L.1974, c. 576 �4[�5(a)(7)]). With respect to any tenant who has no
lease or rental agreement, the level of rent increase established herein
shall be effective as of one year from the date of the tenant's commencing
occupancy, or as of one year from the date of the last rent adjustment
charged to the tenant, or as of October 1, 2005, whichever is later. This
anniversary date will also serve as the effective date for all subsequent
Rent Guidelines Board Hotel Orders, unless the Board shall specifically
provide otherwise in the Order. Where a lease or rental agreement is in
effect, this Order shall govern the rent increase applicable on or after
October 1, 2005 upon expiration of such lease or rental agreement, but in
no event prior to one year from the commencement date of the expiring
lease, unless the parties have contracted to be bound by the effective date
of this Order.
RENT GUIDELINES FOR HOTELS, ROOMING HOUSES, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS
AND LODGING HOUSES
Pursuant to its mandate to promulgate rent adjustments for hotel units
subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as amended, (�26-510(e) of
the N.Y.C Administrative Code) the Rent Guidelines Board hereby adopts the
following rent adjustments:
The allowable level of rent adjustment over the lawful
rent actually charged and paid on September 30, 2005 shall be:
1) Residential Class A (apartment) hotels 0%
2) Lodging houses 0%
3) Rooming houses (Class B buildings containing less than 30 units) 0%
4) Class B hotels 0%
5) Single Room Occupancy buildings (MDL section 248 SRO's) 0%
NEW TENANCIES
No "vacancy allowance" is permitted under this order. Therefore, the rents
charged for tenancies commencing on or after October 1, 2005 and on or
before September 30, 2006 may not exceed the levels over rentals charged on
September 30, 2005 permitted under the applicable rent adjustment provided
above.
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
It is expressly understood that the rents collectible under the terms of
this Order are intended to compensate in full for all services provided
without extra charge on the statutory date for the particular hotel
dwelling unit or at the commencement of the tenancy if subsequent thereto.
No additional charges may be made to a tenant for such services, however
such charges may be called or identified.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Rent Guidelines Board is authorized to promulgate rent guidelines
governing hotel units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, as
amended, and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, as amended. The
purpose of these guidelines is to implement the public policy set forth in
Findings and Declaration of Emergency of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969
(�26-501 of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code) and in the Legislative Finding
contained in the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974 c. 576, �4
[�2]).
Dated: June 21, 2005
Marvin Markus
Chair
New York City Rent Guidelines Board
_______________________________________________
NYtenants-Online mailing list
http://www.tenant.net/mailman/listinfo/nytenants-online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
