Military.com
Purple Heart Stamp Re-Issued
American Forces Press Service
Sara Wood
May 30, 2006
Arlington National Cemetery, VA. - A new version of a postage stamp commemorating the Purple Heart and all those who have earned it was issued in a ceremony here today.
During the ceremony, two veterans of the war in Iraq were awarded Purple Hearts by R. James Nicholson, secretary of Veterans Affairs.
"(The Purple Heart) celebrates the indomitable spirit of ordinary soldiers in extraordinary situations; it embodies our country's earliest traditions of service and sacrifice," Nicholson said before presenting the Purple Heart to Army Spc. Michael Hilliard and Army Spc. Ian Wagner.
Hilliard and Wagner were wounded in Iraq while serving with the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division, respectively.
The stamp is a new version of the Purple Heart Definitive stamp, first issued in May 2003 by the U.S. Postal Service. USPS is proud to recognize the Purple Heart with this stamp, because it reminds Americans of what people have suffered in the name of freedom, said John E. Potter, postmaster general and chief executive officer of the U.S. Postal Service.
"The award and the men and women it honors say so much about our nation," Potter said. "In reissuing this stamp today, we have 50 million chances to tell that story again."
Every person who dons a military uniform knows the sacrifices they may have to make, but they still choose to serve and America should not forget their dedication, said James C. Miller, chairman of the USPS Board of Governors. The Purple Heart stamp will go to millions of homes on cards and letters and will be a testament to the sacrifices of servicemembers past and present, he said.
"It is fully in our power to remember their service and to revere their deeds," Miller said.
About 100 Purple Heart recipients attended the ceremony at the invitation of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. James Randles, the order's national commander, thanked all those who made the issuance of the stamp possible, and said that the stamp is very important, because it is a recognizable symbol that has meaning to servicemembers of all ages from all services.
"It is the one medal wanted by few but worn by many," Randles said. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the president to members of the military who have been wounded in combat or to the next of kin of those killed in action.
The stamp features the medal's image - a profile of George Washington on a purple background within a heart-shaped medallion. The stamp image is a photograph of one of two Purple Hearts awarded to James Loftus Fowler of Alexandria, Va. Fowler was a lieutenant colonel in the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, when he received the Purple Heart in 1968 following action close to the Ben Hai River on the border between North and South Vietnam.
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2006 American Forces Press Service. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Anne Z. Whitman"
Subject: Fwd: Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
To: "Jordi Reyes Montblanc" reysmont@yahoo.com
Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:02:09 -0400
To: livablenewyork@erols.com
From: "Coalition for a Livable West Side"
Subject: Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20051018/12/1622
Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
by Tom Angotti
18 Oct 2005
In New York City's quiet suburban-like neighborhoods far from Times Square and Wall Street, there's lots of buzz these days about "overdevelopment." Homeowners in these low-density enclaves are worried developers will start building to the maximum allowed by zoning, which in some cases can mean two houses in the place of one or even an apartment building here and there. The Bloomberg administration has responded by downzoning "to preserve neighborhood character" in some 42 areas of the city. Downzoning reduces the potential for development while upzoning allows more development.
New York Times correspondent Janny Scott recently repeated the common orthodoxy about what's behind the downzonings. She said it was: "A swelling population, an overheated real estate market and the biggest building boom in 30 years." This is how it's perceived by many out in the neighborhoods. But growth pressures are only part of the picture.
According to New York City Councilmember Tony Avella, chair of the Zoning and Franchises Committee and a long-time critic of "overdevelopment," while the current zoning in many low density neighborhoods is "totally inappropriate and hasn't been changed in years, there is a correlation between overdevelopment and lack of planning. We need to totally revamp the way the City of New York does planning." Avella is a supporter of the Campaign for Community-based Planning and is working on legislation that would change the way planning is done.
Community Planning Not RezoningThe real problem with downzoning to stop overdevelopment, or upzoning to encourage development, is that they both avoid any serious planning, both in each neighborhood and in the city as a whole. They don't allow local residents and businesses to address serious concerns they have with everything from housing needs to traffic, because zoning regulations are limited to use and density controls.Imagine if the city were to take seriously the question of building housing to meet the present and future needs of New Yorkers.
The city's planners might do some projections and then work with every neighborhood in the city to see how they could accommodate their fair share of the need. This is exactly what was done in Seattle during the four-year term of Mayor Norman Rice. The State of Washington mandated a city-wide growth management plan, and the mayor then organized a team of planners to work with 38 neighborhoods, each of which developed its own plans. Every one of the neighborhood plans accommodated their share of the city-wide growth needs, and none refused to do so, mainly because they were empowered to determine how and where the growth would occur. Overdevelopment wasn't a problem because every neighborhood had its proportionate share in development.
But it remains to be seen how many of the same neighborhoods in New York City complaining about overdevelopment are willing to support planning. For example, do the Staten Islanders who backed recent downzonings there recall that there was once a sensible plan for Staten Island that would have concentrated growth on the island, preserved open space, and prevented the inefficient low-density sprawl that has multiplied traffic and McMansions everywhere? The South Richmond Plan was introduced in 1971 by then State Senator John Marchi, but got beaten back by those who cried - yes, you got it - "overdevelopment."
The South Richmond Plan was an early version of what the American Planning Association has popularized as "Smart Growth" - concentrating development around existing areas with density and infrastructure. While the term can be interpreted to mean many different things, it's a concept that could be applied in New York if indeed there were the will to plan. Growth could be allocated in places around the city where it made good sense - building on existing densities and using infrastructure that's already in place.
How Smart is Downzoning?But is the downzoning in low-density neighborhoods part of Smart Growth? Or is it just adding pressure to other neighborhoods that are reeling from intense development pressures and facing huge affordable housing and service shortages? In fact, the biggest development pressures in the city aren't in Bayside and Riverdale but in neighborhoods closer to the overheated downtown real estate markets -- Chelsea, Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Long Island City, and Harlem, for example, where single-family homes are already rare.
If overdevelopment brings excessive densities, the real issue is what constitutes "excessive?" It's all relative. If there is any place in the city where densities might be considered too high it's the centrally-located neighborhoods where upzonings are now concentrating more development. There is no magic formula for balancing growth and open space, but New York City is widely known to have one of the lowest ratios of open space per capita, especially in the more developed parts of Manhattan and the outer boroughs.
If our city planners were really concerned about excessive density and an overloaded infrastructure they wouldn't be upzoning these areas so that more high-rises can be stuffed onto blocks that already have little "light and air" - features that zoning was supposed to safeguard.
These are the neighborhoods that lack open space, have the worst air quality and noise, and have to deal with overcrowded subway platforms and buses.
It's not just a matter of taking advantage of existing infrastructure but abusing the infrastructure. A blind fixation with development at all costs has produced a void in the public discussion about the problems faced by the city's infrastructure - for example, solid waste and public transportation systems. It's automatically assumed these systems will handle new growth because they're so large, but every one of them is stretched and the costs of expanding these systems are high. Contrary to development advocates, high density isn't necessarily any more efficient than low density. Economies of scale that come with higher densities can actually change to diseconomies of scale, and lead to a deterioration of the environment and the health prospects of residents.
Overdevelopment, An Election-Year Code Word?
Isn't what the Bloomberg administration doing "Smart Growth?" Perhaps lurking in the far reaches of City Hall there lies such a rational motivation. But those who follow the poll numbers might wonder if the strategy has more to do with gaining support for Manhattan Mike in the outer borough homeowner neighborhoods with high voter turnouts. Could the pre-election tax rebate to homeowners and continuing favorable property assessment be part of a bigger strategy along with downzoning?
A statement by City Planning Commission chair Amanda M. Burden may give us a clue. Burden was quoted in the October 10 New York Times: "If you allow the character of a neighborhood to be eroded, the people who live in that neighborhood will leave the city."
Here we have a new version of the "white flight" thesis that contributed to the post-war ideology of suburban development in the U.S. The myth then was that central cities deteriorated mainly because whites left for the suburbs. But white flight was more an effect than a cause - the interstate highway system (the largest public works project in the world) and federal mortgage insurance (which prohibited loans in non-white neighborhoods) were the triggers to suburbanization and the ensuing racial apartheid.
Today the suburbs aren't exploding as they were then, and New York City is awash in new investment. In the last few decades whites have continued to move out of the city but their neighborhoods have remained intact. They have been largely occupied by working families of diverse ethnicities. In some neighborhoods, however, there have been widespread abuses of zoning and building codes as housing has been illegally subdivided to accommodate new immigrant populations. But the problem isn't flight to the suburbs, it's how to re-make New York City's homeowner neighborhoods so they can provide more safe and affordable housing for New Yorkers. If white flight changes voting patterns, that's another matter.
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Progressive Planning Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning.
From: "Anne Z. Whitman"
Subject: Fwd: Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
To: "Jordi Reyes Montblanc" reysmont@yahoo.com
Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:02:09 -0400
To: livablenewyork@erols.com
From: "Coalition for a Livable West Side"
Subject: Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20051018/12/1622
Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer
by Tom Angotti
18 Oct 2005
In New York City's quiet suburban-like neighborhoods far from Times Square and Wall Street, there's lots of buzz these days about "overdevelopment." Homeowners in these low-density enclaves are worried developers will start building to the maximum allowed by zoning, which in some cases can mean two houses in the place of one or even an apartment building here and there. The Bloomberg administration has responded by downzoning "to preserve neighborhood character" in some 42 areas of the city. Downzoning reduces the potential for development while upzoning allows more development.
New York Times correspondent Janny Scott recently repeated the common orthodoxy about what's behind the downzonings. She said it was: "A swelling population, an overheated real estate market and the biggest building boom in 30 years." This is how it's perceived by many out in the neighborhoods. But growth pressures are only part of the picture.
According to New York City Councilmember Tony Avella, chair of the Zoning and Franchises Committee and a long-time critic of "overdevelopment," while the current zoning in many low density neighborhoods is "totally inappropriate and hasn't been changed in years, there is a correlation between overdevelopment and lack of planning. We need to totally revamp the way the City of New York does planning." Avella is a supporter of the Campaign for Community-based Planning and is working on legislation that would change the way planning is done.
Community Planning Not RezoningThe real problem with downzoning to stop overdevelopment, or upzoning to encourage development, is that they both avoid any serious planning, both in each neighborhood and in the city as a whole. They don't allow local residents and businesses to address serious concerns they have with everything from housing needs to traffic, because zoning regulations are limited to use and density controls.Imagine if the city were to take seriously the question of building housing to meet the present and future needs of New Yorkers.
The city's planners might do some projections and then work with every neighborhood in the city to see how they could accommodate their fair share of the need. This is exactly what was done in Seattle during the four-year term of Mayor Norman Rice. The State of Washington mandated a city-wide growth management plan, and the mayor then organized a team of planners to work with 38 neighborhoods, each of which developed its own plans. Every one of the neighborhood plans accommodated their share of the city-wide growth needs, and none refused to do so, mainly because they were empowered to determine how and where the growth would occur. Overdevelopment wasn't a problem because every neighborhood had its proportionate share in development.
But it remains to be seen how many of the same neighborhoods in New York City complaining about overdevelopment are willing to support planning. For example, do the Staten Islanders who backed recent downzonings there recall that there was once a sensible plan for Staten Island that would have concentrated growth on the island, preserved open space, and prevented the inefficient low-density sprawl that has multiplied traffic and McMansions everywhere? The South Richmond Plan was introduced in 1971 by then State Senator John Marchi, but got beaten back by those who cried - yes, you got it - "overdevelopment."
The South Richmond Plan was an early version of what the American Planning Association has popularized as "Smart Growth" - concentrating development around existing areas with density and infrastructure. While the term can be interpreted to mean many different things, it's a concept that could be applied in New York if indeed there were the will to plan. Growth could be allocated in places around the city where it made good sense - building on existing densities and using infrastructure that's already in place.
How Smart is Downzoning?But is the downzoning in low-density neighborhoods part of Smart Growth? Or is it just adding pressure to other neighborhoods that are reeling from intense development pressures and facing huge affordable housing and service shortages? In fact, the biggest development pressures in the city aren't in Bayside and Riverdale but in neighborhoods closer to the overheated downtown real estate markets -- Chelsea, Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Long Island City, and Harlem, for example, where single-family homes are already rare.
If overdevelopment brings excessive densities, the real issue is what constitutes "excessive?" It's all relative. If there is any place in the city where densities might be considered too high it's the centrally-located neighborhoods where upzonings are now concentrating more development. There is no magic formula for balancing growth and open space, but New York City is widely known to have one of the lowest ratios of open space per capita, especially in the more developed parts of Manhattan and the outer boroughs.
If our city planners were really concerned about excessive density and an overloaded infrastructure they wouldn't be upzoning these areas so that more high-rises can be stuffed onto blocks that already have little "light and air" - features that zoning was supposed to safeguard.
These are the neighborhoods that lack open space, have the worst air quality and noise, and have to deal with overcrowded subway platforms and buses.
It's not just a matter of taking advantage of existing infrastructure but abusing the infrastructure. A blind fixation with development at all costs has produced a void in the public discussion about the problems faced by the city's infrastructure - for example, solid waste and public transportation systems. It's automatically assumed these systems will handle new growth because they're so large, but every one of them is stretched and the costs of expanding these systems are high. Contrary to development advocates, high density isn't necessarily any more efficient than low density. Economies of scale that come with higher densities can actually change to diseconomies of scale, and lead to a deterioration of the environment and the health prospects of residents.
Overdevelopment, An Election-Year Code Word?
Isn't what the Bloomberg administration doing "Smart Growth?" Perhaps lurking in the far reaches of City Hall there lies such a rational motivation. But those who follow the poll numbers might wonder if the strategy has more to do with gaining support for Manhattan Mike in the outer borough homeowner neighborhoods with high voter turnouts. Could the pre-election tax rebate to homeowners and continuing favorable property assessment be part of a bigger strategy along with downzoning?
A statement by City Planning Commission chair Amanda M. Burden may give us a clue. Burden was quoted in the October 10 New York Times: "If you allow the character of a neighborhood to be eroded, the people who live in that neighborhood will leave the city."
Here we have a new version of the "white flight" thesis that contributed to the post-war ideology of suburban development in the U.S. The myth then was that central cities deteriorated mainly because whites left for the suburbs. But white flight was more an effect than a cause - the interstate highway system (the largest public works project in the world) and federal mortgage insurance (which prohibited loans in non-white neighborhoods) were the triggers to suburbanization and the ensuing racial apartheid.
Today the suburbs aren't exploding as they were then, and New York City is awash in new investment. In the last few decades whites have continued to move out of the city but their neighborhoods have remained intact. They have been largely occupied by working families of diverse ethnicities. In some neighborhoods, however, there have been widespread abuses of zoning and building codes as housing has been illegally subdivided to accommodate new immigrant populations. But the problem isn't flight to the suburbs, it's how to re-make New York City's homeowner neighborhoods so they can provide more safe and affordable housing for New Yorkers. If white flight changes voting patterns, that's another matter.
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Progressive Planning Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Four Names Added to Vietnam Memorial
MILITARY.COM
Four Names Added to Vietnam Memorial
Marine Corps News Clinton Firstbrook May 22, 2006
Washington D.C. - The names of three Marines and one soldier were added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during a series of wall inscriptions May 16-18, offering closure to their families. May 18 also marked the 38th anniversary of one of the Marine's death. Robert P. Rumley was wounded Sept. 5, 1966, after his helicopter was shot down.
He never fully recovered from his injuries and passed away in 1968. His brothers, Mark, Mike and Jon, witnessed the inscription, which Mark said made their family whole once again. “We feel peace, harmony and healing that we didn’t have before because of this place,” he said. “
I miss Bobby. I miss him more today than I have for some time. In a way, he’s become alive.” Rumley, the latest addition to the memorial’s wall section, followed Bobby G. Barbre, George B. Givens and Hans J. R. Lorenz. Since the memorial’s Nov. 13, 1982 dedication, 314 additional names have been carved into the wall. “Every name that’s added further completes the mission of the memorial,” said James H. Lee, president of Great Panes Glassworks, the Denver-based company that engraves the wall exclusively.
“To witness the names emerging out of the rock is a great privilege. It’s always a special and poignant moment to watch their sons’ or daughters’ name being added. I can’t imagine what that must feel like.” As Lee sandblasted Lorenz’s name into the black granite May 17, Maj. John L. Arsenault stood at attention for the fallen man’s mother, who could not attend.
After the dust settled, the major made the first charcoal rubbing to present to Lorenz’s mother. “Adding another Marine to the memorial is bringing home another American hero to a final resting place,” said Arsenault, a five-campaign Vietnam veteran. “It took 40 years to bring this Marine home, but he came home today. For me, it was a moment that I will remember for the rest of my life.”The names of 58,253 American men and women who have died or remain missing after serving in Vietnam now span the length of the monument.
The recent additions will become official when they are read aloud during the Memorial Day Ceremony at the wall May 29. “To me it’s another piece of history coming into a place where it should be,” said Vietnam veteran William Harris, a park service volunteer and retired Army chief warrant officer. “I consider them all my brothers and sisters.”
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2006 Marine Corps News. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
Four Names Added to Vietnam Memorial
Marine Corps News Clinton Firstbrook May 22, 2006Washington D.C. - The names of three Marines and one soldier were added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during a series of wall inscriptions May 16-18, offering closure to their families.
May 18 also marked the 38th anniversary of one of the Marine's death. Robert P. Rumley was wounded Sept. 5, 1966, after his helicopter was shot down. He never fully recovered from his injuries and passed away in 1968. His brothers, Mark, Mike and Jon, witnessed the inscription, which Mark said made their family whole once again. “We feel peace, harmony and healing that we didn’t have before because of this place,” he said. “I miss Bobby. I miss him more today than I have for some time. In a way, he’s become alive.”
Rumley, the latest addition to the memorial’s wall section, followed Bobby G. Barbre, George B. Givens and Hans J. R. Lorenz. Since the memorial’s Nov. 13, 1982 dedication, 314 additional names have been carved into the wall. “Every name that’s added further completes the mission of the memorial,” said James H. Lee, president of Great Panes Glassworks, the Denver-based company that engraves the wall exclusively.
“To witness the names emerging out of the rock is a great privilege. It’s always a special and poignant moment to watch their sons’ or daughters’ name being added. I can’t imagine what that must feel like.” As Lee sandblasted Lorenz’s name into the black granite May 17, Maj. John L. Arsenault stood at attention for the fallen man’s mother, who could not attend.
After the dust settled, the major made the first charcoal rubbing to present to Lorenz’s mother. “Adding another Marine to the memorial is bringing home another American hero to a final resting place,” said Arsenault, a five-campaign Vietnam veteran.
“It took 40 years to bring this Marine home, but he came home today. For me, it was a moment that I will remember for the rest of my life.”The names of 58,253 American men and women who have died or remain missing after serving in Vietnam now span the length of the monument.
The recent additions will become official when they are read aloud during the Memorial Day Ceremony at the wall May 29. “To me it’s another piece of history coming into a place where it should be,” said Vietnam veteran William Harris, a park service volunteer and retired Army chief warrant officer. “I consider them all my brothers and sisters.”
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Copyright 2006 Marine Corps News. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
MEMORIAL DAY 2006
Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service.
There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day.
There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920).
While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day.
It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868.
It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.
General John A. Logan
Library of Congress,
Prints & Photographs
Division,
[LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]
Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.
The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).
It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.
In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:
We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies
She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need.
Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help.
Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.
Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day.
While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.
There are a few notable exceptions. Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing.
In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.
To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."
The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.
But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."
On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.
Sign the Petitionin support of bill S 189To date, there has been no further developments on the bill.
Please write your Representative and your Senators, urging them to support these bills. You can also contact Mr. Inouye and Mr. Gibbons to let them know of your support.
Visit our Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance page for more information on this issue, and for more ways you can help. To see what day Memorial Day falls on for the next 10 years, visit the Memorial Day Calendar page.
Sources and related links:
Boalsburg, Pa., Birthplace of Memorial Day [www.rootsweb.com/~pacentre/memory.htm]
DC City Pages: History of Memorial Day [www.cnn.com/US/9805/25/memorial.day.wrap/]
General Logan Biography [www.jal.cc.il.us/johnlogan.html]
General Logan's General Order 11 [www.usmemorialday.org/order11.html]
Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance of Memorial Day [www.usmemorialday.org/act.html]
Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920 from Duke University) [memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ncdhtml/hasmhome.html]
How to Observe Memorial Day [www.usmemorialday.org/observe.htm]
Luminaria Program [www.nps.gov/frsp/luminari.htm]
Memorial Day Events - Dept of Veterans Affairs "The Office of Public Affairs provides this page of items that may be of special interest to veterans and customers." [www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/events.htm]
The Origins of Memorial Day [www1.va.gov/visns/visn03/kids/memorialday.htm]
Roy, Nuhn. Portfolio: To Honor The Memory of the Departed. American History Illustrated 1982 17[3]: 20-25.
S 189 and H.R. 1474, bills to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day. [www.usmemorialday.org/act.html]
"S. Con. Res. 100", resolution for a National Moment of Remembrance. [www.usmemorialday.org/resolution.html]
Statement on Signing the National Moment of Remembrance Act [www.usmemorialday.org/speeches/president/dec2800.txt]
Taps Information [www.usmemorialday.org/taps.html]
Today in History: May 30 American Memory project, The Library of Congress [memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/may30.html]
VFW's "Buddy" Poppy program
Waterloo, Official Birthplace of Memorial Day [www.rootsweb.com/~nyseneca/memorial.htm]
© 1994 - 2004 David Merchant Updated 30 August 2004
http://www.legion.org/?section=our_flag&subsection=flag_code&content=flag_position
El día conmemorativo, originalmente llamado Decoration Day, es un día del remembrance para los que han muerto en el servicio de nuestra nación. Hay muchas historias en cuanto a sus con reales principios, concluído dos ciudades docena y las ciudades que ponen demanda a ser el lugar de nacimiento del día conmemorativo.
Hay también evidencia que los grupos de las mujeres ordenadas en el sur adornaban sepulcros antes del final de la guerra civil: un himno publicado en 1867, " genuflexión donde nuestros amantes están durmiendo " por Nella L. Sweet llevó el esmero " a las señoras del sur que están adornando los sepulcros de los muertos confederados " (fuente: Música, 1850-1920 Historic American Sheet De Duque University's).
Mientras que Waterloo N.Y. oficialmente fue declarada el lugar de nacimiento del día conmemorativo por presidente Lydon Johnson en mayo de 1966, es difícil probar concluyente los orígenes del día. Es más probable que tenga muchos principios del seperate.
General Juan A. Logan Biblioteca del congreso, división & de las fotografías de las impresiones, [ LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (neg & de la película de b W.) ]
El día conmemorativo fue proclamado oficialmente el 5 de mayo de 1868 por general Juan Logan, comandante nacional del ejército magnífico de la república, en su orden general No. 11, y primero observado el 30 de mayo de 1868, cuando las flores fueron colocadas en los sepulcros de los soldados de la unión y del confederato en el cementerio del nacional de Arlington.
El sur rechazó reconocer el día, honrando a sus muertos el días del seperate hasta después de la guerra mundial I (cuando el día de fiesta cambiante de honrar apenas a los que murieron el luchar en la guerra civil a honrar a los americanos que murieron el luchar en cualquier guerra).
Ahora se celebra en casi cada estado el lunes pasado en mayo (pasado por Congress en 1971, P.L. 90 - 363, para asegurar un fin de semana de tres días por días de fiesta federales), aunque varios estados meridionales tienen un día adicional, separado para honrar a los muertos confederados de la guerra: De enero el 19 en Tejas, de abril el 26 en Alabama, la Florida, Georgia, y Mississippi; De mayo el 10 en Carolina del sur; y de junio el 3 (cumpleaños de Jefferson Davis) en Luisiana y Tennessee.
En 1915, inspirado por el poema " en los campos de Flandes, " Moina Michael contestado con su propio poema:
Acariciamos también, el rojo de la amapola
Aquí crece en los campos donde valor conducido,
Se parece señalar a los cielos
Esa sangre de los héroes de los dados nunca.
Ella entonces concibió de una idea de desgastar popies rojos en día conmemorativo en el honor de los que murieron el searving de la nación durante guerra. Ella era las primeras a para desgastar uno, y vendidas amapolas sus amigos y los compañeros de trabajo con el dinero que iba a beneficiar a mecánicos en necesidad.
Una señora Guerin de Francia visitaba más adelante los Estados Unidos y aprendido de este nuevo costumbre comenzado por ms Michael y cuando ella volvió a Francia, hizo amapolas rojas artificiales para levantar el dinero para los niños dejados huérfano guerra y widowed a mujeres. Esta tradición se separó a otros países. En 1948 el correos de los E.E.U.U. honró a ms Michael para su papel en la fundación del movimiento nacional de la amapola publicando un rojo sello de 3 centavos con su semejanza en él.
Desde los últimos años 50 el jueves antes del día conmemorativo, los 1.200 soldados de la infantería de 3d los E.E.U.U. colocan indicadores americanos pequeños en cada uno de los más de 260.000 gravestones en el cementerio del nacional de Arlington. Entonces patrullan 24 horas al día durante el fin de semana para asegurarse de que cada indicador sigue siendo que está parado.
Pero la mayoría de los americanos se han olvidado hoy en día del significado y de las tradiciones del día conmemorativo.
Para ayudar a americanos a recordar el significado del día, "el momento nacional de la resolución" de Remembrance fue pasado en la DEC 2000 de la cual pregunta que en el tiempo local de 3 P.M., porque todos los americanos " observan a voluntariamente e informal de su propia manera al momento el remembrance y respecto, deteniéndose brevemente lo que él está haciendo por un momento del silencio o de está escuchando los ' golpecitos. "
Además, de enero el 19 de 1999 senador Inouye introdujo la cuenta S 189 al senado que propone restablecer el día tradicional de la observancia del día conmemorativo de nuevo de mayo al 30 en vez " del lunes pasado en mayo ". De abril el 19 de 1999 Gibbons representativo introdujo la cuenta a la casa (H.R. 1474). Las cuentas fueron referidas el comité sobre la judicatura y el comité sobre reforma del gobierno.
Hasta la fecha, no ha habido otros progresos en la cuenta. Escriba por favor su Representante y sus Senadores, impulsándolos utilizar estas cuentas. Usted puede también entrarlas en contacto con Sr. Inouye y Sr. Gibbons dejó saber de su ayuda.
© 1994 - 2003 David Merchant Updated 1 May 2003
Jour Memorial, appelai le Jour, originellement Décoration est l'un jour de remembrance pour ceux-là qui être mort in nos la nation le service. Il y a de nombreuses histoires vis-à-vis c'est des commencement concret, sur villes deux de douzaines et villes résidant de la demande à sur étant le lieu de naissance de Jour Memorial.
Il y a aussi de la preuve qui organisa les groupes dans des femmes décorions à de publier dans 1867, à de "s'Agenouiller Où Nos Chéries sont en train de Dormir" by les tombes Sudes devant la fin de l'un cantique Guerre : Civile L de Nella.
Le bonbon porta la dédicace "À les Dames du Sud qui est en train de Décorer Complètement" les Tombes du Confédéré Musique, de Nappe Historique Américaine de l'Université de Duc de (Source : 1850-1920). While Waterloo N. Y. Fus déclaré by officiellement le lieu de naissance de Jour Memorial Lydon de de Président Johnson en mai 1966, l'est difficile à prouve décisivement les origines du jour. C'est plus vraisemblable que c'eut nombreux seperate des commencements.
Général John À. LoganBibliothèque de Congrès,
Imprime et Photographie Division,
[LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]
Jour premier Memorial fut proclamé officiellement les 5 mai 1868 Général John Logan, le commandant national de la Grande Armée de dedans la République, sa Commande Générale Non. 11, et premier fus observé les 30 mai 1868, quand des fleurs furent placés sur les tombes de Syndicat et Confédéré des soldats à Arlington Cimetière National.
Le Sud refusa le jour, honorant-leur mort sur jours de seperate après Monde à pour reconnaître War je (quand le congé se transforma exactement honorant ceux-là qui mort luttant dans la Guerre Civile à Américains honorants qui morts luttant dans guerre) quelconque.
L'est célébré immédiatement dans presque chaque État dessus dernier Monday in mai (passai by Congrès dans 1971 à assure trois un jour week-end pour Fédéral des congés,) quoique plusieurs sudiste des états ai supplémentaire, distinct du jour pour honorant Confédéré la guerre le mort : janvier 19 in le Texas, avril 26 in l'Alabama, la Floride, la Géorgie, et le Mississippi ; mai 10 in le South Carolina ; et juin 3 (Jefferson Davis' anniversaire) in la Louisiana et le Tennessee.
Un Moment récemment, "National de résolution de Remembrance" a été parrainé ("S. Con. Res. 100") par Sénateurs Bob Kerrey (D,. Neb) et Chuck Hagel (R,. Neb) et premier initiai by Non plus Grande Chérie dans 1997 : À 3 m de p.. Le local time, tout pour les Américains
"À volontairement et officieusement observe dans their own substantiellement un Moment de du remembrance et du respect, arrêtant de whatever ils sommes en train de faire pour un moment de du silence ou écoutant 'Taps. '"
© Imprime et Photographie Division, [LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]
Sunday, May 28, 2006
EMERGENCY DRINKING WATER
Most of us have a "blackout" supply of flashlights and other battery operated conveniences in the event of electrical outage.
Here is information on how to store water in an emergency.
There's more to it than you might think!
Link: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/emergwatersuppl.html
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Hudson Yards Eminent Domain App. Div. decision, May 25, 2006
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 05:15:31 -0400
To:
From: "Tenant" tenant@tenant.net
Subject: Hudson Yards Eminent Domain App. Div. decision, May 25, 2006
Matter of C/S 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York
2006 NY Slip Op 04172
Decided on May 25, 2006
Appellate Division, First Department
Malone, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law � 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on May 25, 2006
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
First Judicial Department
Richard T. Andrias,J.P.
David B. Saxe
David Friedman
Milton L. Williams
Bernard J. Malone, Jr., JJ.
7926- 7927 [M-6216]- 7928 [M-6217]- 7929 [M-6228]- 7930 [M-6230]
[*1] In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, Petitioner, --
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, Petitioner, [*2]
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, et al., Respondents.
In these original proceedings pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, petitioners challenge the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which approved the acquisition of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project commonly referred to as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (James G. Greilsheimer, Cynthia B. Lovinger and Jesse Strauss of counsel), for C/S 12th Avenue LLC, petitioner.
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C., New York (Michael Rikon and Jonathan Houghton of counsel), for Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. and Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., petitioners.
Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., New York (Robert A. Rubenfeld and Richard Ciacci of counsel), for 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, petitioner.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York (Stanley Parness and Deborah L. Goldstein of counsel), for Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, petitioner.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (William Plache, Lisa Bova-Hiatt, Rochelle Cohen, Fred Kolikoff and Chris Reo of counsel), for The City of New York, respondent.
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York (John R. Casolaro, Joseph M. Ryan and Susan B. Kalib of counsel), for The City of New York and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, respondents. [*3]
MALONE, J.
In these five original consolidated proceedings commenced pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 207, petitioners ask this Court to reject, annul and set aside the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan Transportation Authority published October 3 and 4, 2005, which approved the acquisition of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project commonly referred to as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program (the Project). For the following reasons, we confirm the Determination and Findings and dismiss these five proceedings.
The purpose of the Project is to revitalize and transform the 300-acre area known as the Hudson Yards into a modern, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use extension of Midtown Manhattan, extending from West 24th to 43rd Streets between Seventh Avenue and the Hudson River Park on the West Side of Midtown Manhattan. As reflected in the seven-volume Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), the proposed action of the City and the MTA, as co-lead agencies, consisted of: (1) adopting zoning amendments to permit the development of the Hudson Yards as a mixed-use community; (2) extending the No. 7 subway line from its current terminus at Times Square to a new terminus at West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue; (3) expanding the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center; and (4) erecting a new multi-use facility for sports, entertainment and exposition that would house the New York Jets. The DGEIS also envisioned the creation of two major public open spaces: a park and boulevard system located in the mid-blocks between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from West 33rd to 39th Streets with a pedestrian connection to West 42nd Street and a subsurface public parking garage under a portion of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 34th to 36th Streets, and a park on the block between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues and West 29th and 30th Streets (Block 675).
On September 23, 2004, the City and the MTA held a joint public hearing pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)(Environmental Conservation Law article 8), the New York City Environmental Quality Review procedures (CEQR)(62 RCNY 5-01, et seq.) and the New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)(NY City Charter � 197-c) to receive public comment on the DGEIS for consideration in the preparation of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS). Containing more than 8,000 pages of text, technical appendices, and summaries of and responses to public comments received on the DGEIS, the FGEIS evaluated the potentially significant environmental impacts of all of the elements of the Project, including the multi-use stadium. In addition, the FGEIS assessed the comparative impacts of 21 alternatives in 24 categories [FN1] for the reasonable worst case, i.e., range [*4]of effects that might occur if all proposed elements were approved and developed. Of the 21 alternatives, eight did not include the multi-use stadium.
On November 10, 2004, the FGEIS was accepted by the co-lead agencies and made available for public consideration. A "Co-Lead Agencies Findings Statement" under SEQRA and CEQR (Findings Statement) was adopted by the MTA and The New York City Planning Commission, respectively, on November 18 and 22, 2004. On January 19, 2005, the City Council issued its own SEQRA/CEQR findings statement as part of its approval of the ULURP applications, which, inter alia, implemented a rezoning plan and allowed for acquisition of the necessary property.
By notice dated May 20, 2005, respondents advised the public that they would conduct a hearing pursuant to EDPL article 2 on June 16, 2005 "to consider the proposed acquisition by condemnation of certain property in furtherance of the proposed [Project]." However, specifically removed from the table for discussion were the Stadium and the Javits Convention Center as well as their respective financing costs and benefits [FN2]. Petitioners and others spoke at the hearing and/or submitted written comments within the allowable period.
On October 3 and 4, 2005, respondents issued and published their Determination and Findings which specifically limited their approval of the Project to three components: phase 1 for the construction of the extension of the No. 7 subway line; phase 2 for the creation of a mid-block park and boulevard system running between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 33rd to 39th Streets with a subsurface public parking garage under a portion of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 34th to 36th Streets; and phase 3 for the creation of a new active recreation park on Block 675 and possibly certain relocated municipal facilities which could be placed beneath it.
On November 2 and 3, 2005, five petitions were filed in this Court challenging the Determination and Findings. Petitioner Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC (Milstein) owns property (temporary easements) subject to condemnation in Phase 1; petitioners Mercedes-Benz Manhattan (Mercedes) and 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC (522 LLC) own property subject to condemnation in Phase 2; and petitioners C/S 12th Avenue LLC (C/S) and Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. (Valeray) own property subject to condemnation in Phase 3.
Our scope of review in reviewing the Determination and Findings in these EDPL [*5]proceedings is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state constitutions; (2) the proposed acquisition was within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority; (3) the condemnor's Determination and Findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and SEQRA; and (4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition (EDPL 207[C]; Matter of West 41st St. Realty v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 298 AD2d 1, 3 [2002], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 727 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1191 [2003]).
SEQRA Review- EDPL 207(c)(3)
"[J]udicial review of a SEQRA determination is limited to determining whether the challenged determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or was the product of a violation of lawful procedure" (Matter of Village of Tarrytown v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 292 AD2d 617, 619 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]). "[T]he courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'" (Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570 [1990], quoting Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 416 [1986]).
Petitioners' SEQRA claims, served on or about November 2-3, 2005, were within the 30-day statute of limitations to seek Appellate Division review of the section 204 Determination and Findings published October 3 and 4, 2005 (EDPL 207[A]), but are without merit.
We find that respondents satisfied their obligations under SEQRA by taking a "hard look" at the anticipated areas of environmental concern of the proposed project and making a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for their determination (see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417; Matter of Village of Tarrytown, 292 AD2d at 620). During the extensive review process, the lead agencies held scoping sessions, accepted the DGEIS and FGEIS and reviewed input from the community and experts before reaching their environmental findings (cf. e.g. Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690 [1996]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 298 AD2d 806, 808 [2002]).
In addition, the FGEIS's consideration of 21 worst case scenarios in 24 categories, including eight which did not include the multi-use stadium, satisfied the substantive requirements of SEQRA. To be sure, " [n]ot every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be identified and addressed'" (Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417); all that is required is that the agency analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (Matter of Halpern v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777 [2005], appeal dismissed __ NY3d __ [2006], 2006 NY LEXIS 1265). Upon the meeting of this standard, "judicial inquiry is at an end" (id.).
The elimination of the stadium and convention center expansion did not render respondents' reliance on the FGEIS improper. The mere fact that a project has changed does not necessarily give rise to the need for the preparation of a supplemental EIS (SEIS). An SEIS is required only if environmentally significant modifications are made after issuance of an FEIS (see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 429-430). However, whether or not a modification is [*6]"significant" is for the agency to decide, after identifying the relevant areas of concern, again taking a "hard look" at the potential impacts, and making a reasoned elaboration for the basis of its determination (id.). The FGEIS determined that high attendance events at the stadium and convention center would result in significant adverse traffic events approximately 19 times a year; however, commercial and residential development due to rezoning would result in more significant adverse traffic impacts during weekday peak hours. Further, the FGEIS estimated that the stadium would create 6,710 new jobs, generating $54 million in State and City tax revenues while the new commercial and residential development would create 225,941 new jobs and generate $1.628 billion in State and City tax revenues (using 2003 dollars). The FGEIS analysis of the rezoning and expansion of the No. 7 subway line with the stadium makes it clear that the stadium, while arguably the most controversial element of the proposed project, was not the Project's centerpiece.
EDPL 204
We reject as premature petitioner Milstein's claim that the Determination was not compliant with EDPL 204 insofar as it failed to adequately apprise it of the nature, timing and extent of the easement upon its property. EDPL 204(B)(2) requires only that the approximate location and the reasons for the location selection for the proposed project be set forth (see Matter of Wechsler v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 76 NY2d 923, 927 [1990]; Matter of Kaufmann's Carousel v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 AD2d 292, 302 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]). Extreme accuracy is not required. At the public hearing, it was explained that "[t]he temporary easement interests are being sought primarily to allow for the structural stabilization of the subway tunnel during the construction." Only as the process unfolds will it be possible to determine precisely where the shaft walls must be stabilized to prevent a collapse. Given the complexity of the subway tunnel construction process and the nature of the subsurface easements, the Determination and Findings provide reasonable specificity as to the extent and duration of the easements.
Constitutional Issues
Two main constitutional issues are raised on this appeal: whether the rezoning plan constitutes an unconstitutional (1) regulatory taking because it renders the property incapable of producing a reasonable return, interferes with petitioners' investment-backed expectations regarding the property, and deprives petitioners of economically beneficial and productive use of the property for a period up to ten years; or (2) "reverse spot zoning" because it singles out their property for a use classification different from that of the surrounding areas. We find that it does not.
Mercedes and 522 LLC's claim that the ten-year restriction diminishes the economic value of their property, thereby constituting an illegal regulatory taking, cannot be pursued in an EDPL 207 proceeding. The regulatory taking at issue arises in the context of a proposed condemnation and is not based on an isolated zoning regulation. Accordingly, New York's procedure for the pursuit of just compensation claims, EDPL 101, et seq., fulfills all constitutional requirements (see HBP Assoc. v Marsh, 893 F Supp 271, 278 [1995]). Because there is an adequate mechanism to seek compensation, including an inverse condemnation claim [*7](see Niagara Frontier Bldg. Corp. v State of New York, 33 AD2d 130, 133 [1969], affd 28 NY2d 755 [1971]), petitioners' recourse is limited to a plenary action, where the property owner must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the land regulation has destroyed the economic value of the property (St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 76-77 [1986]). Therefore, the purported regulatory taking is not a basis for rejecting the Determination and Findings.
As to petitioners' "reverse spot zoning" claim, the relevant inquiry in evaluating whether the subject zoning amendment withstands scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause is whether there is a rational relationship between the Phase 2 disparate treatment of petitioners' property owners and a legitimate governmental purpose (see Peck Slip Assoc. v City Council of the City of NY, 26 AD3d 209 [2006]). Reverse spot zoning is "a land-use decision which arbitrarily singles out a particular parcel for different, less favorable treatment than the neighboring ones" (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, 438 US 104, 132 [1978]).
" Zoning legislation is tested not by whether it defines a well-considered plan, but by whether it accords with a well-considered plan for the community'" (Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods., 87 NY2d 668, supra at 684-685, quoting Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]). The essential purpose of this requirement is to "guard against ad hoc zoning legislation affecting the land of a few without proper regard to the needs or design of the community as a whole" (id. at 685). However, a municipality may change its zoning ordinance to promote the general welfare and to respond to changed conditions in the community so long as the change does not conflict with the fundamental land use policies and development plans of the community" (id.).
The rezoning for creation of a mid-block boulevard and park is, we find, "part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community" (Henderson Taxpayers Assn. v Town of Henderson, 283 AD2d 940, 940-942 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 96 NY2d 719 [2001]). It will expand the limited amount of public open space in the Project area, create a continuous north-south pedestrian route from a large public square south of 33rd Street to a pedestrian bridge leading to 42nd Street and will permit a connection to the High Line open space to the south. It will also serve to distinguish the large scale commercial and entertainment uses along Eleventh Avenue from the lower density residential uses along Tenth Avenue.
Statutory Jurisdiction/Authority
Respondents' total condemnation of the Mercedes property, which consists of two garage structures, only a portion of which are depicted in the proposal, was reasonable. Respondents state that partial condemnation is not feasible where, as here, the very process used to demolish portions of the building could be expected to affect the stability of the remaining portions of the building. We see no basis for interfering with respondents' broad discretion in deciding the extent of the property necessary
for the project (see Gyrodyne Co. of Am. v State University of N.Y., 17 AD3d 675, 676 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; Matter of City of Mechanicville v Town of Halfmoon, 23 AD3d 897, 899 [2005]).
We also reject petitioners' claim that the Determination and Findings constitute an ultra [*8]vires act because the City did not approve a taking for unspecified facilities in accordance with ULURP procedures (City Charter � 197-c[a][1]). A reading of the Determination and Findings as a whole makes clear that the "other municipal facilities" mentioned are the DSNY garage and NYPD tow pound, the very uses the City approved under a separate ULURP application. Thus, the acquisition of Block 675 for a new recreation park, clearly authorized under ULURP, withstands constitutional scrutiny.
Public Use
Absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, courts have been reluctant to interfere with a condemning authority's determination that a particular site is needed for a public purpose (Kelo v City of New London, __ US __, 125 S Ct 2655, 2661 [2005]). In New York, the term "public use" broadly encompasses any use, including urban renewal, which contributes to the health, safety and general welfare of the public (see Matter of New York City Hous. Auth. v Muller, 270 NY 333, 340 [1936]). Thus, our review is limited to ascertain whether the project is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose (see Matter of West 41st St. Realty, 298 AD2d 1, supra at 6). We find that it is.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Zoning Board was not required to analyze so-called cumulative impacts of the proposed project in connection with the development of Pier 76, a project unrelated to and outside the overall proposed plan (see Matter of Settco v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 305 AD2d 1026, 1027 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003], citing, inter alia, Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 NY2d 500, 513-515 [1992]; see also Matter of North Fork Envtl. Council v Janoski, 196 AD2d 590, 591 [1993]). The fact that Pier 76 may be the site of commercial development does not call into question the public purpose of the proposed plan (see Matter of Murray v LaGuardia, 291 NY 320, 329-330 [1943], cert denied 321 US 771 [1944]). Moreover, just because a private party somehow benefits from the condemnation of property to be used for a public purpose is an insufficient basis to reject a condemnation (see Vitucci v New York City School Constr. Auth., 289 AD2d 479 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]; Matter of Board of Coop. Ed. Servs. v Town of Colonie, 268 AD2d 838, 841 [2000]).
We have considered petitioners' remaining claims and reject them as having insufficient legal merit.
Accordingly, the petitions filed in this Court on or about November 2, 2005, pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, challenging the resolution of respondents made after a hearing which approved a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in connection with [*9]certain real property, should be denied, respondents' determinations confirmed, and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.
M-6609
M-6829
M-6830
M-6836
M-6869 - In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, et al. v The City of New
York, et al.
Motion seeking dismissal denied. Cross motions seeking leave to re-serve, to extend time to serve and for other related relief denied.
All concur.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 25, 2006
CLERK
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The 24 categories were: land use, zoning and public policy; socioeconomics; community facilities and services; open space and recreational facilities; shadows; architectural historic resources; archaeological resources; urban design and visual resources; neighborhood character; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront revitalization; infrastructure; solid waste and sanitation services; energy; traffic and parking; transit and pedestrians; air quality; noise and vibration; construction impacts; public health; unavoidable adverse impacts; growth-inducing impacts; and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
Footnote 2:On or about June 6, 2005, the Public Authorities Control Board failed to approve the plan for the multi-use stadium, thereby eliminating it from the Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm) : http://tenant.net
email: tenant@tenant.net
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant activists and is not considered legal advice.
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
To:
From: "Tenant" tenant@tenant.net
Subject: Hudson Yards Eminent Domain App. Div. decision, May 25, 2006
Matter of C/S 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York
2006 NY Slip Op 04172
Decided on May 25, 2006
Appellate Division, First Department
Malone, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law � 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on May 25, 2006
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
First Judicial Department
Richard T. Andrias,J.P.
David B. Saxe
David Friedman
Milton L. Williams
Bernard J. Malone, Jr., JJ.
7926- 7927 [M-6216]- 7928 [M-6217]- 7929 [M-6228]- 7930 [M-6230]
[*1] In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, Petitioner, --
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, Petitioner, [*2]
v
The City of New York, Respondent.
In re Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, Petitioner,
v
The City of New York, et al., Respondents.
In these original proceedings pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, petitioners challenge the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which approved the acquisition of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project commonly referred to as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (James G. Greilsheimer, Cynthia B. Lovinger and Jesse Strauss of counsel), for C/S 12th Avenue LLC, petitioner.
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C., New York (Michael Rikon and Jonathan Houghton of counsel), for Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. and Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., petitioners.
Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., New York (Robert A. Rubenfeld and Richard Ciacci of counsel), for 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC, petitioner.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York (Stanley Parness and Deborah L. Goldstein of counsel), for Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC, petitioner.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (William Plache, Lisa Bova-Hiatt, Rochelle Cohen, Fred Kolikoff and Chris Reo of counsel), for The City of New York, respondent.
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York (John R. Casolaro, Joseph M. Ryan and Susan B. Kalib of counsel), for The City of New York and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, respondents. [*3]
MALONE, J.
In these five original consolidated proceedings commenced pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 207, petitioners ask this Court to reject, annul and set aside the Determination and Findings of respondents City of New York and Metropolitan Transportation Authority published October 3 and 4, 2005, which approved the acquisition of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project commonly referred to as the No. 7 Subway Extension Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program (the Project). For the following reasons, we confirm the Determination and Findings and dismiss these five proceedings.
The purpose of the Project is to revitalize and transform the 300-acre area known as the Hudson Yards into a modern, pedestrian-friendly, multi-use extension of Midtown Manhattan, extending from West 24th to 43rd Streets between Seventh Avenue and the Hudson River Park on the West Side of Midtown Manhattan. As reflected in the seven-volume Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), the proposed action of the City and the MTA, as co-lead agencies, consisted of: (1) adopting zoning amendments to permit the development of the Hudson Yards as a mixed-use community; (2) extending the No. 7 subway line from its current terminus at Times Square to a new terminus at West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue; (3) expanding the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center; and (4) erecting a new multi-use facility for sports, entertainment and exposition that would house the New York Jets. The DGEIS also envisioned the creation of two major public open spaces: a park and boulevard system located in the mid-blocks between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from West 33rd to 39th Streets with a pedestrian connection to West 42nd Street and a subsurface public parking garage under a portion of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 34th to 36th Streets, and a park on the block between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues and West 29th and 30th Streets (Block 675).
On September 23, 2004, the City and the MTA held a joint public hearing pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)(Environmental Conservation Law article 8), the New York City Environmental Quality Review procedures (CEQR)(62 RCNY 5-01, et seq.) and the New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)(NY City Charter � 197-c) to receive public comment on the DGEIS for consideration in the preparation of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS). Containing more than 8,000 pages of text, technical appendices, and summaries of and responses to public comments received on the DGEIS, the FGEIS evaluated the potentially significant environmental impacts of all of the elements of the Project, including the multi-use stadium. In addition, the FGEIS assessed the comparative impacts of 21 alternatives in 24 categories [FN1] for the reasonable worst case, i.e., range [*4]of effects that might occur if all proposed elements were approved and developed. Of the 21 alternatives, eight did not include the multi-use stadium.
On November 10, 2004, the FGEIS was accepted by the co-lead agencies and made available for public consideration. A "Co-Lead Agencies Findings Statement" under SEQRA and CEQR (Findings Statement) was adopted by the MTA and The New York City Planning Commission, respectively, on November 18 and 22, 2004. On January 19, 2005, the City Council issued its own SEQRA/CEQR findings statement as part of its approval of the ULURP applications, which, inter alia, implemented a rezoning plan and allowed for acquisition of the necessary property.
By notice dated May 20, 2005, respondents advised the public that they would conduct a hearing pursuant to EDPL article 2 on June 16, 2005 "to consider the proposed acquisition by condemnation of certain property in furtherance of the proposed [Project]." However, specifically removed from the table for discussion were the Stadium and the Javits Convention Center as well as their respective financing costs and benefits [FN2]. Petitioners and others spoke at the hearing and/or submitted written comments within the allowable period.
On October 3 and 4, 2005, respondents issued and published their Determination and Findings which specifically limited their approval of the Project to three components: phase 1 for the construction of the extension of the No. 7 subway line; phase 2 for the creation of a mid-block park and boulevard system running between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 33rd to 39th Streets with a subsurface public parking garage under a portion of this property between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues from 34th to 36th Streets; and phase 3 for the creation of a new active recreation park on Block 675 and possibly certain relocated municipal facilities which could be placed beneath it.
On November 2 and 3, 2005, five petitions were filed in this Court challenging the Determination and Findings. Petitioner Milstein Brothers 42nd Street, LLC (Milstein) owns property (temporary easements) subject to condemnation in Phase 1; petitioners Mercedes-Benz Manhattan (Mercedes) and 522 W. 38th St. NY LLC (522 LLC) own property subject to condemnation in Phase 2; and petitioners C/S 12th Avenue LLC (C/S) and Valeray Real Estate Co., Inc. (Valeray) own property subject to condemnation in Phase 3.
Our scope of review in reviewing the Determination and Findings in these EDPL [*5]proceedings is limited to whether (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state constitutions; (2) the proposed acquisition was within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority; (3) the condemnor's Determination and Findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and SEQRA; and (4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition (EDPL 207[C]; Matter of West 41st St. Realty v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 298 AD2d 1, 3 [2002], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 727 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1191 [2003]).
SEQRA Review- EDPL 207(c)(3)
"[J]udicial review of a SEQRA determination is limited to determining whether the challenged determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or was the product of a violation of lawful procedure" (Matter of Village of Tarrytown v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 292 AD2d 617, 619 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]). "[T]he courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'" (Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570 [1990], quoting Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 416 [1986]).
Petitioners' SEQRA claims, served on or about November 2-3, 2005, were within the 30-day statute of limitations to seek Appellate Division review of the section 204 Determination and Findings published October 3 and 4, 2005 (EDPL 207[A]), but are without merit.
We find that respondents satisfied their obligations under SEQRA by taking a "hard look" at the anticipated areas of environmental concern of the proposed project and making a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for their determination (see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417; Matter of Village of Tarrytown, 292 AD2d at 620). During the extensive review process, the lead agencies held scoping sessions, accepted the DGEIS and FGEIS and reviewed input from the community and experts before reaching their environmental findings (cf. e.g. Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690 [1996]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 298 AD2d 806, 808 [2002]).
In addition, the FGEIS's consideration of 21 worst case scenarios in 24 categories, including eight which did not include the multi-use stadium, satisfied the substantive requirements of SEQRA. To be sure, " [n]ot every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be identified and addressed'" (Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 417); all that is required is that the agency analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (Matter of Halpern v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777 [2005], appeal dismissed __ NY3d __ [2006], 2006 NY LEXIS 1265). Upon the meeting of this standard, "judicial inquiry is at an end" (id.).
The elimination of the stadium and convention center expansion did not render respondents' reliance on the FGEIS improper. The mere fact that a project has changed does not necessarily give rise to the need for the preparation of a supplemental EIS (SEIS). An SEIS is required only if environmentally significant modifications are made after issuance of an FEIS (see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 429-430). However, whether or not a modification is [*6]"significant" is for the agency to decide, after identifying the relevant areas of concern, again taking a "hard look" at the potential impacts, and making a reasoned elaboration for the basis of its determination (id.). The FGEIS determined that high attendance events at the stadium and convention center would result in significant adverse traffic events approximately 19 times a year; however, commercial and residential development due to rezoning would result in more significant adverse traffic impacts during weekday peak hours. Further, the FGEIS estimated that the stadium would create 6,710 new jobs, generating $54 million in State and City tax revenues while the new commercial and residential development would create 225,941 new jobs and generate $1.628 billion in State and City tax revenues (using 2003 dollars). The FGEIS analysis of the rezoning and expansion of the No. 7 subway line with the stadium makes it clear that the stadium, while arguably the most controversial element of the proposed project, was not the Project's centerpiece.
EDPL 204
We reject as premature petitioner Milstein's claim that the Determination was not compliant with EDPL 204 insofar as it failed to adequately apprise it of the nature, timing and extent of the easement upon its property. EDPL 204(B)(2) requires only that the approximate location and the reasons for the location selection for the proposed project be set forth (see Matter of Wechsler v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 76 NY2d 923, 927 [1990]; Matter of Kaufmann's Carousel v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 AD2d 292, 302 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]). Extreme accuracy is not required. At the public hearing, it was explained that "[t]he temporary easement interests are being sought primarily to allow for the structural stabilization of the subway tunnel during the construction." Only as the process unfolds will it be possible to determine precisely where the shaft walls must be stabilized to prevent a collapse. Given the complexity of the subway tunnel construction process and the nature of the subsurface easements, the Determination and Findings provide reasonable specificity as to the extent and duration of the easements.
Constitutional Issues
Two main constitutional issues are raised on this appeal: whether the rezoning plan constitutes an unconstitutional (1) regulatory taking because it renders the property incapable of producing a reasonable return, interferes with petitioners' investment-backed expectations regarding the property, and deprives petitioners of economically beneficial and productive use of the property for a period up to ten years; or (2) "reverse spot zoning" because it singles out their property for a use classification different from that of the surrounding areas. We find that it does not.
Mercedes and 522 LLC's claim that the ten-year restriction diminishes the economic value of their property, thereby constituting an illegal regulatory taking, cannot be pursued in an EDPL 207 proceeding. The regulatory taking at issue arises in the context of a proposed condemnation and is not based on an isolated zoning regulation. Accordingly, New York's procedure for the pursuit of just compensation claims, EDPL 101, et seq., fulfills all constitutional requirements (see HBP Assoc. v Marsh, 893 F Supp 271, 278 [1995]). Because there is an adequate mechanism to seek compensation, including an inverse condemnation claim [*7](see Niagara Frontier Bldg. Corp. v State of New York, 33 AD2d 130, 133 [1969], affd 28 NY2d 755 [1971]), petitioners' recourse is limited to a plenary action, where the property owner must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the land regulation has destroyed the economic value of the property (St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 76-77 [1986]). Therefore, the purported regulatory taking is not a basis for rejecting the Determination and Findings.
As to petitioners' "reverse spot zoning" claim, the relevant inquiry in evaluating whether the subject zoning amendment withstands scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause is whether there is a rational relationship between the Phase 2 disparate treatment of petitioners' property owners and a legitimate governmental purpose (see Peck Slip Assoc. v City Council of the City of NY, 26 AD3d 209 [2006]). Reverse spot zoning is "a land-use decision which arbitrarily singles out a particular parcel for different, less favorable treatment than the neighboring ones" (Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v City of New York, 438 US 104, 132 [1978]).
" Zoning legislation is tested not by whether it defines a well-considered plan, but by whether it accords with a well-considered plan for the community'" (Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods., 87 NY2d 668, supra at 684-685, quoting Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]). The essential purpose of this requirement is to "guard against ad hoc zoning legislation affecting the land of a few without proper regard to the needs or design of the community as a whole" (id. at 685). However, a municipality may change its zoning ordinance to promote the general welfare and to respond to changed conditions in the community so long as the change does not conflict with the fundamental land use policies and development plans of the community" (id.).
The rezoning for creation of a mid-block boulevard and park is, we find, "part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community" (Henderson Taxpayers Assn. v Town of Henderson, 283 AD2d 940, 940-942 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 96 NY2d 719 [2001]). It will expand the limited amount of public open space in the Project area, create a continuous north-south pedestrian route from a large public square south of 33rd Street to a pedestrian bridge leading to 42nd Street and will permit a connection to the High Line open space to the south. It will also serve to distinguish the large scale commercial and entertainment uses along Eleventh Avenue from the lower density residential uses along Tenth Avenue.
Statutory Jurisdiction/Authority
Respondents' total condemnation of the Mercedes property, which consists of two garage structures, only a portion of which are depicted in the proposal, was reasonable. Respondents state that partial condemnation is not feasible where, as here, the very process used to demolish portions of the building could be expected to affect the stability of the remaining portions of the building. We see no basis for interfering with respondents' broad discretion in deciding the extent of the property necessary
for the project (see Gyrodyne Co. of Am. v State University of N.Y., 17 AD3d 675, 676 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; Matter of City of Mechanicville v Town of Halfmoon, 23 AD3d 897, 899 [2005]).
We also reject petitioners' claim that the Determination and Findings constitute an ultra [*8]vires act because the City did not approve a taking for unspecified facilities in accordance with ULURP procedures (City Charter � 197-c[a][1]). A reading of the Determination and Findings as a whole makes clear that the "other municipal facilities" mentioned are the DSNY garage and NYPD tow pound, the very uses the City approved under a separate ULURP application. Thus, the acquisition of Block 675 for a new recreation park, clearly authorized under ULURP, withstands constitutional scrutiny.
Public Use
Absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, courts have been reluctant to interfere with a condemning authority's determination that a particular site is needed for a public purpose (Kelo v City of New London, __ US __, 125 S Ct 2655, 2661 [2005]). In New York, the term "public use" broadly encompasses any use, including urban renewal, which contributes to the health, safety and general welfare of the public (see Matter of New York City Hous. Auth. v Muller, 270 NY 333, 340 [1936]). Thus, our review is limited to ascertain whether the project is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose (see Matter of West 41st St. Realty, 298 AD2d 1, supra at 6). We find that it is.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Zoning Board was not required to analyze so-called cumulative impacts of the proposed project in connection with the development of Pier 76, a project unrelated to and outside the overall proposed plan (see Matter of Settco v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 305 AD2d 1026, 1027 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003], citing, inter alia, Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 NY2d 500, 513-515 [1992]; see also Matter of North Fork Envtl. Council v Janoski, 196 AD2d 590, 591 [1993]). The fact that Pier 76 may be the site of commercial development does not call into question the public purpose of the proposed plan (see Matter of Murray v LaGuardia, 291 NY 320, 329-330 [1943], cert denied 321 US 771 [1944]). Moreover, just because a private party somehow benefits from the condemnation of property to be used for a public purpose is an insufficient basis to reject a condemnation (see Vitucci v New York City School Constr. Auth., 289 AD2d 479 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]; Matter of Board of Coop. Ed. Servs. v Town of Colonie, 268 AD2d 838, 841 [2000]).
We have considered petitioners' remaining claims and reject them as having insufficient legal merit.
Accordingly, the petitions filed in this Court on or about November 2, 2005, pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law 207, challenging the resolution of respondents made after a hearing which approved a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in connection with [*9]certain real property, should be denied, respondents' determinations confirmed, and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.
M-6609
M-6829
M-6830
M-6836
M-6869 - In re C/S 12th Avenue LLC, et al. v The City of New
York, et al.
Motion seeking dismissal denied. Cross motions seeking leave to re-serve, to extend time to serve and for other related relief denied.
All concur.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 25, 2006
CLERK
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The 24 categories were: land use, zoning and public policy; socioeconomics; community facilities and services; open space and recreational facilities; shadows; architectural historic resources; archaeological resources; urban design and visual resources; neighborhood character; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront revitalization; infrastructure; solid waste and sanitation services; energy; traffic and parking; transit and pedestrians; air quality; noise and vibration; construction impacts; public health; unavoidable adverse impacts; growth-inducing impacts; and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
Footnote 2:On or about June 6, 2005, the Public Authorities Control Board failed to approve the plan for the multi-use stadium, thereby eliminating it from the Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm) : http://tenant.net
email: tenant@tenant.net
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant activists and is not considered legal advice.
DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Friday, May 26, 2006
Chris Bell wrote:
From: "Chris Bell" cbell@cb11m.org
To: "'J Reyes-Montblanc'" reysmont@yahoo.com
Subject: El Barrio week press release 5 25 06 FINAL
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:16:16 -0400
Contact: Kathleen Benson, Chair
Hector Santana, Founder
917-492-3329 347-558-1390
East Harlem Celebrates
�El Barrio Week�
June 3-13, 2006
U.S. Representative Charles Rangel,
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer,
NYC Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito,
and representatives from the offices of NY State Senator
Jos� Serrano and NY State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV
to appear at kick-off press conference, Wednesday, May 31 at 2 PM
The East Harlem Board of Tourism announces the third annual El Barrio Week, a series of events leading up to the annual Puerto Rican Day Parade on Sunday, June 11, 2006, and culminating at the Top of the Museum Mile Festival on Tuesday, June 13. Fifteen local organizations will present a host of exhibitions and programs to showcase the diversity and cultural treasures of the East Harlem/El Barrio neighborhood.
Organized by the East Harlem Board of Tourism, the third annual El Barrio Week will kick off with a press conference on Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 2 PM at MediaNoche Gallery, 161 East 106th Street (between Lexington & 3rd Avenue). U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, and Councilmember Melissa Mark Viverito, will launch the conference, and representatives of member organizations including the Association of Hispanic Arts, El Museo del Barrio, El Taller Boricua, Museum of the City of New York, and Manhattan Community Board 11 will be on hand to discuss this exciting ten-day showcase of the neighborhood�s treasures.
Highlights of El Barrio Week include:
� Saturday, June 3 � 11 AM-7 PM Galeria 106 Art/Health Expo
� Saturday, June 3 � 2:00 PM Performance: Flamenco Latino
� Saturday, June 3 � 2:00 PM Exhibit tour with artist Yasm�n Hern�ndez
� Saturday, June 3 � 3:00 PM Destination: El Barrio Walking Tour
� Saturday, June 3 � 9:00 PM Semilla - Mexican Folkloric Music
� Sunday, June 4 � 2:00 PM El Barrio Art Walk
� Saturday, June 10 � 12:00-7:00 PM 21st Annual East 116th Street Festival
� Tuesday, June 13 � 6:00-9:00 PM Museum Mile Festival
A complete list of El Barrio Week events is available by request or may be obtained at the May 31, 2006, press conference.
The East Harlem Board of Tourism is a not-for-profit organization composed of East Harlem arts, cultural, and civic groups, founded in July 2003 by business activists Hector Santana and the late Francisco Gomez. The Board�s mission includes the development of destinations, the creation of a tourism infrastructure, and the general promotion of tourism in East Harlem, New York City.
For more information on the East Harlem Board of Tourism, visit www.eastharlemtourism.org.
From: "Chris Bell" cbell@cb11m.org
To: "'J Reyes-Montblanc'" reysmont@yahoo.com
Subject: El Barrio week press release 5 25 06 FINAL
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:16:16 -0400
Contact: Kathleen Benson, Chair
Hector Santana, Founder
917-492-3329 347-558-1390
East Harlem Celebrates
�El Barrio Week�
June 3-13, 2006
U.S. Representative Charles Rangel,
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer,
NYC Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito,
and representatives from the offices of NY State Senator
Jos� Serrano and NY State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV
to appear at kick-off press conference, Wednesday, May 31 at 2 PM
The East Harlem Board of Tourism announces the third annual El Barrio Week, a series of events leading up to the annual Puerto Rican Day Parade on Sunday, June 11, 2006, and culminating at the Top of the Museum Mile Festival on Tuesday, June 13. Fifteen local organizations will present a host of exhibitions and programs to showcase the diversity and cultural treasures of the East Harlem/El Barrio neighborhood.
Organized by the East Harlem Board of Tourism, the third annual El Barrio Week will kick off with a press conference on Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 2 PM at MediaNoche Gallery, 161 East 106th Street (between Lexington & 3rd Avenue). U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, and Councilmember Melissa Mark Viverito, will launch the conference, and representatives of member organizations including the Association of Hispanic Arts, El Museo del Barrio, El Taller Boricua, Museum of the City of New York, and Manhattan Community Board 11 will be on hand to discuss this exciting ten-day showcase of the neighborhood�s treasures.
Highlights of El Barrio Week include:
� Saturday, June 3 � 11 AM-7 PM Galeria 106 Art/Health Expo
� Saturday, June 3 � 2:00 PM Performance: Flamenco Latino
� Saturday, June 3 � 2:00 PM Exhibit tour with artist Yasm�n Hern�ndez
� Saturday, June 3 � 3:00 PM Destination: El Barrio Walking Tour
� Saturday, June 3 � 9:00 PM Semilla - Mexican Folkloric Music
� Sunday, June 4 � 2:00 PM El Barrio Art Walk
� Saturday, June 10 � 12:00-7:00 PM 21st Annual East 116th Street Festival
� Tuesday, June 13 � 6:00-9:00 PM Museum Mile Festival
A complete list of El Barrio Week events is available by request or may be obtained at the May 31, 2006, press conference.
The East Harlem Board of Tourism is a not-for-profit organization composed of East Harlem arts, cultural, and civic groups, founded in July 2003 by business activists Hector Santana and the late Francisco Gomez. The Board�s mission includes the development of destinations, the creation of a tourism infrastructure, and the general promotion of tourism in East Harlem, New York City.
For more information on the East Harlem Board of Tourism, visit www.eastharlemtourism.org.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Che-Mart: Che Guevara T-Shirts, mugs, sweaters, buttons
OrbisConsult wrote:
From: OrbisConsult
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:49 EDT
Subject: Check out Che-Mart: Che Guevara T-Shirts, mugs, sweaters, buttons
To: OrbisConsult
Click here: Che-Mart: Che Guevara T-Shirts, mugs, sweaters, buttons
FYI,
The activists who run this site, a Russian American and an Irish American, are both from New York and have a great sense of humor. Some of the t-shirts are a little over the top for my taste, but some are just great.
Buy a t-shirt, help them out, and help debunk Che mythology.
Please circulate among your friends. It's a good way to counter Che pop culture.
Regards,
Maria
P.S. Attached see our list on victims of Che Guevara in Cuba.
File name: VICTIMS_OF_CHE_GUEVARA_IN_CUBA_1.21.06.doc File type: application/octet-stream Save to Yahoo! Briefcase - Download File - Need Help?
216 DOCUMENTED VICTIMS
OF CH� GUEVARA IN CUBA:
1957 TO 1959
CUBA ARCHIVE
From Armando M. Lago, Ph.D.�s
Cuba: The Human Cost of
Social Revolution
Manuscript Pending Publication
The exact number of Che�s victims in Cuba is unknown. Guevara is said to have acknowledged ordering many executions -all carried out without affording the victims due process of law. Combat deaths caused by Che in Cuba or other countries where he led guerrilla operations have yet to be tallied.
The following list is not exhaustive and includes only cases for which historic reference is known -those he personally executed as well as those killed under his orders. Names are cited as reported. Additional details, including bibliographic information, are available for most cases.
Executed by Che in the Sierra Maestra during the anti-Batista guerrilla struggle (1957-1958)
ARISTIDIO - 10-57
MANUEL CAPIT�N - 1957
JUAN CHANG - 9-57
�BISCO� ECHEVARR�A MART�NEZ - 8-57
EUTIMIO GUERRA - 2-18-57
DIONISIO LEBRIGIO - 9-57
JUAN LEBRIGIO - 9-57
�EL NEGRO� N�POLES - 2-18-57
�CHICHO� OSORIO - 1-17-57
UNIDENTIFIED TEACHER (�EL MAESTRO") - 9-57
11-12. 2 BROTHERS, SPIES FROM THE MASFERRER GROUP - 9-57
13-14. 2 UNIDENTIFIED PEASANTS - 4-57
Executed or sent for execution by Che during his brief command in Santa Clara (Jan. 1-3, 1959)
RAM�N ALBA - 1-3-59**
JOS� BARROSO- 1-59
JOAQU�N CASILLAS LUMPUY - 1-2-59**
F�LIX CRUZ - 1-1-59
ALEJANDRO GARC�A ALAY�N - 1-31-59**
H�CTOR MIRABAL - 1-59
J. MIRABAL- 1-59
F�LIX MONTANO - 1-59
CORNELIO ROJAS - 1-7-59**
VILALLA - 1-59
DOMINGO �LVAREZ MART�NEZ - 1-4-59**
CANO DEL PRIETO - 1-7-59**
JOSE FERN�NDEZ MART�NEZ-1-2-59
JOS� GRIZEL SEGURA - 1-7-59** ( Manacas)
ARTURO P�REZ P�REZ - 1-24-59**
RICARDO RODR�GUEZ P�REZ - 1-11-59**
FRANCISCO ROSELL - 1-11-59
IGNACIO ROSELL LEYVA - 1-11-59
ANTONIO RU�Z BELTR�N -1-11-59
RAM�N SANTOS GARC�A - 1-12-59
PEDRO SOCARR�S - 1-12-59**
MANUEL VALD�S - 1-59
TACE JOS� VEL�ZQUEZ - 12-59**
**Che signed the death penalty before leaving Santa Clara.
Executions documented for La Caba�a Fortress prison during Che�s command (January 3 to November 26, 1959)
VILAU ABREU - 7-3-59
HUMBERTO AGUIAR - 1959
GERM�N AGUIRRE - 1959
PELAYO ALAY�N - 2-59
JOS� LUIS ALFARO SIERRA - 7-1-59
PEDRO ALFARO - 7-25-59
MARIANO ALONSO - 7-1-59
JOS� ALVARO - 3-1-59
ALVARO ANGUIERA SU�REZ � 1-4-59
ANIELLA - 1959
MARIO ARES POLO - 1-2-59
JOS� RAM�N BACALLAO - 12-23-59**
SEVERINO BARRIOS - 12-9-59**
EUGENIO B�CQUER - 9-29-59
FRANCISCO B�CQUER - 7-2-59
RAM�N BISCET - 7-5-59
ROBERTO CALZADILLA - 1959
EUFEMIO CANO - 4-59
JUAN CAPOTE FIALLO - 5-1-59
ANTONIO CARRALERO - 2-4-59
GERTRUDIS CASTELLANOS - 5-7-59
JOS� CASTA�O QUEVEDO - 3-6-59
RA�L CASTA�O - 5-30-59
EUFEMIO CHALA - 12-16-59**
JOS� CHAMACE - 10-15-59
JOS� CHAMIZO - 3-59
RA�L CLAUSELL - 1-28-59
�NGEL CLAUSELL - 1-18-59
DEMETRIO CLAUSELL - 1-2-59
JOS� CLAUSELL � 1-29-59
ELOY CONTRERAS 1-18-59
ALBERTO CORBO - 12-7-59**
EMILIO CRUZ PEREZ - 12-7-59**
ORESTES CRUZ � 1959
ADALBERTO CUEVAS � 7-2-59**
CUNI - 1959
ANTONIO DE BECHE - 1-5-59
MATEO DELGADO - 12-4-59
ARMANDO DELGADO - 1-29-59
RAM�N DESPAIGNE - 1959
JOS� D�AZ CABEZAS - 7-30-59
FIDEL D�AZ MARQUINA � 4-9-59
ANTONIO DUARTE - 7-2-59
RAM�N FERN�NDEZ OJEDA - 5-29-59
RUDY FERN�NDEZ - 7-30-59
FERR�N ALFONSO - 1-12-59
SALVADOR FERRERO - 6-29-59
VICTOR FIGUEREDO - 1-59
EDUARDO FORTE - 3-20-59
UGARDE GAL�N - 1959
RAFAEL GARC�A MU�IZ - 1-20-59
ADALBERTO GARC�A - 6-6-59
ALBERTO GARC�A - 6-6-59
JACINTO GARC�A - 9-8-59
EVELIO GASPAR - 12-4-59**
ARMADA GIL Y DIEZ CABEZAS - 12-4-59**
JOS� GONZ�LEZ MALAG�N - 7-2-59
EVARISTO BENERIO GONZ�LEZ - 11-14-59
EZEQUIEL GONZ�LEZ - 1-59
SECUNDINO GONZ�LEZ - 1959
RICARDO LUIS GRAO - 2-3-59
RICARDO JOS� GRAU - -7-59
OSCAR GUERRA - 3-9-59
JULI�N HERN�NDEZ - 2-9-59
FRANCISCO HERN�NDEZ LEYVA - 4-15-59
ANTONIO HERN�NDEZ - 2-14-59
GERARDO HERN�NDEZ - 7-26-59
OLEGARIO HERN�NDEZ - 4-23-59
SECUNDINO HERN�NDEZ - 1-59
RODOLFO HERN�NDEZ FALC�N - 1.9.59
RA�L HERRERA � 2-18-59
JES�S INSUA - 7-30-59
ENRIQUE IZQUIERDO- 7-3-59
SILVINO JUNCO - 11-15-59
ENRIQUE LA ROSA - 1959
BONIFACIO LASAPARLA - 1959
JES�S LAZO OTA�O - 1959
ARIEL LIMA LAGO - 8-1-59 ( Minor)
RENE L�PEZ VIDAL - 7-3-59
ARMANDO MAS - 2-17-59
ONERLIO MATA � 1-30-59
EVELIO MATA RODRIGUEZ - 2-8-59
ELPIDIO MEDEROS - 1-9-59
JOS� MEDINA - 5-17-59
JOS� MESA - 7-23-59
FIDEL MESQU�A DIAZ - 7-11-59
JUAN MANUEL MILI�N - 1959
JOS� MILIAN P�REZ - 4-3-59
FRANCISCO MIRABAL - 5-29-59
LUIS MIRABAL - 1959
ERNESTO MORALES - 1959
PEDRO MOREJ�N - 3-59
DR. CARLOS MUI�O, M.D. - 1959
C�SAR NECOLARDES ROJAS - 1-7-59
VICTOR NECOLARDES ROJAS - 1-7-59
JOS� NU�EZ - 3-59
VITERBO O'REILLY - 2-27-59
F�LIX OVIEDO - 7-21-59
MANUEL PANEQUE - 8-16-59
PEDRO PEDROSO - 12-1-59**
DIEGO P�REZ CUESTA - 1959
JUAN P�REZ HERNANDEZ-5-29-59
DIEGO P�REZ CRELA - 04-03-59
JOS� POZO - 1959
EMILIO PUEBLA - 4-30-59
ALFREDO PUPO - 5-29-59
SECUNDINO RAM�REZ - 4-2-59
RAM�N RAMOS - 4-23-59
PABLO RAVELO JR. 9-15-59
RUB�N REY ALBEROLA- 2-27-59
MARIO RISQUELME - 1-29-59
FERNANDO RIVERA - 10-8-59
PABLO RIVERO - 5-59
MANUEL RODR�GUEZ - 3-1-59
MARCOS RODR�GUEZ - 7-31-59
NEMESIO RODR�GUEZ - 7-30-59
PABLO RODR�GUEZ - 10-1-59
RICARDO RODR�GUEZ - 5-29-59
OLEGARIO RODR�GUEZ FERN�NDEZ - 4.23.59
JOS� SALDARA - 11-9-59
PEDRO SANTANA - 2-59
SERGIO SIERRA - 1-9-59
JUAN SILVA - 8-59
FAUSTO SILVA � 1-29-59
ELPIDIO SOLER - 11-8-59
JES�S SOSA BLANCO - 2-8-59
RENATO SOSA - 6-28-59
SERGIO SOSA - 8-20-59
PEDRO SOTO - 3-20-59
OSCAR SU�REZ - 4-30-59
RAFAEL TARRAGO - 2-18-59
TEODORO TELLEZ CISNEROS - 1-3-59
FRANCISCO TELLEZ - 1-3-59
JOS� TIN - 1-12-59
FRANCISCO TRAVIESO - 1959
LEONARDO TRUJILLO - 2-27-59
TRUJILLO - 1959
LUPE VALD�S BARBOSA - 3-22-59
MARCELINO VALD�S - 7-21-59
ANTONIO VALENT�N - 3-22-59
MANUEL V�ZQUEZ - 3-22-59
SERGIO V�ZQUEZ - 5-29-59
VERDECIA - 1959
D�MASO ZAYAS - 7-23-59
JOS� ALVARADO - 4-22-59
LEONARDO BAR� - 1-12-59
RA�L CONCEPCI�N LIMA - 1959
ElADIO CARO - 1-4-59
CARPINTOR - 1959
CARLOS CORVO MART�NEZ - 1959
JUAN GUILLERMO COSS�O - 1959
CORPORAL ORTEGA - 7-11-59
JUAN MANUEL PRIETO - 1959
ANTONIO VALD�S MENA - 5-11-59
ESTEBAN LASTRA - 1-59
JUAN FELIPE CRUZ SERAFIN - 6-59**
BONIFACIO GRASSO - 7-59
FELICIANO ALMENARES - 12-8-59
ANTONIO BLANCO NAVARRO - 12-10-59**
ALBERTO CAROLA - 6-5-59
EVARISTO GUERRA - 2-8-59
CRIST�BAL MART�NEZ � 1-16-59
PEDRO RODR�GUEZ � 1-10-59
FRANCISCO TRUJILLO � 2-18-59
**The death sentence was signed by Che, but the execution was carried out after he left his command.
15 additional executions were reported by The New York Times, but names are unknown.
Information provided by
CUBA ARCHIVE, an initiative of the
FREE SOCIETY PROJECT, INC.
www.CubaArchive.org
P.O. Box 757
Summit, NJ 07902
Tel. 973.701-0520
Info@CubaArchive.org
Reproduction and distribution
of this material is authorized as
long as its source is cited.
Are you sick of seeing the face of a communist murderer everywhere? Does the sight of trust fund kids clad in "cool Che" t-shirts make your blood boil? Do you find it ironic that a dedicated communist has contributed to massive retail profiteering by capitalists t-shirt manufacturers? Then you've come to the right place. Here at Che-Mart we sell our t-shirts solely for capitalist pig profits. Please help us laugh all the way to the bank!
NB - Posted as a Public Service, the opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions or ideas of the Board, Officers or Members but are certainly reflective of my own individual personal opinions and ideas - JRM
Families Add 3rd Generation to Households
U.S.Families Add 3rd Generation to Households
By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: May 25, 2006
Tess Crescini keeps trying to limit her roommates to her fianc� and her dog, but so far she has failed miserably.
At the moment, Ms. Crescini, 51, and her fianc� are sharing her four-bedroom house in San Jose, Calif., with two of her three adult sons, a daughter-in-law, a 3-year-old granddaughter and a brother who comes and goes. Exorbitant housing costs, layoffs and children who yearn for family togetherness have coalesced to make her the head of a multigenerational household.
In a society where the most common type of household is led by those who live alone and where the scattered family is almost a cultural institution, many grandparents, adult children and grandchildren are gathering to live under the same roof.
The last census showed these "multigenerational households" � defined as those of three or more generations � growing faster than any other type of housing arrangement.
The number of multigenerational households is still relatively small: 4.2 million, or 4 percent of all types. But they grew by 38 percent from 1990 to 2000, and professionals in real estate and the building industry say the trend has accelerated since then.
Architects, developers and others in the industry are responding with home designs and planned communities that offer features suited for the different generations. At builder trade shows this year, model homes with names like Reality House have for the first time specifically catered to multigenerational living. Bedroom suites are designed with private entrances and porches, halls are wider to accommodate wheelchairs, and light switches are lower so they can be reached both by those in the wheelchairs and by children.
There are also bigger kitchens for social networking, as well as extra storage space for belongings that now range from toys to grandma's china.
"You see a lot more people dedicating a portion of their homes to loved ones," said Carlos Elenes of EBTA Architects in Irvine, Calif., who specializes in high-end homes and has worked on projects for adult children housing their parents and for grandparents sharing their home with children and grandchildren.
But fancy, multimillion-dollar homes are not the norm when generations choose to live together.
Census officials say multigenerational families are most common in states like California, where the high cost of housing forces families to double up, and in states where high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing lead to home sharing by the mother, her children and her parents.
A variety of cultural factors also draw and keep relatives together. Multigenerational living, especially those in which grandparents care for their grandchildren, have long been common in Asian and Hispanic countries, and the arrangement is popular among immigrants from those nations. Also driving the trend are � who else? � active baby boomers who want to be involved in the lives of their offspring and who see little appeal in flying off to a Sun Belt retirement in isolation.
"There's a financial aspect, but also people are realizing the importance of staying connected to their roots," said Donna M. Butts, executive director of Generations United, which promotes interaction among generations. "Families have been scattered for so many years, and there's a reversal of that trend."
Sixty-two percent of multigenerational households are led by the first generation � that is, the grandparents.
At a time when she would otherwise have been downsizing, Ann Bristow, 66, bought a two-bedroom condo in downtown Seattle in 2004 so she could share it with her 36-year-old daughter and 20-month-old granddaughter.
Ms. Bristow, who is divorced, said she had been retiring from her job as a university librarian in Indiana just as her youngest daughter became a single mother. They moved to Seattle, where Ms. Bristow's other daughter lives with her own family. Ending up together in one apartment, the multigen grandmother said, "was just a very natural move for me."
Ms. Bristow takes care of the baby part of the week while her daughter works as a teacher. "I love small children," she said. "I absolutely enjoy taking care of her. It's not a sacrifice."
The arrangement is also driven by finances: she is helping her daughter, who has gone back to school for a second master's degree and is saving money to settle down on her own.
Ms. Bristow said many of her contemporaries did not seem to understand. They view retirement as a time to pamper themselves, not to take on new responsibilities.
"Playing golf was not my vision," she said. "I envisioned myself very involved with family."
For those who have decided to regroup, family togetherness can create strains, prompting a need to navigate old relationships in a new way. It means establishing ground rules for cooking and cleaning, adapting to one another's tastes in movies and music, and being mindful not to usurp roles. In Ms. Bristow's case, mother and daughter seem to have fallen into their routines smoothly, and Ms. Bristow says her main concern is that her granddaughter knows who her mother is.
"That's a very important thing, that the emotional attachments and the authority are as clear as one can make them," she said.
Each household has its own tensions and rewards. Ms. Crescini, a real estate agent in San Jose, said she had forfeited two bedrooms, including one she had planned to use as a workout room, to her sons. And she misses "alone time" to write poetry and enjoy privacy with her fianc�, whom she plans to marry next month. "Try having a wild night with a house full of people," she said.
On the plus side, Ms. Crescini said, the family eats meals and watches movies together, her daughter-in-law is helping her coordinate her wedding, and her sons and brother have been busy building her a gazebo, a deck and an island grill station in the backyard.
"I go to Curves in the mornings," she said, "and I tell the ladies about my daily grind, and they say: 'You should count your blessings. Some children don't even visit for Thanksgiving' "
But "ideally," she said, "I'd like my sons to be independent."
Her oldest son, Michael Hovland, 29, has a slightly different wish. "Ideally," he said, "I'd like to buy a house right next to hers."
Mr. Hovland said he was glad that his daughter was growing up with her extended family and that he could benefit from the wisdom of "an elder who's been there and done that" in day-to-day matters.
"Family is, like, everything," he said. "If I had millions and millions of dollars, I'd buy land and have everybody live on it."
That would be a return to the custom of the 19th century, before the decline of farming and the exodus of adult children from their parents' homes to follow jobs, said Steven Ruggles, a historian who studies changes in the American family and directs the Minnesota Population Center, a research organization at the University of Minnesota.
Many social scientists, Dr. Ruggles said, also argue that Social Security contributed to the erosion of the multigenerational household, by enabling the elderly to afford living independently. He said the percentage of people over 65 living with their children dropped steadily from 1850 to 1990, when it began inching up.
Now, although multigenerational households are more common among low-income families, architects and builders are designing multimillion-dollar homes that cater to the more wealthy among this niche market, and owners of existing homes are adding 5,000 to 6,000 square feet to accommodate relatives.
In the market below $1 million, some real estate agents are seeing families with multiple wage-earners combining incomes and down payments to get the bigger house.
"When you show these homes, you have this large caravan" of up to 10 people, said Yvonne Rosas-Petty, a sales associate with Century 21 in Arcadia, Calif., a city with a large Asian population where multigenerational homes sell for $700,000 and up.
In some multigenerational households, the parent-child roles have been reversed.
Julie Kroloff, a 49-year-old head of household, moved her multigenerational family � a daughter, 8; a son, 7; and her 84-year-old mother � to a five-bedroom house in Four Corners, a new development in Dutchess County, N.Y., with planned amenities suited to more than one generation, including a general store, a pool, a gym and a meeting center.
Her mother helped take care of the children and opened up a whole new world to them, said Ms. Kroloff, who does management consulting for public works programs. Thanks to her, she said, they have watched old movies like "Arsenic and Old Lace" and learned to make popcorn the old-fashioned way, in corn oil in a pot.
But Ms. Kroloff also had to ask her mother to refrain from eating junk food in front of the children, to turn down the television when she watches past their bedtime and to give her space to spend time with her children and with friends who visit.
"You don't want her to tell stories about how constipated you were as a child," she said.
Since late last year, when her mother was found to have Alzheimer's disease, a home care attendant has taken care of grandmother and grandchildren alike.
Many of the arrangements are by nature temporary. Children grow up, grandparents die. In Seattle, Ms. Bristow said she and her daughter expected that they would probably part ways by the time her granddaughter begins school.
But, then again, they may end up back together.
"If I'm ill or unable to take care of myself," Ms. Bristow said, "she might invite me to move in with her."
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Harlem Brunch Cabaret
Come to the Big Apple Jazz
for our special Harlem Brunch Cabaret
11:30am to 2pm.
(The details for Sunday are below).
The following Sunday, June 4th is Claudine Rucker (tix $15.)
Big Apple Jazz Harlem Brunch Cabaret & Open Mic in EZ�s Woodshed
Vocalists, Christine Melton-Jordan and Friends
2236 Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd.
(7th Ave. between 131st &132nd Street)
www.bigapplejazz.com
Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:30AM to 2:00PM
Tickets $10(includes meal) !
Available at the Big Apple Jazz Store & on line now at
www.meltonpot.org
For More Information Call Melton Pot Productions
(212) 348-5415
*Seating is Limited*
Musicians, Singers, and Poets, bring your Instruments to perform at the Open Mic Segment...Children Welcome!...
Brunch Cabaret happens Every Sunday
Water Board: Water Rate Increase for Fiscal Year 2007
PUBLIC NOTICE
May 23, 2006
CONTACT: (718/595-3601)
Water Board: Water Rate Increase for Fiscal Year 2007
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Section 1045-j (9) of the Public Authorities Law, that after public hearings were held on May 1, 2 and 3, 2006, in accordance with the provisions of such law, the New York City Water Board (the �Board�) has, at its meeting held on May 12, 2006, adopted a resolution approving increases in water rates to users of the Water Supply System of the City of New York, for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2006, from those rates currently in effect, and making certain customer service and billing policy changes, as follows:
I. There will be a change from currently effective water and wastewater rates for services provided during the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2006.
Metered and unmetered water rates will increase by 9.4%. Wastewater charges will remain at 159% of water charges.
The regulated rate for water provided to municipalities and water districts outside of the City which does not exceed the allowance quantities set forth in Section 24-360 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York will increase by not more than 13% to approximately $700.00 per million gallons, and the rate charged for water provided to municipalities and water districts outside of the City which exceeds the allowance quantities of water set forth in Section 24-360 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York will be equal to the in-City metered rate of $2,419.79 per million gallons.
II. There will also be changes to certain billing policies and miscellaneous fees and charges.
Multiple Family Conservation Program (MCP) - The deadline for filing an application for the MCP, currently set forth as December 31, 2006, will be extended by two years to December 31, 2008. Other billing programs due to expire June 30, 2007 will also be extended two years to June 30, 2009.
Miscellaneous Fees for Wastewater Service � The current fee of $200 imposed when, at the request of a customer, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performs a dye test to determine the existence of a connection to the wastewater system will be extended to include any engineering field investigation performed in lieu of a dye test which determines the availability and/or condition of a wastewater connection.
Letter of Authorization (LOA) � A valid LOA must contain a statement that the owner hereby rescinds any previously issued LOA. In cases where an owner has authorized multiple representatives, DEP shall deem the latest dated LOA to be valid, superseding any earlier dated LOAs.
Existing Water Board and DEP policies and procedures will be iterated in the Rate Schedule in the interest of providing a more complete source of information to the Board�s customers including the following:
DEP�s responsibility for the maintenance and repair of water meters used for billing purposes does not extend to the building�s plumbing system, including but not limited to service lines, control valves, check valves, and internal piping which are the responsibility of the property owner. Accordingly, owners are responsible for ensuring that the building�s plumbing system is in an adequate state of repair so as to enable DEP to repair, upgrade or replace the meter.
Currently, DEP may assess a fee when a water meter requires repair or replacement due to the customer�s vandalism or other actions. The term �other actions� will be replaced with the more specific term �failure to reasonably protect the meter or components.�
Copies of the New York City Water Board Water and Wastewater Rate Schedule are available for inspection by the public during regular business hours at the offices of the New York City Water Board, 59-17 Junction Boulevard, 8th Floor, Flushing, NY 11373.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
