Upcoming hearings by the Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (as of 4.4.05).

Subj: Upcoming hearings by the Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (as of 4.4.05).
Date: 4/4/2005 6:42:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: bruce.lai@council.nyc.ny.us
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Hello All,

The passage of Reso. No. 669 (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/64798.htm), which calls for the wiring of all new affordable housing in NYC for broadband, received a substantial amount of press in the technology world. Here are links to some of those stories:

http://www.corante.com/newyork/archives/2005/03/14/affordable_and_universally_accessible_broadband_is_a_right_of_all_new_yorkers.php

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005/03/15/bushwick_gets_broadband.php#email

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/Feb/1120406.htm

In the past few weeks, we have had some very promising discussions with the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) on making more City-owned GIS data available to the general public. More details on this to come. To learn more about our recent GIS hearing, read the Gotham Gazette's story on the hearing as well as the briefing paper to the hearing.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/tech/20050301/19/

http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/64764.htm


The following is a link to the DoITT's strategic plan for the calendar year of 2005. Feel free to download and read.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/downloads/pdf/doitt_strategy_cy2005.pdf
*****

The following is a list of our upcoming hearings. Please note that all Committee hearings are open to the general public. No RSVP is necessary.

On Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 1 PM, Committee Room, City Hall, the Committee will hold an oversight entitled Review of the Integrated Human Services Project: Update and Future Plans. The goal of the hearing is to get an update on the progress of the system, to hear testimony about the necessity of the system, and to understand the importance of City government working with the nonprofit sector on this project.

Here is some information about the project from DoITT's strategic plan referenced above:

"This initiative is being co-led by DoITT and the Special Advisor to the Mayor on Governance and Strategic Planning. The project's goals include streamlining both the screening and eligibility determination processes for applicants seeking City services, and contract management functions within and across the City's thirteen human service agencies. By developing the capacity for secure communication of client, provider, and financial data among agencies and contractors, this effort will improve the City's ability to deliver cost-effective, efficient, and client-centered human services."

On Monday, May 2, 2005 at 10 AM, 14th Floor Hearing Room, 250 Broadway, the Committee on Technology in Government will hold a hearing entitled Review of the Administration’s Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Development Study. Last year, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and DoITT commissioned a study of the telecommunications infrastructure of New York City and its role in promoting economic growth. This study will contain recommendations on improving New York City's telecommunications infrastructure in order to promote economic growth. At the hearing, there will be a discussion of whether the findings of the study are accurate and whether the recommendations contained in the study will improve the health of New York City businesses of all sizes, enhance the quality of life of all New Yorkers, as well as close the digital divide in New York City. Representatives of EDC and DoITT have been invited to testify, along with stakeholders from the private sector, telecommunications experts and nonprofit organizations interested in bridging the digital divide.

On Thursday, June 2, 2005 at 1 PM, 14th Floor Hearing Room, 250 Broadway, the Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the development of the New York City information technology (IT) industry. More details on this hearing to come.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 1 PM, Committee Room, City Hall, the Committee will hold an oversight hearing. Topic to be determined.

*****

The following are four events you may be interested in attending.

---

Dear Instructional Technology Leader:

Announcing Tech to Go! IV

A FREE Citywide Instructional Technology Conference
Fordham University Regional Educational Technology Center
Saturday - April 9, 2005

Please consider attending - presenting - spreading the word.

Conference information website and call for presentations:

The Regional Educational Technology Center
Tel: (718) 817-3503 -RETC@Fordham.edu

---

Grassroots Use of Technology Conference
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Tang Center, Kendall Square, MIT

This is the 6th annual conference of Organizers' Collaborative
Keynote Speaker, Micah Sifry

More information about this event can be found at http://organizenow.net/conference05.html

---

BROADBAND...A REALITY

How can broadband effectively enhance your business!

* April 19, 2005
* 8:00 am to 12:00 pm (Continental breakfast served at 8am sharp.)
* Kaplan Manhattan Village Study Center, 16 Cooper Square (near Astor Place), New York, NY 10003
* Price: $35.00 per person (Non-refundable)

Co-hosted by ComputerUser Magazine and the New York State Forum, Rockefeller Institute of Government with generous support from U.S. Small Business Administration, NY District Office and Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions, Kaplan, Inc.

The Chair of the Committee, Council Member Gale Brewer, will be speaking at this event at 9 AM.

To register, go to: http://www.nysfirm.org/seminars/broadband-4-19-05/

---

The Intelligent Community Forum Conference & Awards 2005
Building the Broadband Economy
June 13-14, 2005

Polytechnic University at MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, New York

"Building the Broadband Economy" is the 2005 edition of the Intelligent Community Forum’s annual conference and awards program taking place in New York City. It is produced in association with Polytechnic University’s Institute for Technology & Enterprise, New York’s premier research and education hub for bridging management and innovation.

Conference Focus

At "Building the Broadband Economy," we will once again bring together experts from across the globe to provide answers to vital questions:

What does it take to compete in the broadband economy?
How will broadband infrastructures change the communities we live in, the businesses that employ us, and our roles as citizens?
Who are becoming the winners and losers in the "Digital Age?"
"Building the Broadband Economy" examines these questions and others, including:

What are the most important online applications that are driving demand for broadband? How are they changing the way we live and work, start and manage businesses, and provide government services?

How are the world’s villages, towns and cities preparing their governments, businesses and citizens to prosper and grow in the broadband economy?

What can we learn from the broadband economy of the greater New York City region, home to the single greatest concentration of Internet capacity in America?

How are the broadband "have nots" staking their claim to a piece of the broadband economy, with the support of the public and private sectors?
For more information, go to the following links:

http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/html/building_broadband.html

http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/html/registration.html


*****

About the New York City Council’s Committee on Technology in Government

The primary goals of the Committee on Technology in Government are (1) to expand digital equality by increasing access to broadband in underserved communities of New York City (2) to increase the strategic use of technology in government, thereby, increasing efficiency in government and enhancing the quality of public services, and (3) to promote the openness and transparency of government by making sure that public information is accessible to every New York City resident. Through its ability to hold oversight hearings over City agencies and introduce and hear legislation, the Committee on Technology in Government works to achieve its goals in partnership with the private, public and nonprofit sectors.

More information about the Committee and the Chair of the Committee, Council Member Gale A. Brewer, can be found at the following link: http://nyccouncil.info/issues/committee.cfm?committee_id=106
*****

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

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

Regards,
Bruce Lai
--
Bruce Lai
Legislative Policy Analyst, Committee on Technology in Government
New York City Council
250 Broadway, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Work: 212.788.9109
Fax: 212.788.9168
E-mail: bruce.lai@council.nyc.ny.us

Budget language threatens SBC, RPS funds

Subj: Budget language threatens SBC, RPS funds
Date: 4/4/2005 11:47:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: reg@nyserda.org
To: HDFCCenter@aol.com
File: sbcfacts.wpd (14824 bytes) DL Time (TCP/IP): < 1 minute
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Budget language threatens SBC, RPS funds

As many of you know, the legislature has passed a budget on time for the first time in 20 years. A worthy accomplishment. However, the NYS Senate and Assembly included language in that budget which requires the Governor to submit SBC and RPS funding to the legislature for appropriation. This action is rife with problems and threatens the efficiency and stability of
existing energy efficiency, R&D and renewable energy programs. Attached is an action alert which we ask our key stakeholders to distribute to as large an audience as practical. We take great pride in the effectiveness, accountability and inclusiveness of the programs we offer. Our goal is to maintain and improve those programs with your help. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. RG

(See attached file: sbcfacts.wpd)


ACTION ALERT

State Budget language requires System Benefit Charge and Renewable Portfolio Standard funds be appropriated by Legislature.

The Assembly and Senate inserted language in this year’s State Budget to require that the funds which NYSERDA receives to administer the System Benefits Charge and the Renewable Portfolio Standard will have to be appropriated by the Legislature. This action will have dire consequences for both programs.

Yearly appropriation by the Legislature, even if done timely, will severely impact the delivery of energy efficiency services, and R&D and renewable energy projects. New York’s program is recognized as one of the finest in the country because it uses the marketplace to deliver services, and in so doing has successfully leveraged private sector dollars at a 4-1 ratio. Once the program is subject to year to year appropriations with no multi-year planning function due to budget uncertainties, and we can no longer guarantee our market participants that the programs are solid and available over the long term, that investment will stop. The program in it’s current form has a proven record of producing energy and environmental benefits, along with stimulating economic opportunities through job creation and retention. Why change that?

* $194 million in Annual Energy Bill Savings
* 4,200 jobs created and retained
* Environmental benefits that equate to removing 203,000 cars from New York roadways

NYSERDA’s Energy Star® products, low-income, small homes and multifamily building performance programs are recognized as national models of innovation and private sector partnership. They depend upon long-term, market-based strategies unencumbered by political whim. Creating consumer demand for energy efficiency while supporting a professional infrastructure to deliver the products and services has proven to be extremely cost effective, accountable and sustainable on a large scale. Even more can be accomplished , but not if these low-income and market strategies are interrupted.

An even more serious concern is the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program which is just underway and would be essentially dismantled by the budget language. Renewable Energy generators are just entering the market and need long term contracts to be viable in the financial community. The current program can do that since the funds are assured by a revenue stream that is dedicated to the program. Under a yearly appropriation status, the certainty and dedicated nature of these funds could change. That would effectively kill the program since investors would not be as willing to make the long term commitment necessary.

New York’s current program is nationally recognized for its success. Why jeopardize that? It is truly what every program operated by government should be, open and accountable. Other states with similar Public Benefit funds like Connecticut, Wisconsin and Texas have seen their energy programs fall victim to Legislative fund raids for other purposes such as filling budget shortfalls.

Please work with your local Assembly and Senate representative, as well as State Legislative leadership, to permanently strike that language from the budget. This is bad public policy. Please don’t let this Article VII language stand, our energy and environmental future is too important.



Article VII Language:

PART I
S. 3669 16 A. 6843


31 § 2. Commencing with the 2006-2007 state fiscal year, and each fiscal
32 year thereafter, the governor shall, in his or her executive budget, as
33 submitted pursuant to article VII of the state constitution, provide
34 appropriations for currently non-appropriated moneys received by the New
35 York state energy research and development authority, under the direct
36 oversight of the department of public service, related to assessments,
37 collected for the purpose of funding public policy energy programs.
38 § 3. This act shall take effect immediately and shall be deemed to
39 have been in full force and effect on and after April 1, 2005.

Ailing community: Medical offensive fails to cure Harlem residents

Subject: Medical offensive fails to cure Harlem residents
Date: 4/3/2005 11:58:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: tenant@tenant.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Ailing community
Medical offensive fails to cure Harlem residents
Crains
By Samantha Marshall
Published on April 04, 2005

Born and bred in Harlem, 72-year-old Barbara Skinner is on the verge of
leaving her neighborhood. With four children under her care--including a
10-year-old severely asthmatic boy and a 15-year-old girl who suffers from
schizophrenia, borderline diabetes and obesity--the retired corrections
officer figures there has to be a healthier environment for the four
children in her care, even if it means moving upstate.

"There's got to be a better place to raise kids than this," says Ms.
Skinner, a mother of nine, grandmother of 28 and great-grandmother of 12.

Harlem stands on the bottom end of a yawning health gap that's persisting
despite the economic recovery, several good nearby hospitals, pockets of
neighborhood gentrification,

and dozens of targeted health programs and campaigns. Life expectancy there
can be as much as eight years shorter for people who live just a few blocks
away from their Manhattan neighbors on the Upper East Side.

While some public health indicators, including infant mortality and
tuberculosis rates, have improved over the past few years, the incidence of
diabetes, obesity and asthma in Harlem, along with the South Bronx and
parts of Brooklyn, remains alarmingly high. Residents in these
neighborhoods suffer from depression in greater numbers than average New
Yorkers, and are more likely to seek solace from the stress of poverty
through cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.

Most people don't have regular doctors and rarely seek preventive care,
such as colon cancer screenings and mammograms. Even those with insurance
often put off care until a crisis sends them to the emergency room.

"It's frustrating," says Adam Aponte, director of the diagnostic and
treatment center of North General Hospital in East Harlem. "It takes a lot
of commitment to work here."

Millions for research

Harlem has become an emblem of health problems in urban America, attracting
millions in research dollars from agencies such as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. So many door-to-door surveys have been conducted in
the area that when community health workers try to offer free treatment and
screening, they're met with weary resistance. But despite all the
attention, health experts can't pin Harlem's vast health disparities on any
one factor.

"It's still mind-boggling," says Alwyn Cohall, director of the Harlem
Health Promotion Center at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public
Health.

A steady influx of immigrants from some of the world's sickest countries, a
lack of health insurance coverage, poverty, language barriers and poor
health education may partly explain why Harlem's health is hurting. But
longtime residents and frontline doctors and nurses say it's the area's
physical environment that really drags people down.

Vacant lots and boarded-up buildings harbor rats and mice, while residents
of overcrowded housing projects contend with dust, mold and cockroaches.
Affordable fitness clubs are almost nonexistent. Fruit stands are scarce,
but fast-food joints are common.

"You've got more liquor stores here than churches," says Dr. Aponte, who
was born and raised in the neighborhood.

Six out of the city's seven bus depots belch out diesel fumes throughout
northern Manhattan, which is also host to several major traffic routes.
Particulate matter settles in lungs and triggers respiratory problems that
strain hearts and shorten life spans.

"It's in the air," says Ms. Skinner, whose adopted son Michael struggles to
breathe so much that he needs to be rushed to the hospital as often as a
few times a month.

Her high-rise home, which is owned by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, shares the block with several newly constructed co-op
buildings. Urban renewal has done nothing for her family but raise prices
in the area, says Ms. Skinner. If anything, the new construction has kicked
up more dust and created a concrete valley that traps pollution from idling
buses.

Host of ills

About half of Ms. Skinner's extended family suffers from varying degrees of
asthma. Her late husband died of cancer, and one of her grown sons has
cerebral palsy. She spends much of her time in hospitals negotiating care
for her chronically ill children and grappling with paperwork from
Medicaid, which only sporadically pays for Michael's five costly asthma
medications.

To make sure he gets a break from the summer pollution, she sends him to
stay with friends in Albany. To keep him breathing when he's home, she uses
an air purifier in his room and makes sure all surfaces in the crowded
four-bedroom apartment are dust-free. But she's constantly battling with
her HUD landlord to rid the apartment of mildew caused by leaking pipes.

"Might as well knock these buildings down and start over again, they used
such cheap construction materials," grumbles Ms. Skinner, pointing out
walls of buckled paint in her toy-cluttered hallway.

There are plenty of hospitals in the area, but primary care doctors and
pediatricians who could help families maintain their health are rare. The
city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene opened an office in Harlem two
years ago to do more outreach after a health survey revealed just how wide
the health gap is. Instead of waiting for patients to come to their
emergency rooms, providers such as North General and Harlem Hospital Center
recently began sending their clinicians into the streets, bodegas and
churches to sign up ailing residents for free health programs.

Yet it's up to women like Ms. Skinner to battle other health threats. She
watches the diet of the teenage daughter, scouring four supermarkets over
20 blocks to get the freshest fruits and vegetables for her family. But the
presence of McDonald's, Popeye's and White Castle within blocks defeats her
efforts.

"She sneaks out for the bad stuff," says Ms. Skinner.

As for her own health, Ms. Skinner is in the pink. The only time she was
admitted to the hospital was to give birth.

"The good lord must be keeping me here so that I can look after all these
children," she says.

CUNY Forum on Croton Water Supply

Subject: CUNY Forum on Croton Water Supply
Date: 4/3/2005 11:31:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: MarianR451
BCC: Reysmont



CUNY Forum on Croton Water Supply
New York's Water Supply System: A Study in the Monumental

April 12, 6:30 p.m. - CUNY Graduate Center Auditorium

The New York City water supply system is a study in the monumental. Physical monuments like The High Bridge, carrying the Old Croton Aqueduct across the Harlem River, survive as reminders of the visionaries who conceived of and constructed this lifeline to the City's growing population. The Third Water Tunnel, though largely unseen by the general public but still being burrowed beneath city streets, represents a monumental feat of technology, engineering and construction. This forum celebrates the 100th anniversary of New York City's modern water supply system. Co-sponsored by the High Bridge Coalition, panelists will examine historic and contemporary aspects of New York's water supply infrastructure and its impact on our great city.

Moderator: Gerard Koeppel, author, Water for Gotham
Panelists: Joel A. Miele Sr., P.E., Former Commissioner, NYC Department of Environmental Protection, Diane Galusha, author, Liquid Assets, Robert Kornfeld, Jr., AIA, Vice President, Friends of the Old Croton Aqueduct, Representative from NYC Department of Transportation, Bridge Division, Representative from Local 147 Tunnel Workers Union

To REGISTER for Forum events, please call the CUNY Graduate Center's Office of Continuing Education and Public Programming at 212-817-8215 or visit the CEPP website. Reservations are required and will be honored until 6:25.

All forums take place at the CUNY GRADUATE CENTER - 365 5th Ave at 34th St.

Groups Vie to Reimagine Historic Theater in Harlem; Large-Scale

Subject: here's another one
Date: 4/2/2005 2:44:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
To: Reysmont@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


I should be getting the PDF of the entire booklet they publish...


February 1, 2005

Groups Vie to Reimagine Historic Theater in Harlem; Large-Scale Development Raises Preservation Concerns
By ROBIN POGREBIN
NY Times

For years, the Loew's Victoria Theater, a once-elegant vaudeville house and
movie palace, has languished on West 125th Street in Harlem.

Just a few doors down from its famous neighbor the Apollo Theater, the
Victoria went from being celebrated as one of the city's largest and most
beautiful theaters to failing as a five-screen multiplex that opened in
1987 and closed just two years later. Since then, the theater's Ionic
columns and terra-cotta rosettes have decayed and the stage has remained
bare, except for occasional small theatrical productions or church
services. The marquee recently advertised a lingerie sale across the street.

Now, seven teams of developers, hoteliers and cultural organizations are
competing to reimagine the site as a major new
entertainment-hotel-residential complex. New York State, which owns the
property, is interviewing the applicants and expects to make a decision in
March.

The Empire State Development Corporation, which is evaluating the proposals
with the Harlem Community Development Corporation, its subsidiary, declined
to identify the applicants or describe their proposals.

But documents obtained by The New York Times show that the state has
narrowed the field to seven groups. Under terms set by the state, each team
has enlisted an arts organization as part of its proposal, like the Bottom
Line, the jazz club that recently closed in Greenwich Village; or the Jazz
Museum in Harlem, which has yet to find a home. The development teams
include hoteliers like Starwood and Ian Schrager; architects like Fox &
Fowle, Davis Brody Bond and Lee Harris Pomeroy; and developers like Related
Companies and Apollo Real Estate Advisers, which together built the Time
Warner Center.

''This is a great opportunity for Harlem and more specifically for 125th
Street as it inches toward becoming an even grander destination,'' said
Derek Q. Johnson, chairman of Integrated Holdings, which has partnered with
Related.

But development projects involving historic buildings are often magnets for
controversy, and the Victoria is no exception. While the theater has been
deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it
is not a designated landmark -- and the state is not requiring that the
neo-Classical theater, with its ornate moldings and ceilings, be preserved.

''That is effectively a smack in the face to the community,'' said City
Councilman Bill Perkins, who represents parts of Harlem. ''There is going
to be a little bit of a fight on this, I can guarantee you.''

''That's a historic theater, and we'd like to see proposals recognize
that,'' he continued. ''The preservation issue is compatible with the
development issue.''

At a meeting on Friday of the Harlem Community Development Corporation, the
issue of preservation was addressed. While all of the proposals would
involve retaining the facade, only two specify restoring some interior
features. Michael Henry Adams, the Harlem historian and author of ''Harlem:
Lost and Found'' (Monacelli Press, 2002), said he found this troubling.
''Whatever happens, I would like it to incorporate the beautiful interiors
of this historic Harlem theater,'' he said.

In particular, Mr. Adams cited the elliptical anteroom on the second floor,
the bas-relief decoration on the theater's saucer dome ceiling, the long
mirrored lobby and the theater's gilded bronze and crystal chandeliers.

The 2,394-seat Victoria was designed in 1917 by Thomas W. Lamb, who built
dozens of Loew's theaters around the world and several Broadway houses.
''It should not be allowed to be destroyed,'' Mr. Adams said. ''Were it
restored, it would be one of the most distinguished theaters in New York.''

Over the last few years, Harlem has seen an explosion of commercial
development, from a new Marriott Hotel to Harlem U.S.A., a retail center,
both on 125th Street. Developers say there is still a demand for more hotel
rooms as well for apartments to accommodate professionals. But some people
who live and work in Harlem are concerned that the influx in large-scale
development will compromise the neighborhood's character and displace
longtime residents.

Mr. Perkins argues that the Victoria development project -- indeed, the
overall influx of commercial building in Harlem -- should not be mistaken
for a larger revival. ''These days, 'renaissance' is defined by real
estate,'' he said. ''It's not a term to describe an intellectual, cultural,
educational rebirth.''

''What these people want us to do is be grateful that deals are being
made,'' he said. ''The easy way out is to tear something down and put
something up.''

Tensions are also brewing between the two agencies responsible for choosing
a development plan for the site. Keith L.T. Wright, chairman of the Harlem
Community Development Corporation, said his organization had been excluded
from decision-making by the Empire State Development Corporation. ''There
has been no consultation whatsoever,'' said Mr. Wright, also a state
assemblyman whose district includes Harlem. ''It's plantationism at its best.''

''This is the last big development piece on 125th Street,'' he said. ''I
just want to make sure some of my community groups are taken care of. They
want a piece of the action.''

But Deborah Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Development
Corporation, said that the Harlem Community Development Corporation had
been fully consulted. ''We've been working very closely with them,'' she
said. ''We're assisting them every step of the way; they sit in on every
meeting and their board has final approval.'' The Harlem Urban Development
Corporation, a precursor of the community development corporation, acquired
the Apollo and the Victoria in the mid-1980's to save them from conversion
to nontheater use.

Two of the proposals feature the Jazz Museum, which was founded four years
ago to present exhibitions and further jazz education.

The proposal submitted by the RD Management Corporation, a real estate
investment and development company, calls the Jazz Museum ''the jewel in
the crown'' of its $116 million multi-use development. The proposal plans
to retain the theater's façade with a new marquee and overall design by Fox
& Fowle Architects.

Taking a page from the new Jazz at Lincoln Center building at Columbus
Circle, which -- in addition to its main stage -- includes a jazz club and
a theater with a glass wall overlooking Central Park South, the proposal
calls for a ''jazz cafe'' on the second floor for small ensembles. A
bandstand would be framed by a large window on the 125th Street side of the
building.

Now that Jazz at Lincoln Center is open in the Time Warner Center, the
proposal says, momentum has been created for a Harlem-based jazz
institution ''whose aesthetic will be informed by the sensibilities of the
uptown community.''

RD Management's submission also includes a 150-room hotel that would house
a gallery for African-American art and a Harlem-themed restaurant. ''For
example,'' the proposal says, ''the menu might offer a Zora Neale Hurston
salad, a Romare Bearden pasta, a Miles Davis omelette and a Denzel burger.''

The Jazz Museum would also be the cultural centerpiece of a $123 million
proposal by Integrated Holdings and Related for a 150-room boutique hotel
-- with Inter-Continental as a possible operator -- and 90 residential
condominium units.

Apollo Real Estate Advisers, along with Starwood Hotels and Resorts
Worldwide, has proposed a $103 million W Hotel with 156 rooms, 58
residential condominiums and 4,000 square feet of office space for the
Apollo Theater Foundation. The Apollo Theater space would include rehearsal
and education areas, a black box theater and an Apollo cafe. The architect
on the project is Davis Brody Bond.

A proposal by the Victoria Tower Development suggests a $150 million B.B.
King Entertainment Center with a jazz dinner club; an art gallery run by
the Studio Museum in Harlem; and a five-star, 304-room hotel. The other
groups in the running are Full Spectrum, which has proposed a $111 million
complex including 78 luxury condominiums and two clubs -- Victoria Small's
Paradise and 930 Blues Cafe with programming that reflects black and Latino
culture.

Thor Equities, which specializes in urban real estate projects, proposes a
$70 million complex, including boutiques like Armani Exchange, Club Monaco
and Kay Jewelers; a revived Bottom Line club, possibly with a recording
studio; and a 238-room hotel.

Danforth Development Partners proposes creating a $113 million new Savoy
Ballroom with banquet space for 300 people, a 90-room hotel designed by Mr.
Schrager and two new theaters for Harlem-based performing arts companies
like Classical Theater of Harlem, Bill T. Jones Dance Group and the Harlem
School of the Arts.

At the meeting on Friday, it was clear that several Harlem Community
Development Corporation board members were worried that a treasured
neighborhood landmark would be erased. One board member asked, ''Can this
theater be demolished?''

Diane P. Phillpotts, president of the corporation, replied that substantial
changes to the building would require consultation with the New York State
Historic Preservation Office.

''I understand the importance of preservation,'' she said. ''We also have
to balance that against the economic development potential of the property.''

Lobbying for Manhattanville - Kramer Levin Hired by Columbia for Manhattanville Expansion

Click here: Columbia Spectator - Lobbying for Manhattanville
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/01/424d0ebf4aa71


Lobbying for Manhattanville
Kramer Levin Hired by Columbia for Manhattanville Expansion
By Erin Durkin
Spectator Staff Writer

April 01, 2005

According to a report recently released by the New York State Commission on Lobbying, Columbia maintained the second largest lobbying contract in New York in 2004, with a law firm retained to work on its plans to rezone Manhattanville.

The $682,743 contract between Columbia and the firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel was second in size only to a contract between Madison Square Garden and a firm that it hired to lobby against the West Side Stadium for the New York Jets.

The commission’s report identified the City Council, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office, the New York City Planning Commission, and Community Board 9 as the local entities lobbied by the firm. These groups each play a role in approving the rezoning of Manhattanville, which must occur before Columbia can expand into the area. The area is currently zoned for light manufacturing, which Columbia is seeking to change to a mixed-use designation.

However, University officials said that most of what Kramer Levin was paid to do was not traditional lobbying but, rather, research and legal work. They said that while Kramer Levin had sometimes attended meetings between Columbia and various agencies, the firm had never contacted elected officials in order to influence them.

“We’re land-use lawyers,” said Gary Tarnoff of Kramer Levin. “We’re providing representation in connection with their rezoning application,” he continued. He described the groups identified as lobbying targets in the commission’s report as “agencies that may be spoken to.”

University officials said that it was wrong to view the lobbying contract as an extensive effort to influence decision makers in favor of their rezoning plan. They said that the New York State lobbying law, which defines local lobbying as “any attempt to influence the passage or defeat of any local law, ordinance, or regulation, ... or the adoption or rejection of any rule or regulation having the force and effect of a local law, ordinance, or regulation,” is very broad and can be construed as encompassing not just attempts to influence officials but any legal work done in connection with land use changes.

Given the law’s broad scope, officials said that Columbia has decided to err on the side of caution and report more rather than less to the lobbying commission. They said that while contacts with various agencies had occurred, Kramer Levin has been retained mainly to do legal work, including drafting language for Columbia’s rezoning application and working on the Environmental Impact Statement that will have to accompany any rezoning. They said they hired the firm to provide counsel in areas where the University does not have in-house expertise.

“We’ve been talking to the city,” Tarnoff said. “I don’t think there’s any secret about that.”

He identified City Planning as the agency with which the firm had had the most extensive contact. City Planning is the first step toward getting a rezoning plan approved, as it must certify that any such plan is complete and valid.

While not commenting on the specific nature of City Planning’s contact with Kramer Levin, Rachaele Raynoff, the agency’s press secretary, wrote in an e-mail that “as with any application, City Planning’s door is open to discuss with potential applicants and their representatives proposals for land use changes. This applies equally to a community board preparing a ‘197A plan’ for its future or a university or a private developer.”

Other groups identified in the lobbying commission’s report said that the firm had not contacted them.

“I have not been lobbied by anybody,” said Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, chairman of Community Board 9. “I always assumed these people had legal advisers,” he said and added in reference to Kramer Levin, “I am vaguely aware that they attended some meetings.”

Reyes-Montblanc expressed confidence that other officials had not been unduly influenced by the University. “We feel that we have strong support from both the borough president and our council members,” he said. The Community Board has produced its own plan to rezone parts of Manhattanville, which differs in several ways from Columbia’s vision for the area.

City Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Washington Heights) said at a recent CB9 meeting that he had not been contacted by Kramer Levin or any other lobbyist for Columbia.

In response to the lobbying commission’s report, Tom DeMott, head of the Coalition to Preserve Community, wrote in an e-mail to supporters that “the CPC is working with Columbia students and others to find a way to do our own lobbying.” He clarified that the CPC had no plans to mount a formal lobbying campaign that would have to be registered with the lobbying commission.

“Our lobbying perspective is a little different. ... We have to work with students, we have to work with community members to be the best advocates we can be,” DeMott said.


Click here: Google Search: "Kramer Levin"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Kramer+Levin%22&btnG=Google+Search

Waiting, Not So Patiently, for a Grocer to Take the Next Step

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/nyregion/thecity/03cita.html?oref=login



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 3, 2005
MANHATTANVILLE

Waiting, Not So Patiently, for a Grocer to Take the Next Step
By SETH KUGEL

he tale of Citarella, the upscale fish and food market, and the West Harlem factory it had its eye on began nearly six years ago.

The West Harlem complex of buildings, which stretch along one block of West 126th Street, was once home to a Taystee cake factory, long abandoned. In 1999, the buildings were sold to Citarella, which planned to convert them into a food processing plant. The store also announced plans to open a branch in adjacent retail space on West 125th Street, where Taystee once sold day-old bread.

The local community board, which had hoped that much-needed housing would be built on the site, objected to the plan. But there seemed to be an upside. For a moment, local residents savored the mouth-watering prospect of being able to buy Tasmanian ocean trout, Cajun catfish and tuna burgers. In bringing epicurean offerings to the neighborhood, Citarella seemed poised to follow, albeit in far more modest fashion, the footsteps of its West Side neighbor Fairway, which in 1995 expanded north into a 35,000-square-foot space.

Tasmanian trout, not to mention the Cajun catfish and tuna burgers, have never arrived. At least not yet. Today, the decaying industrial buildings, which occupy much of West 126th Street between Morningside and Amsterdam Avenues, look as forlorn as ever.

Citarella's president, Joseph Gurrera, could not be reached for comment about the company's plans. Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city's Economic Development Corporation, said the company still planned to open the retail store, in May, and intended to propose building housing on the factory site. The company's current plans were reported in The Columbia Spectator, the university's student newspaper, on March 23.

According to Ms. Patterson, the Citarella project stalled for several reasons, among them higher-than-expected costs. Because of the delays, however, Maritta Dunn, who leads Community Board 9's economic development committee, has concluded that Citarella has proven itself unworthy of Harlem.

"They have consistently put off doing this store," she said. "If you're in the retail business, and from 1999 to now, you could not open a little retail space like that, why would I trust you to do anything else in the neighborhood?"

Citywide Initiative to Improve the Landmarks Preservation Commission

Subject: Citywide Initiative to Improve the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Date: 3/31/2005 7:45:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)


From: "Kate Wood"
Subject: Citywide Initiative to Improve the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:34:54 -0500

FYI - Building on the support already gathered from preservation groups like yours, we are trying to get more organizations to join in efforts to improve the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Please help by circulating this email to any of your colleagues who have not already signed on (list of supporters is included in the attached Word document, "Problems Experienced by Community Groups Working with the Landmarks Preservation Commission").

Nearly 40 groups citywide have endorsed the findings of this report. With your help, we can work to ensure that preserving our historic neighborhoods is up-front-and-center in the minds of our city's leadership. THANK YOU!!


Dear Colleague:

Now that the 2005 election year is upon us, it's time to make sure our elected officials understand the importance of preservation to New York's historic neighborhoods.

Because of your demonstrated concern about landmarks preservation issues, we wanted to invite all preservation groups to join in an effort to improve the responsiveness and transparency of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).

As you may know, in October and November 2004, the City Council held oversight hearings on the LPC in response to concerns raised by a coalition of community groups (speaking, we believe, on behalf of many groups citywide) about the LPC's effectiveness in protecting our landmarks (both designated and as-yet undesignated). As part of this process, several preservation organizations working together with the Women's City Club prepared a report entitled, "Problems Experienced by Community Groups Working with the Landmarks Preservation Commission." The report was mentioned in Robin Pogrebin's terrific New York Times article, dated March 24, 2005. A copy of the article is attached, along with an abbreviated version of the report, which includes a list of nearly 40 preservation groups that have already signed on to endorse the report's findings.

We ask that you sign your group on in support of this report and its recommendations for improving the LPC. Please do not hesitate to contact LANDMARK WEST! for more information or to discuss this initiative. And please contact us immediately to sign on!

Kate Wood
Executive Director
Landmark West!
45 West 67th Street
New York, NY 10023
O: 212-496-8110
F: 212-875-0209
katewood@landmarkwest.org


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


New York Times
March 24, 2005

In Preservation Wars, a Focus on Midcentury
By ROBIN POGREBIN

rguing that significant buildings are not getting their due, advocates of midcentury architecture are stepping up pressure on the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission to hold full public hearings on proposals to raze two movie theaters on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Plans have been announced to convert Cinemas 1, 2 & 3, a 1962 International-style theater on Third Avenue across from Bloomingdale's, into retail space. The Beekman, a 1952 late Streamline Moderne design at Second Avenue and 66th Street, is to be replaced by a breast and diagnostic imaging center run by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The theater is scheduled to be closed down this summer.

On another front, a lawsuit was filed against the city last week in New York State Supreme Court seeking to prevent reconstruction of 2 Columbus Circle into the Museum of Arts and Design. The marble-clad building with a "lollipop"-motif facade by Edward Durell Stone once housed Huntington Hartford's Gallery of Modern Art. The landmarks commission has never held a public hearing on the future of the building, on which demolition is expected to begin in late May.

These two different battlefronts represent a larger argument on the part of preservationists that the commission has generally neglected postwar architecture and been unresponsive to their concerns about Modernist sites.

"The commission ought to hear the arguments and let them be debated in a public forum - that's democracy," the architect Robert A. M. Stern, who is active in preservation issues, said in an interview.

But Holly Hotchner, director of the museum going into 2 Columbus Circle, said, "There are no landmarks hearings on many buildings."

Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, a group that is spearheading opposition to the alteration of the movie theaters, said in a statement: "These insensitive and destructive actions highlight the urgent need to protect the Modern architecture on the Upper East Side and across the city. The Landmarks Preservation Commission has designated some important Modern buildings, but most remain at risk."

John Jurayj, co-chairman of the Modern Architecture Working Group, an advocacy organization, said at a commission hearing last week on the Jamaica Savings Bank in Queens, itself an example of mid-20th-century architecture: "Modern preservation is in a major crisis in our city, a crisis that is shortly going to get worse unless the Landmarks Preservation Commission starts to act more aggressively."

At the same meeting, Kate Wood, the executive director of Landmark West, a community group focused on preservation on the Upper West Side, reproved the commission for not putting the fate of 2 Columbus Circle before the public. "If the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing for 2 Columbus Circle, literally hundreds of people would attend and testify - both for and against designation," she said. "The question is, what more will it take?"

Diane Jackier, a spokeswoman for the commission, said: "All of the preservation advocacy groups say the commission is slow to respond. The commission balances the concerns of advocacy groups across the city with our own interests."

Robert B. Tierney, the commission's chairman, was traveling out of the country this week and unavailable for comment, Ms. Jackier said.

To be sure, the commission's work has been hampered in part by a low annual budget - $3.5 million - and staff cuts over the past decade. The Modern Architecture Working Group acknowledges these handicaps but has urged the commission to step up designations of sites as landmarks. Last year, the commission designated 12 individual landmarks and 3 historic districts, which Ms. Jackier said amounted to a total of 220 buildings, compared with 25 individual landmarks and 2 districts amounting to 261 buildings in 2000.

The group has also asked the commission not to give building owners too much advance notice of hearings on their landmarks. Otherwise, the preservationists argue, owners may pre-emptively alter the buildings.

Preservationists had repeatedly asked for hearings on the 1961 Summit Hotel on Lexington Avenue and the 1949 Paterson Silks Building at Union Square, both designed by the Miami architect Morris Lapidus. Hearings were finally scheduled, but not until demolition had begun on the Silks Building.

The fight over 2 Columbus Circle has intensified since the city agreed to sell the nine-story building to the Museum of Arts and Design in June 2002, for $17 million. The museum, now on West 53rd Street, plans to reconstruct it for about $30 million according to a design by Brad Cloepfil of Allied Works Architecture. Construction is expected to begin by the middle of this year and to be completed in mid-2007.

Some call 2 Columbus Circle ugly and say they would just as soon see it go. But many Modernists argue that the 1964 building is an important example of postwar architecture. "It is a building that should be saved; it's still not too late," said Mr. Stern, the architect. "Under any definition of what a landmark is - culturally, physically and geographically - this is a landmark."

The lawsuit filed last week was brought by property owners in the Parc Vendome Condominiums near Columbus Circle and by Landmark West. It aims to block the sale on the grounds that it was conducted without due process in violation of the New York State Constitution, the New York City Charter, the General Municipal Law and New York's public trust doctrine.

Ms. Hotchner said in an interview yesterday that the lawsuit "in no way affects our interest in going forward" with the museum and called it "an example of abuse of the legal system to subvert the public process."

Preservationists opposed to the building's renovation have already been to court on the project. Supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the plaintiffs challenged the environmental review of the project and the failure by the landmarks commission to hold a public hearing on it.

In February, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court unanimously upheld an earlier dismissal of that lawsuit.

Landmark West argues that its recent lawsuit would not have been necessary had the landmarks commission held a hearing as requested. "It's because they've refused to deal with this that we've had to resort to the courts," said Ms. Wood of Landmark West.

The commission's designation committee has said that no public hearing was ever held because it determined in 1996 that landmark status was not warranted for 2 Columbus Circle.

But several people who work in architecture or preservation have continued to appeal for a hearing, arguing that the commission was wrong to shut off public debate.

Last October, in testimony before the City Council subcommittee responsible for landmark preservation, Beverly Moss Spatt, a former chairwoman of the commission, described the commission as "totally isolated and in total disregard for public opinions."

Anthony M. Tung, a former member of the commission, told the subcommittee that the public was "being barred in numerous improper ways from a process which the council in its wisdom designed to be open and participatory."

In November, a coalition of civic organizations produced a report, "Problems Experienced by Community Groups Working With the Landmarks Preservation Commission," that detailed their complaints and suggested areas for change.

Friends of the Upper East Side describes Cinemas 1, 2 & 3 as the first "piggyback" duplex movie theater in the United States - "a significant milestone in the development of movie theater design."

The group cited the glass corner on East 66th Street and the ribbon windows on East 65th Street as examples of the International-style design "enlivened with a tilted glass facade and sloping streamlined lounge ceiling that refers stylistically back to the Moderne style of the 1930's."

But it also noted that the theater had already undergone extensive alterations of its exterior, including the replacement of Venetian tiles with a white stucco wall. In addition, the Upper East Side group says, important artworks in the interior have been removed, including an abstract oil painting by the Russian-born artist Ilya Bolotowsky, a geometric mural by Sewell Sillman and copper leaf-shaped chandeliers from Denmark.

Friends of the Upper East Side says the theaters are two of the few remaining art film houses in Manhattan. "We've lost almost all of them," said Seri Worden, the group's executive director.

Mr. Stern, the architect, said the issue was not merely the theaters' architectural value, but their contribution to the neighborhood's character. "They provide a layer of the past in relation to new things," he said.






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

REPORT:
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY COMMUNITY GROUPS WORKING WITH THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The Arts and Landmarks Committee
of the Women's City Club of New York, Coordinator

33 West 60 Street, New York NY 10023
Phone: 212-353-8070 E-mail: info@wccny.org

First Issued: 17 November 2004


Compiled by the Following Groups:
Women’s City Club of New York (Coordinator)
Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side
Hamilton Heights-West Harlem Community Preservation Organization
Historic Districts Council
LANDMARK WEST!
Morningside Heights Historic District Committee
Society for the Architecture of the City


Endorsed by the Following Groups
as of 30 March 2005:

Association of Neighbors on the Upper East Side
Beachside Bungalow Preservation Association
Brownstone Revival Coalition
Carnegie Hill Neighbors
CIVITAS
Clinton Special District Coalition
Coalition for a Livable West Side
Coalition to Save the East Village
Committee for Environmentally Sound Development
Ditmas Park Association
DOCOMOMO US—New York/Tri-State Chapter
Drive to Protect the Ladies’ Mile District
East 78th Street Block Association Park/Lex.
East Harlem Historical Organization
East Village Community Coalition
Greater Astoria Historical Society
Historic Neighborhood Enhancement Alliance
Metropolitan Chapter of the Victorian Society in America
Modern Architecture Working Group
Murray Hill Neighborhood Association
Preservation League of Staten Island
Prospect Park South Association
Queens Historical Society
Queensborough Preservation League
Richmond Hill Historical Society
The St. George Civic Association
Stuyvesant Park Neighborhood Association
Union Square Community Coalition
Vinegar Hill Neighborhood Association

List in formation




CONTENTS
How the Report was Compiled 1
Summary 2
NINE PROBLEMS
Problems in the Designation Process:
I. Lack of Transparency and Responsiveness 4
Problems in the Regulatory Process:
II. Pre-Hearing Disposition of Certificate Of Appropriateness Applications 6
III. Lack of Public Hearings for Substantially Altered Certificate of Appropriateness Applications 7
IV. Absence of Leadership in Protecting Landmarks Administered by Other Agencies of Government 8
V. Need to Provide Enough Information for Informed Public Hearing Comment 9
VI. Need for Public Access to Staff-Level Permit Records 11
VII. Need to Ensure Community Board Participation 12
VIII. Need for an Improved Sound System in the LPC Hearing Room 12
IX. Lack of Consistent Standards in Regulation 13

Recommendations: 14
I. Public Participation in the Appointment of Commissioners
II. Adequate Funding for the Necessary Staff
III. Regular Public Hearings to Address Designation and Regulatory Issues

How the Report was Compiled:
During the September and October 2003 City Council hearings on the proposed designation of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine various questions were raised about the propriety of the procedures being followed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (“LPC”), crystallizing doubts that many organizations had had for numerous years about LPC procedures. Afterwards, members of preservation groups who had testified at the hearings were looking for a positive, constructive way to express their mutual concern that the integrity of the LPC was in jeopardy.

The Women’s City Club of New York is a multi-issue, non-partisan advocacy organization, celebrating its 90th year working to influence and shape public policy decisions affecting the city.

An important part of our work is to partner with other organizations on specific issues.

The WCC’s Arts and Landmarks Committee therefore gathered representatives of several preservation groups to identify recurrent problems experienced in dealing with the LPC, and to suggest possible solutions.

Recognizing the excellence of New York’s Landmark Preservation Law, we had two over-riding concerns. First, securing an adequate budget and increased staffing for the Landmarks Preservation Commission to fulfill its mission of identifying and protecting the City’s cultural and architectural heritage. Second, improving the relationship of the LPC with the preservation community.

Represented at meetings held throughout the year were the Historic Districts Council, Landmark West!, The Society for the Architecture of the City, Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Morningside Heights Historic District Committee and the Hamilton Heights-West Harlem Community Preservation Organization. All of these individuals and groups have extensive experience, over numerous years, in monitoring the work of the LPC in various parts of New York.

Together we drafted a list of issues needing to be addressed entitled, Memo: Outline of Problems Experienced by Community Groups Working with the LPC, which was presented to members and staff of the City Council. The City Council Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses subsequently held an oversight hearing on the administrative practices of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on October 20, 2004. The outpouring of people wishing to testify at that hearing could not be accommodated and the Subcommittee had to adjourn the hearing with a promise to reconvene it at a later date in a larger room.

This document, REPORT: PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY COMMUNITY GROUPS WORKING WITH THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, reproduces the full text of the original Memo, which is carried over and appears in italics. The REPORT expands the description of the problems identified, presenting them in a new and clearer format.

Summary:
Since its establishment by the City Council in 1965, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has saved many elements of the City’s history and beauty. Through its open and participatory procedures, it has given innumerable New Yorkers a voice in shaping the environment that has such impact upon their daily lives. Indeed, as Robert A. M. Stern observed in New York 1960, the application of the Landmarks Law has become “New York’s most proactive form of planning.”

Nearly forty years later, the LPC has had an excellent overall record, encompassing the designation of 1,101 individual landmarks, and more than 22,000 properties in 81 historic districts, according to the Mayor's Management Report: in total about, 2.3 percent of the entire city. But, it still has important work to do.

The conservation of these 23,000 properties requires countless acts of stewardship, both large and small; it is an ongoing task that would be impossible to achieve without the help of citizen-preservationists across the five boroughs. The LPC administers the statute, but it is the involvement of the city’s inhabitants that makes its application a political reality.

Landmarks and historic districts simply cannot be designated without broad community support, nor can the LPC supervise 23,000 properties without the aid of well-informed individuals who live in the neighborhoods involved and know the principles of sensible conservation practice.

It is out of this necessity that, in step with the LPC’s work of designation and regulation, groups of local activists have formed with every new historic district. By now there are more than 100 such societies in the city, learning the Landmarks Law, monitoring the LPC’s practices, testifying in regard to new construction, alerting the LPC to violations, warning the city when unprotected parts of our patrimony are endangered, and so spreading the ethic of preservation among their neighbors.

Yet New York’s success in preservation over the past decade has brought with it a serious challenge. Over the course of several Mayoral administrations, an increasingly understaffed and underfunded LPC has confronted the prospect of an enlarged regulatory workload along with each new designation.

Bit by bit, during this period, public access to the LPC's decisions has been hindered, making it hard to discern how, when, and on what basis the LPC is exercising its authority. A participatory decision-making process has become an administrative maze.

The early years of the LPC's existence were marked by lawsuits brought by litigants who sought to overturn the Landmarks Law. But more recently, we have seen lawsuits brought by those who believe the LPC should have taken stronger measures and applied higher standards to protect the historic city. For instance:
· 67 Vestry Tenants Association v. Raab
· Maxtone-Graham v. Landmarks Preservation Commission
· CitiNeighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v. NY City Landmarks Preservation Commission
· Save the Cottages and Gardens v. The City of New York et al.
· Historic Districts Council, Inc. et al. v. Eliot Spitzer (re Poe House)
· Landmark West v. Burden (re 2 Columbus Circle)
· Beresford Apartments v. City of New York, et al. (re Planetarium).

Meanwhile, the current administration has received at least one extensive document complaining of procedural problems at the LPC—not from the real estate industry, but from the Historic Districts Council, a citywide organization representing dozens of neighborhood groups concerned with historic preservation.

The resulting climate of conflict seriously endangers the cause of historic preservation.
Thus, late in 2003 the Arts and Landmarks Committee of the Women’s City Club invited neighborhood preservationists from across New York to meet and attempt to resolve this dilemma. After almost a year, nine distinct problems were identified—which are elucidated in the following pages.

The City Council has the power to affect reform in several important ways. In addition, many of the problems described in this report can be ameliorated via the administrative authority of the LPC.

The following three recommendations were formed.
1) We hope that opportunities for public testimony will be reinstated at the confirmation hearings of LPC commissioners. This will help revive the dialogue and bridge the current gap between the public and the municipal guardians of preservation policy.
2) Most importantly, the LPC requires increased funding to sustain its programs and achieve the full range of necessary reforms the public is seeking. Under-funding gravely impairs the LPC's ability to fulfill its mandate.

3) Public hearings should be held on a continuing basis to gather comment in regard to the designation and regulatory functions of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. These hearings would serve the particularly important purpose of providing a forum for the concerns of owners of historic properties, neighbors affected by LPC decisions, and community-based preservation groups. This would enable the LPC to better evaluate the impact of its actions on the city.

The landmarks of our city can never be irrevocably secured, only passed on from one generation of stewards to the next, with each generation required to meet its own particular challenges. Our purpose in producing this report is to make positive and constructive suggestions as we seek to improve the procedures followed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. It is our goal to support the LPC and to improve its interaction with the individuals and communities affected by its decision-making process.

RANGEL GIVING NOD TO FIELDS

Click here: New York Post Online Edition:
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43571.htm


RANGEL GIVING NOD TO FIELDS
By FRANKIE EDOZIEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2005 -- Rep. Charles Rangel, dean of New York's congressional delegation, threw his support yesterday behind the mayoral candidacy of Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields.
Rangel's endorsement came on the heels of a recent poll that shows Fields, the only African-American in the race, gaining on Democratic front-runner Fernando Ferrer.

Rangel had been inching toward Fields for months and, like some other black leaders, was disturbed recently by Ferrer when the former Bronx borough president claimed the police shooting of Amadou Diallo wasn't a crime and that the four cops involved were "over-indicted."

"I could not resist coming here to thank all of you for having the common sense and the knowledge to know that when it comes to candidates for the mayor of this great city, there is no one else with the ability and the experience of C. Virginia Fields," Rangel said at a Fields $250,000 fund-raiser.

Sources told The Post Rangel on Sunday will formally endorse Fields.

Fields told several hundred supporters that she'd "return the mayor's office of New York City to all the citizens of this great city."

Last night, Fields flew down to Atlanta for another fund-raiser, where guests paid between $50 and $1,000 and launched her Web site.

The Fields campaign is moving to portray her as the only candidate with the stature to be mayor, emphasizing her 16 years in government and her civil-rights background.


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Check out New York Post Online Edition:
Date: 4/2/2005 12:50:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Ariel
To: Reysmont



Click here: New York Post Online Edition:
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/22878.htm


FERRER LOSING 'RACE' AGAINST FRESH FIELDS
By DAVID SEIFMAN and FRANKIE EDOZIEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO FERRER
Email Archives
Print Reprint



March 31, 2005 -- Democratic mayoral front-runner Fernando Ferrer got the bad news he most feared yesterday — black voters are defecting in droves because of his controversial comments about the Amadou Diallo case.
The Quinnipiac University poll found yesterday that Ferrer's lead over C. Virginia Fields — the only African-American candidate in the Democratic primary field — dropped from 26 to 15 points in just three weeks.

More importantly, the former Bronx borough president now leads the four-way race with 36 percent, down from the 40 percent he needs to avert a run-off with the second-place finisher.

Fields, the Manhattan borough president, jumped from 14 to 21 percent, comfortably ahead of Rep. Anthony Weiner (11 percent) and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller (10 percent).

"Based on the polls so far, it would suggest it would be a run-off between Freddy Ferrer and myself," said an upbeat Fields.

Ferrer, a vocal critic of NYPD policies during the Giuliani administration, startled black leaders by telling a police group on March 15 that there was an effort to "over-indict" the cops who shot and killed Diallo and that the shooting wasn't a crime.

"That mistake was very valuable [to us] and it isn't completely factored in yet," said Joseph Mercurio, Fields' campaign manager.

"Only 46 percent of voters have heard about [Ferrer's comments on] Diallo — and the ones who have are wildly upset about it. As time goes by, I think more voters are going to have heard about it."

The poll of 1,371 registered voters, conducted March 21-28, found that of the voters aware of Ferrer's remarks, 41 percent are less likely to vote for him. Only 8 percent said they now viewed Ferrer more favorably.

Among blacks, the defection rate was 57 percent.

Some migrated to Mayor Bloomberg, who now has the backing of 30 percent of black voters in a head-to-head match against Ferrer. Three weeks ago, the mayor had 23 percent.

But Bloomberg still trails Ferrer among all voters, 40 to 46 percent, compared to 39-47 percent in the previous poll.

The other beneficiary was Fields, who had never before broken the 20 percent barrier.

"This is a clearly contrasting issue," Mercurio said of Ferrer's Diallo stance. "We have the opposite opinion about that issue that he does. Voters are with us, not him."

Chad Clanton, a Ferrer spokesman, said the campaign is confident that voters "know Fernando Ferrer's record" fighting police abuses and racial profiling.

At least one analyst agreed that Ferrer's political wound was temporary.

"It's early enough that he'll probably recover," said veteran consultant Jerry Skurnik.

COLUMBIA JEWS WANT OUTSIDE PROBE

Click here: New York Post Online Edition:
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43582.htm


COLUMBIA JEWS WANT OUTSIDE PROBE
By DAVID ANDREATTA Education Reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2005 -- Calling a Columbia University report on charges of student intimidation by professors a "whitewash," angry students and faculty yesterday said they may call for an independent inquiry into their complaints.
The report, released by a committee of five faculty members, did not address dozens of gripes from Jewish students that they had been harassed by Middle East studies instructors — focusing instead on three alleged instances of intimidation.

The committee, which was the second body created by the university in recent years to tackle the issue, found just one of the instances credible.

"It's a whitewash and it's offensive," said freshman Alexandra Polsky. "There's a feeling on campus that there is a status quo of opinions, and if you dare challenge it, you have to be overly prepared to defend yourself."

Ariel Beery, a senior whose group Columbians for Academic Freedom has been at the forefront of the simmering controversy, said the report was "the second strike against Columbia when it comes to students' rights."

He called the committee's finding that statements made by pro-Palestinian faculty were not anti-Semitic "deeply insulting" — not because it is false but because student complaints were about intimidation, not racism.

He spoke before upward of 60 students and faculty members who gathered at the front gates of campus to protest the report.


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Check out New York Post Online Edition:
Date: 4/2/2005 12:52:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Ariel
To: Reysmont



Click here: New York Post Online Edition: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/22910.htm


JEWS BLAST NEW COLUMBIA REPORT
By DAVID ANDREATTA Education Reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31, 2005 -- Despite dozens of complaints from Jewish students at Columbia University that Middle East studies professors had intimidated them, an internal probe has found only a single instance where an instructor acted unreasonably toward a pro-Israel student.
The report by a faculty committee responsible for investigating the allegations also accuses pro-Israel students of disrupting lectures and finds no evidence that faculty members made anti-Semitic statements.

Students who last night read the report, which is to be released to the public today, expressed outrage over the findings and vowed to fight on.

"I am saddened and disgusted by this report," said Aharon Horwitz, who had testified before the committee. "It delegitimizes numerous valid complaints by students, and we are determined to fight on for justice."

Many students said they were not surprised by the findings because of their longstanding belief that the five-member committee was biased.

Their belief is based in part on reports that at least one of the committee members, Farah Jasmine Griffin, signed a petition calling on the university to distance itself from companies that provide arms to Israel.

"It is absolutely preposterous that Columbia University would set up a committee of insiders with a prepackaged response that denigrates the experiences of its own students," said Ariel Beery, of Columbians for Academic Freedom, the student group instrumental in making the allegations public.



Fueling the ire was word that the university's public-affairs department leaked a copy of the report to The New York Times — which first reported the findings on its Web site — before showing it to the students who made the charges.

Sophomore Bari Weiss said the move illustrated the school's lack of respect for students.

A Columbia spokeswoman did not return repeated phone calls for comment.

The report found that just one professor, Joseph Massad, overstepped his bounds when he ripped a student who challenged his take on Israel's conduct toward Palestinians by saying:

"If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom!"

Massad, who is undergoing a tenure review, denies the episode.

The report is the result of a months-long inquiry sparked by the release of a short film in which students detailed their grievances.

Students said they made the documentary, "Columbia Unbecoming," because their reports of intimidation had not been taken seriously.

The committee reportedly called for a revamped grievance process.

CLEAN AIR - press conf. Monday

What: Press Conference to Support City Council Legislation for Clean
Air in New York City

Who: Hosted by INFORM with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Ny
League of Conservation Voters, UPROSE, WEACT, and New York business
leaders including Douglas Durst.

When: Monday, April 4 at 1pm

Where:On the steps of City Hall, New York, NY
Dear Friends and Supporters,

We are writing to invite you to a press conference INFORM is hosting Monday, April 4th at 1 PM on the steps of City Hall. The conference is being held to support a City Council legislation to update the City’s alternative fuel purchasing law.

The pending City Council legislation, if passed, would mean a major step forward in this city’s use of advanced hybrid as well as natural gas vehicles. The boldest measure would mandate, for the first time, a strong shift to purchasing natural gas trucks by the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) for the nation’s largest refuse and recycling fleet (2,500 trucks). DSNY would have to increase the percentage of new trucks purchased as natural gas powered from 30% to 50% between 2007
and 2011. New Yorkers would get:

•vastly improved air to breathe
•a reduced rate of asthma (which is now 30% higher than the national average) and lower cancer risk
•an improved quality of life with 50 to 98% quieter trucks (important especially during those early morning hours!), free of noxious diesel
fumes, traveling through city communities
•enhanced fuel security for one of the city’s most essential services (by reduced reliance on risky foreign oil-derived fuels).

At this press conference, INFORM will be joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the NY League of Conservation Voters,WEACT, UPROSE, and New York business leaders including Douglas Durst. Elizabeth Yeampierre from UPROSE will be bringing several children who suffer from asthma in her Brooklyn community. One will be speaking. We will also have a modern, operating natural gas truck on display.

We hope you will join us because it is important to show visible support to City Hall and to the press that passing this bill is a crucial step in improving the quality of life for every single one of us and every single New Yorker out there, and for reshaping this City’s environmental future.

INFORM
120 Wall St. 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Ph: 212 361-2400
Fax:212 361-2414
Website: www.informinc.org

Legislation for Clean Air - press conf. MON.

What: Press Conference to Support City Council Legislation for Clean
Air in New York City

Who: Hosted by INFORM with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Ny
League of Conservation Voters, UPROSE, WEACT, and New York business
leaders including Douglas Durst.

When: Monday, April 4, 2005 at 1pm

Where:On the steps of City Hall, New York, NY

Dear Friends and Supporters,

We are writing to invite you to a press conference INFORM is hosting Monday, April 4th at 1 PM on the steps of City Hall. The conference is being held to support a City Council legislation to update the City’s alternative fuel purchasing law.

The pending City Council legislation, if passed, would mean a major step forward in this city’s use of advanced hybrid as well as natural gas vehicles. The boldest measure would mandate, for the first time, a strong shift to purchasing natural gas trucks by the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) for the nation’s largest refuse and recycling fleet (2,500 trucks). DSNY would have to increase the percentage of new trucks purchased as natural gas powered from 30% to 50% between 2007
and 2011. New Yorkers would get:

•vastly improved air to breathe
•a reduced rate of asthma (which is now 30% higher than the national average) and lower cancer risk
•an improved quality of life with 50 to 98% quieter trucks (important especially during those early morning hours!), free of noxious diesel
fumes, traveling through city communities
•enhanced fuel security for one of the city’s most essential services (by reduced reliance on risky foreign oil-derived fuels).

At this press conference, INFORM will be joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the NY League of Conservation Voters,WEACT, UPROSE, and New York business leaders including Douglas Durst. Elizabeth Yeampierre from UPROSE will be bringing several children who suffer from asthma in her Brooklyn community. One will be speaking. We will also have a modern, operating natural gas truck on display.

We hope you will join us because it is important to show visible support to City Hall and to the press that passing this bill is a crucial step in improving the quality of life for every single one of us and every single New Yorker out there, and for reshaping this City’s environmental future.

INFORM
120 Wall St. 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Ph: 212 361-2400
Fax:212 361-2414
Website: www.informinc.org

Columbia Panel Clears Professors Of Anti-Semitism

New York Times
March 31, 2005

Columbia Panel Clears Professors Of Anti-Semitism
By KAREN W. ARENSON

An ad hoc faculty committee charged with investigating complaints that pro-Israel Jewish students were harassed by pro-Palestinian professors at Columbia University said it had found one instance in which a professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of behavior when he became angry at a student who he believed was defending Israel's conduct toward Palestinians.

But the report, obtained by The New York Times and scheduled for release today, said it had found "no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic."

It did, however, describe a broader environment of incivility on campus, with pro-Israel students disrupting lectures on Middle Eastern studies and some faculty members feeling that they were being spied on.

It said that Columbia's failure to address various student complaints quickly had had a "deeply negative impact" on the university as a whole, had led to an "acute erosion of trust between faculty and students," and had left Columbia vulnerable to criticism from outside groups with their own agendas.

The committee was formed during the winter at the request of Columbia's president, Lee C. Bollinger, after the release of a videotape in which Columbia and Barnard students said they had been intimidated by professors of Middle Eastern studies both in and out of class. The tape sparked widespread concern among Jewish groups, alumni, trustees and activists concerned about academic freedom.

Pro-Israel students said they made the video because they had been unable for several years to get administrators to take their complaints seriously. The film was backed by the David Project, a pro-Israel group based in Boston.

Mr. Bollinger called the report "thorough and comprehensive" and said that he endorsed its findings. He said that within the next few weeks he would announce the steps Columbia planned in response.

Many have already questioned the makeup of the ad hoc committee, pointing out that several members have expressed anti-Israel views. The committee included Farah Griffin and Jean E. Howard, professors of English and comparative literature; Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs; Mark Mazower, a history professor; and Ira Katznelson, a professor of political science and history and the committee's chairman.

Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, was an adviser.

Some of the report's harshest criticism was directed at Columbia itself, for not having clear processes that would have allowed earlier action on faculty and student complaints.

"As a result of these failures," the report said, "outside advocacy groups devoted to purposes tangential to those of the university were able to intervene to take up complaints expressed by some students."

The report (which is to be posted on Columbia's Web site today) noted that although often combative exchanges occurred between pro-Palestinian professors and pro-Israel students, no students received lower grades because of their views.

But the committee said that after meeting with 62 students, faculty members, administrators and alumni, and reading written submissions from more than 60 others, they were most concerned with three alleged instances of intimidation, all from the 2001-02 school year before Mr. Bollinger took office.

The most credible, the committee found, was an incident involving Professor Joseph Massad, who was teaching a class on Palestinian and Israeli politics. According to the report, a student, Deena Shanker, recalled asking if it was true that Israel sometimes gave a warning before a bombing so that people would not be hurt. She said the professor blew up, telling her, "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom!"

The report said that the professor had "denied emphatically that this incident took place" and had told the committee that he would never ask a student to leave his class. And it said that others in the "particularly tense" class differed about whether the incident, which was never formally reported, had taken place.

But the committee said that in the end, it found the account "credible" and concluded that the professor's "rhetorical response to her query exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question merited harsh public criticism."

Reached last evening, Professor Massad said he had just finished reading the report and was still trying to figure out what it meant.

"I clearly disagree with their findings," he said. "I deny the allegations. I do not know on what basis they found them credible. It was a he-said she-said thing. It is unclear on what basis they made the determination that one claim was more credible than the other."

He added that there had been a lack of due process.

The committee said it could not reach similar determinations about two other troubling episodes.

One involved an Israeli student's account of an off-campus lecture by Professor Massad. The student, Tomy Schoenfeld, told the committee that after he identified himself as a former Israeli soldier, the professor asked him twice how many Palestinians he had killed. According to the committee, Professor Massad said that he had no recollection of the event and that he had never met Mr. Schoenfeld. In the end, the committee concluded that the incident fell "into a challenging gray zone, neither in the classroom, where the reported behavior would not be acceptable, nor in an off-campus political event, where it might fit within a not unfamiliar range of give and take regarding charged issues."

The final incident involved the course "Introduction to Islamic Civilization" taught by George Saliba. The report said that a student, Lindsay Shrier, claimed the professor told her after class that she was not a Semite because she had green eyes, and therefore had "no claim to the land of Israel."

The professor told the committee that the student might have misunderstood an argument he often made about the absurdity of making historical claims for land based on religious premises. The committee concluded that "however regrettable a personal reference might have been, it is a good deal more likely to have been a statement that was integral to an argument about the uses of history and lineage than an act approaching intimidation."

The committee recommended that Columbia institute accessible and transparent grievance procedures "geared to the speedy resolution of complaints and the appropriate protection of privacy." It said the procedures should be well publicized. It also called on the university to improve its advising system, and stressed the responsibility of both faculty and students to maintain civil discourse.

"One major lesson for us," Mr. Bollinger said, "is that if you do not have adequate grievance procedures, problems you could have dealt with cascade into bigger problems." But a second lesson, he said, was that the conflict "was not only about the claims of intimidation, but also about the actual debate over the Middle East."

Columbia Panel Clears Professors Of Anti-Semitism

New York Times
March 31, 2005

Columbia Panel Clears Professors Of Anti-Semitism
By KAREN W. ARENSON

n ad hoc faculty committee charged with investigating complaints that pro-Israel Jewish students were harassed by pro-Palestinian professors at Columbia University said it had found one instance in which a professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of behavior when he became angry at a student who he believed was defending Israel's conduct toward Palestinians.

But the report, obtained by The New York Times and scheduled for release today, said it had found "no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic."

It did, however, describe a broader environment of incivility on campus, with pro-Israel students disrupting lectures on Middle Eastern studies and some faculty members feeling that they were being spied on.

It said that Columbia's failure to address various student complaints quickly had had a "deeply negative impact" on the university as a whole, had led to an "acute erosion of trust between faculty and students," and had left Columbia vulnerable to criticism from outside groups with their own agendas.

The committee was formed during the winter at the request of Columbia's president, Lee C. Bollinger, after the release of a videotape in which Columbia and Barnard students said they had been intimidated by professors of Middle Eastern studies both in and out of class. The tape sparked widespread concern among Jewish groups, alumni, trustees and activists concerned about academic freedom.

Pro-Israel students said they made the video because they had been unable for several years to get administrators to take their complaints seriously. The film was backed by the David Project, a pro-Israel group based in Boston.

Mr. Bollinger called the report "thorough and comprehensive" and said that he endorsed its findings. He said that within the next few weeks he would announce the steps Columbia planned in response.

Many have already questioned the makeup of the ad hoc committee, pointing out that several members have expressed anti-Israel views. The committee included Farah Griffin and Jean E. Howard, professors of English and comparative literature; Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs; Mark Mazower, a history professor; and Ira Katznelson, a professor of political science and history and the committee's chairman.

Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, was an adviser.

Some of the report's harshest criticism was directed at Columbia itself, for not having clear processes that would have allowed earlier action on faculty and student complaints.

"As a result of these failures," the report said, "outside advocacy groups devoted to purposes tangential to those of the university were able to intervene to take up complaints expressed by some students."

The report (which is to be posted on Columbia's Web site today) noted that although often combative exchanges occurred between pro-Palestinian professors and pro-Israel students, no students received lower grades because of their views.

But the committee said that after meeting with 62 students, faculty members, administrators and alumni, and reading written submissions from more than 60 others, they were most concerned with three alleged instances of intimidation, all from the 2001-02 school year before Mr. Bollinger took office.

The most credible, the committee found, was an incident involving Professor Joseph Massad, who was teaching a class on Palestinian and Israeli politics. According to the report, a student, Deena Shanker, recalled asking if it was true that Israel sometimes gave a warning before a bombing so that people would not be hurt. She said the professor blew up, telling her, "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom!"

The report said that the professor had "denied emphatically that this incident took place" and had told the committee that he would never ask a student to leave his class. And it said that others in the "particularly tense" class differed about whether the incident, which was never formally reported, had taken place.

But the committee said that in the end, it found the account "credible" and concluded that the professor's "rhetorical response to her query exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question merited harsh public criticism."

Reached last evening, Professor Massad said he had just finished reading the report and was still trying to figure out what it meant.

"I clearly disagree with their findings," he said. "I deny the allegations. I do not know on what basis they found them credible. It was a he-said she-said thing. It is unclear on what basis they made the determination that one claim was more credible than the other."

He added that there had been a lack of due process.

The committee said it could not reach similar determinations about two other troubling episodes.

One involved an Israeli student's account of an off-campus lecture by Professor Massad. The student, Tomy Schoenfeld, told the committee that after he identified himself as a former Israeli soldier, the professor asked him twice how many Palestinians he had killed. According to the committee, Professor Massad said that he had no recollection of the event and that he had never met Mr. Schoenfeld. In the end, the committee concluded that the incident fell "into a challenging gray zone, neither in the classroom, where the reported behavior would not be acceptable, nor in an off-campus political event, where it might fit within a not unfamiliar range of give and take regarding charged issues."

The final incident involved the course "Introduction to Islamic Civilization" taught by George Saliba. The report said that a student, Lindsay Shrier, claimed the professor told her after class that she was not a Semite because she had green eyes, and therefore had "no claim to the land of Israel."

The professor told the committee that the student might have misunderstood an argument he often made about the absurdity of making historical claims for land based on religious premises. The committee concluded that "however regrettable a personal reference might have been, it is a good deal more likely to have been a statement that was integral to an argument about the uses of history and lineage than an act approaching intimidation."

The committee recommended that Columbia institute accessible and transparent grievance procedures "geared to the speedy resolution of complaints and the appropriate protection of privacy." It said the procedures should be well publicized. It also called on the university to improve its advising system, and stressed the responsibility of both faculty and students to maintain civil discourse.

"One major lesson for us," Mr. Bollinger said, "is that if you do not have adequate grievance procedures, problems you could have dealt with cascade into bigger problems." But a second lesson, he said, was that the conflict "was not only about the claims of intimidation, but also about the actual debate over the Middle East."

Court Issues Age Discrimination Ruling

Supreme Court - AP


Court Issues Age Discrimination Ruling

5 minutes ago

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court expanded job protections for roughly half the nation's work force Wednesday, ruling that federal law allows people 40 and over to file age bias claims over salary and hiring even if employers never intended any harm.


Reuters Photo


Related Links
• Opinion: Smith v. City of Jackson (FindLaw)



The decision eases the legal threshold for about 75 million middle-aged and older people to contend in court that a policy has a disproportionately hurtful effect on them.

On the other hand, the ruling makes clear employers still will prevail if they can cite a reasonable explanation for their policies, such as cost-cutting.

The decision was applauded by advocates for older workers. Business and municipal groups expressed disappointment, saying it could create costly additional litigation.

The case was brought by older police officers in Jackson, Miss., who contended a city policy favored younger colleagues. The court unanimously rejected their appeal but in a 5-3 vote ruled they were entitled to pursue the lawsuit.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in the decision, which was heard in November when he was being treated for thyroid cancer.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He said it was meant to allow the same type of legal challenges for older workers that minorities and women can make under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But he also said the same law stipulates employers are within their rights to sometimes treat older workers differently.

"Age ... not uncommonly has relevance to an individual's capacity to engage in certain types of employment," wrote Stevens, who at 84 is the court's oldest member.

He was joined by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia filed a separate opinion, saying "disparate impact" claims alleging a hurtful effect are acceptable based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of the congressional statute, not the majority opinion's "independent determination" of the law.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and two others disagreed, saying the age discrimination act bars the impact claims. She said Congress never intended such lawsuits because employers should have flexibility to make business decisions that might unintentionally harm older workers.

"There often is a correlation between an individual's age and her ability to perform her job," O'Connor wrote. "That is to be expected, for physical ability generally declines with age, and in some cases, so does mental capacity."

She was joined by Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"This is a major boost for the fight to eliminate age discrimination in the workplace. Evidence that an employer is intentionally out to get older workers is very hard to come by," said Laurie McCann, senior attorney for AARP, the advocacy group for people 50 and over.

"It is a significant win for older workers who lack smoking gun evidence of age discrimination," said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who represented the police officers. "It also reminds employers to be conscious of the effects of their policies."

But David Parkhurst, attorney for the National League of Cities, called the ruling a disappointment for cash-strapped governments as they seek ways to legitimately cut costs.

Potential budget savings could be lost, he said, "if cities have to extend more time and money for litigation costs."

In the Mississippi case, 30 Jackson officers and dispatchers sued over a pay performance plan they said gave substantially larger pay raises to employees with five or fewer years of tenure — a plan they said would as a result have an unfavorable impact on employees 40 and over.

Lower courts threw out the lawsuit, reasoning that impact claims were barred.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that while police officers can get into court to prove unfavorable impact, they failed to do so here. The city's explanation that it was trying to make salaries for junior officers more competitive with similar positions was reasonable, the court said.
Employers defending themselves from lawsuits charging sex or race discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts have a tougher standard of showing "business necessity" rather than "reasonableness" to prevail at trial.

"The city's decision to grant a larger raise to lower echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with that of surrounding police forces was a decision based on a 'reasonable factor other than age' that responded to the city's legitimate goal of retaining police officers," Stevens wrote.

The case is Smith v. City of Jackson, 03-1160.

___

On the Net:

The opinion in Smith v. City of Jackson is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050330smith.pdf