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)

TESTIMONY AT THE DASNY PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $500,000,000 IN TAX

EXEMPT BONDS FOR COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
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.

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.