Study Looks at Hispanic Hypertension 'Race Gap'
A Service of the National Health Information Center, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Study Looks at Hispanic Hypertension 'Race Gap'
Black Hispanics more likely to have high blood pressure than White Hispanics
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 25 (HealthDay News) -- Black Hispanics in the United States have higher rates of hypertension that White Hispanics, a new study finds.
The Columbia University research is the first to examine hypertension in different Hispanic racial subgroups.
The study included information from more than 12,000 Hispanic adults. Overall, U.S. Hispanics have lower rates of high blood pressure than non-Hispanics (16.8 percent vs. 24.7 percent). However, the "protective effect" of being Hispanic does not cover black Hispanics, noted researcher Luisa N. Borrell, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia's School of Public Health in New York City.
"The idealized Hispanic health advantage disappears when race is accounted for. We are ignoring the real health profile of Hispanics," Borrell said in a prepared statement.
Overall, blacks, regardless of their ethnicity, had the highest rates of high blood pressure, the study noted.
This research is a first step toward a better understanding of the link between race and health, according to David R. Williams, a professor at the Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.
"I think we know that there is nothing inherently about being black that leads to higher rates of hypertension," Williams said in a prepared statement. "We can't stop at the descriptive level. What is it about being black that makes the difference?"
"This kind of comparison could help tease out the effect of race as a marker for inequality in opportunities and, further, as a cause for existing health disparities," Borrell said.
The findings appear in the February issue of Ethnicity & Disease.
More information
The American Heart Association has more about high blood pressure.
(SOURCE: Health Behavior News Service, news release, Jan. 25, 2006)
Copyright � 2006 ScoutNews LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
2 articles on Eminent Domain abuse
Subject: 2 articles on Eminent Domain abuse (squeeze on banks)
Date: 1/26/2006 7:18:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Publication: The New York Sun; Date:Jan 26,
2006; Section:Business; Page:8
Seized Land Has Bank Taking Stand
BANS LOANS TO BUILDERS IF EMINENT DOMAIN USED
By PAUL NOWELL � Associated Press
HARLOTTE, N.C. � Regional bank BB&T Corporation, one of the nation�s largest
financial institutions, will make no loans to developers who plan to build commercial projects
on land taken from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain,
the company said yesterday.
�The idea that a citizen�s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is
extremely misguided, in fact it�s just plain wrong,� the bank�s chairman and chief executive,
John Allison, said in a statement.
In an interview,BB&T chief credit officer Ken Chalk said the bank expects to lose only a
tiny amount of business, but believes it was obligated to take a stance on the issue.
�It�s not even a fraction of a percent,�he said.�The dollar amount is insignificant.�
But he added: �We do business with a large number of consumers and small businesses in our
footprint. We are hearing from clients that this is an important philosophical issue.�
Mr. Chalk said he knows of no other large American bank with a similar policy.
BB&T, which is headquartered in Winston-Salem, ranks among the nation�s top 10 banks by assets.
In June, a divided Supreme Court ruled that cities may raze people�s homes to make way for
shopping malls or other private development. The 5�4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.
The ruling upheld a decision by the City of New London, Conn., to seize seven property
owners� land so developers could build a hotel and highend condominiums to keep pharmaceutical giant Pfizer expanding in the state.
Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute of Justice, who
represented homeowners in the New London case, applauded the bank�s decision.
�Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional,� Mr. Bullock said in a statement. �BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.�
The policy also will protect the assets of banks such as BB&T by not tying up their money in
projects that may draw political opposition, said Columbia University law professor Thomas Merrill, a specialist on eminent domain.
*************************************************
Publication: The New York Sun; Date:Jan 26,
2006; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:6
�A Straightforward Decision�
The fight-back against eminent domain abuse following the Supreme Court�s ruling in Kelo
v.New London has thus far unfolded in the halls of the Capitol, state houses, and city halls, but
a piece of news from the business world reminds everyone that private citizens also have a role
to play in protecting constitutional liberties.
BB&T Corporation, the nation�s ninth-largest bank with operations in the South and mid-Atlantic, announced that it will no longer lend to commercial developers who exploit the
government�s power of eminent domain for their projects. Whatever its practical effects, the
move has symbolic significance, highlighting legislative efforts and laying down a challenge
to other financial institutions.
�While we�re certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could
not wait any longer to address,� a senior executive vice president, W. Kendall Chalk, said
in the press release announcing the decision.
�This was a straightforward decision; it�s simply the right thing to do,� he continued in the
statement. Mr. Chalk told us later that executives reached their decision without any
pressure from outside groups and in the knowledge that they were the first of their competitors to announce they would forego such business. One prominent property rights activist we reached yesterday, Scott Bullock � who litigated the Kelo case � was pleased but surprised by the move.
Cynics might argue that BB&T can afford to be virtuous in this instance. According to Mr.
Chalk, eminent domain development projects represent only an insignificant slice of the
bank�s business. Yet corporations are inherently live-andlet-live in respect of so many hot-button political issues that we can�t help but think that a sense of principle has played a role in the bank�s decision.
The question now is, what next? Mr. Bullock reports that he and other activists have tried
over the years to dissuade many companies from using eminent domain in development projects (although he had not been in touch with BB&T).
Companies usually demur, as long as their competitors are willing to exploit eminent domain.
Just as a retailer or developer might have a fiduciary duty to take advantage of a legal
opportunity to snatch a prime location, banks could face a tough sell to shareholders in
respect of passing up the profits from these loans. While the surest way to secure property
rights remains in the hands of our legislators, BB&T�s decision reminds those legislators that
even in the world of billion-dollar banking, private citizens are prepared to take risks for the right to property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell's Kitchen Online(tm) -- NYC's West Side Wonderland
web: http://hellskitchen.net
email: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
TenantNet(tm), for Residential Tenants: http://tenant.net
Date: 1/26/2006 7:18:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Publication: The New York Sun; Date:Jan 26,
2006; Section:Business; Page:8
Seized Land Has Bank Taking Stand
BANS LOANS TO BUILDERS IF EMINENT DOMAIN USED
By PAUL NOWELL � Associated Press
HARLOTTE, N.C. � Regional bank BB&T Corporation, one of the nation�s largest
financial institutions, will make no loans to developers who plan to build commercial projects
on land taken from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain,
the company said yesterday.
�The idea that a citizen�s property can be taken by the government solely for private use is
extremely misguided, in fact it�s just plain wrong,� the bank�s chairman and chief executive,
John Allison, said in a statement.
In an interview,BB&T chief credit officer Ken Chalk said the bank expects to lose only a
tiny amount of business, but believes it was obligated to take a stance on the issue.
�It�s not even a fraction of a percent,�he said.�The dollar amount is insignificant.�
But he added: �We do business with a large number of consumers and small businesses in our
footprint. We are hearing from clients that this is an important philosophical issue.�
Mr. Chalk said he knows of no other large American bank with a similar policy.
BB&T, which is headquartered in Winston-Salem, ranks among the nation�s top 10 banks by assets.
In June, a divided Supreme Court ruled that cities may raze people�s homes to make way for
shopping malls or other private development. The 5�4 decision gave local governments the power to seize private property in the name of increased tax revenue.
The ruling upheld a decision by the City of New London, Conn., to seize seven property
owners� land so developers could build a hotel and highend condominiums to keep pharmaceutical giant Pfizer expanding in the state.
Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute of Justice, who
represented homeowners in the New London case, applauded the bank�s decision.
�Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional,� Mr. Bullock said in a statement. �BB&T has stepped up and recognized its corporate responsibility to not be a part of this shameful abuse of individual rights.�
The policy also will protect the assets of banks such as BB&T by not tying up their money in
projects that may draw political opposition, said Columbia University law professor Thomas Merrill, a specialist on eminent domain.
*************************************************
Publication: The New York Sun; Date:Jan 26,
2006; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:6
�A Straightforward Decision�
The fight-back against eminent domain abuse following the Supreme Court�s ruling in Kelo
v.New London has thus far unfolded in the halls of the Capitol, state houses, and city halls, but
a piece of news from the business world reminds everyone that private citizens also have a role
to play in protecting constitutional liberties.
BB&T Corporation, the nation�s ninth-largest bank with operations in the South and mid-Atlantic, announced that it will no longer lend to commercial developers who exploit the
government�s power of eminent domain for their projects. Whatever its practical effects, the
move has symbolic significance, highlighting legislative efforts and laying down a challenge
to other financial institutions.
�While we�re certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could
not wait any longer to address,� a senior executive vice president, W. Kendall Chalk, said
in the press release announcing the decision.
�This was a straightforward decision; it�s simply the right thing to do,� he continued in the
statement. Mr. Chalk told us later that executives reached their decision without any
pressure from outside groups and in the knowledge that they were the first of their competitors to announce they would forego such business. One prominent property rights activist we reached yesterday, Scott Bullock � who litigated the Kelo case � was pleased but surprised by the move.
Cynics might argue that BB&T can afford to be virtuous in this instance. According to Mr.
Chalk, eminent domain development projects represent only an insignificant slice of the
bank�s business. Yet corporations are inherently live-andlet-live in respect of so many hot-button political issues that we can�t help but think that a sense of principle has played a role in the bank�s decision.
The question now is, what next? Mr. Bullock reports that he and other activists have tried
over the years to dissuade many companies from using eminent domain in development projects (although he had not been in touch with BB&T).
Companies usually demur, as long as their competitors are willing to exploit eminent domain.
Just as a retailer or developer might have a fiduciary duty to take advantage of a legal
opportunity to snatch a prime location, banks could face a tough sell to shareholders in
respect of passing up the profits from these loans. While the surest way to secure property
rights remains in the hands of our legislators, BB&T�s decision reminds those legislators that
even in the world of billion-dollar banking, private citizens are prepared to take risks for the right to property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell's Kitchen Online(tm) -- NYC's West Side Wonderland
web: http://hellskitchen.net
email: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
TenantNet(tm), for Residential Tenants: http://tenant.net
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Columbia Expansion Extensive
Washington Square News
News: City News
COURTESY OF TELSASOCIETY.COM
![]()
Columbia's historical campus today, expanding into Manhattanville.
Columbia Expansion Extensive
by Michelle SeeryContributing Writer
January 26, 2006
Columbia University is undertaking ambitious and controversial plans to expand its campus over the next 25 years across more that 18 acres of disputed land surrounding its upper Manhattan campus.
Similar to NYU’s real estate struggles, Columbia’s proposal would accommodate a growing university in a constricted and increasingly expensive area.
“The proposed development will help solve the university’s critical space needs and continue to attract talented faculty, researchers and students to carry out its mission of education, research and service,” according to a statement released by Columbia University.
While Columbia already owns some of this land, it plans to acquire the remaining property through eminent domain, or the seizing of private property.
The plans are controversial both inside and outside the Columbia community. A group of 20 students started the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification, which allied itself with West Harlem community groups in Fall 2004, to oppose the university’s expansion plans.
Columbia’s plans may require residents and business owners in the area to relocate and residents in 94 apartment units may be forced to move, group members said.
“We don’t want the university to be transformed into a huge biotech campus that contributes to the gentrification of the area and pushes out people of color,” said Columbia senior Nell Geiser, a member of the coalition.
The Department of City Planning is currently seeking community consultation about its expansion plans, working with both Columbia and Community Board 9 to determine the future of Manhattanville, which is the term applied to the Morningside Heights area of Manhattan that Columbia occupies.
The disputed land consists of approximately 18 acres, extending north from West 125th Street to 133rd Street, and west from Broadway to 12th Avenue, according to the website of Columbia University Neighbors, which is the school’s community affairs branch.
“We believe that the proposed development will create opportunities for commercial development and will add, both directly and indirectly, some 14,000 new jobs,” according to the Columbia statement.
Construction will be completed over the next 10 years and total completion of the projects would take another 15 to 25 years. The first phase of the development would begin along West 125th Street and gradually move north, encompassing a new facility and research center for its School of the Arts. Two historical buildings — Prentis Hall on West 125th Street and the Studebaker Building on West 131st Street — will be renovated for new uses. Other buildings along West 125th Street would have their ground floors renovated.
“The university plans to devote space for ground-floor retail, restaurants and other community uses, contributing to the ongoing revitalization taking place along West 125th Street, Broadway and 12th Avenue,” Columbia’s statement reads.
Approximately 5 million square feet will be developed for “research facilities, classrooms, administrations, faculty and student housing, recreation and active ground floor uses, such as stores and restaurants,” according to the Neighbors website. Another 1.5 million square feet underground would be used for support services, including utilities, a central loading dock and parking.
The Manhattanville expansion could lead to a loss of more than 1,150 jobs, members of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification said.
“The replacement of those jobs with jobs of a difference character that will not be broadly available to local residents,” according to the website of the coalition, which is composed of 20 students. The group also said the move would also limit affordable housing and displace people living in the area.
Geiser said the coalition spoke with 40 students groups throughout Columbia to ensure the community concerns of West Harlem are heard on campus.
Several hundred people have become involved through petitions distributed by the coalition, and 60 Columbia faculty members signed the petition last spring, Geiser said.
“They don’t believe they are in genuine dialogue with the community and they are not willing to redesign its own plans,” she said, adding that the coalition continues to work with faculty to ensure the university remains accountable for the expansion’s effects.
Community Board 9, which includes residents from Manhattanville, is opposed Columbia’s Manhattanville plan and its use of eminent domain.
"We have a resolution that we will not allow the taking of private property to be given to another organization, whether it is non-profit or for-profit," CB9 chairman Jordi Reyes-Montblanc said.
Residents are also worried even if they aren’t forced to move, they will be driven out by rent increases due to the expansion, Reyes-Montblanc said.
Most tenants in Manhattanville are low-wage and blue-collar workers and would be forced to move if rent increases occur, he said, adding that CB9 has been working for the past 20 years on an alternate development plan called the 197-A plan.
The 197-A plan, which rejects the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville, proposes a special mixed-use district for Manhattanville. This district will include affordable housing and the preservation of industrial jobs. The plan was officially recognized in November 2005 when it passed threshold reviews by the Department of City Planning.
In 2003, the Harlem Community Development Corporation and the Pratt Center for Community Development joined with CB9 to develop the plan after Columbia announced its Manhattanville plan that February.
“Columbia is proposing to develop a mixed-use campus comprising academic, residential, retail and public open spaces,” according to the Columbia statement. “Since announcing the proposed Manhattanville expansion the university has continued to engage in discussions with community leaders, the city, elected officials and Community Board 9.”
Earlier this month, CB9 submitted its written response to an Environmental Impact Statement, which was performed. The response repeated the need for a revised draft scope to include the 197-A plan.
Columbia Expansion Extensive
Post your feedback on this topic here
Feedback will open in a new window.
JavaScript is disabled. Feedback will open in the current window.
News: City News
COURTESY OF TELSASOCIETY.COM
Columbia's historical campus today, expanding into Manhattanville.
Columbia Expansion Extensive
by Michelle SeeryContributing Writer
January 26, 2006
Columbia University is undertaking ambitious and controversial plans to expand its campus over the next 25 years across more that 18 acres of disputed land surrounding its upper Manhattan campus.
Similar to NYU’s real estate struggles, Columbia’s proposal would accommodate a growing university in a constricted and increasingly expensive area.
“The proposed development will help solve the university’s critical space needs and continue to attract talented faculty, researchers and students to carry out its mission of education, research and service,” according to a statement released by Columbia University.
While Columbia already owns some of this land, it plans to acquire the remaining property through eminent domain, or the seizing of private property.
The plans are controversial both inside and outside the Columbia community. A group of 20 students started the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification, which allied itself with West Harlem community groups in Fall 2004, to oppose the university’s expansion plans.
Columbia’s plans may require residents and business owners in the area to relocate and residents in 94 apartment units may be forced to move, group members said.
“We don’t want the university to be transformed into a huge biotech campus that contributes to the gentrification of the area and pushes out people of color,” said Columbia senior Nell Geiser, a member of the coalition.
The Department of City Planning is currently seeking community consultation about its expansion plans, working with both Columbia and Community Board 9 to determine the future of Manhattanville, which is the term applied to the Morningside Heights area of Manhattan that Columbia occupies.
The disputed land consists of approximately 18 acres, extending north from West 125th Street to 133rd Street, and west from Broadway to 12th Avenue, according to the website of Columbia University Neighbors, which is the school’s community affairs branch.
“We believe that the proposed development will create opportunities for commercial development and will add, both directly and indirectly, some 14,000 new jobs,” according to the Columbia statement.
Construction will be completed over the next 10 years and total completion of the projects would take another 15 to 25 years. The first phase of the development would begin along West 125th Street and gradually move north, encompassing a new facility and research center for its School of the Arts. Two historical buildings — Prentis Hall on West 125th Street and the Studebaker Building on West 131st Street — will be renovated for new uses. Other buildings along West 125th Street would have their ground floors renovated.
“The university plans to devote space for ground-floor retail, restaurants and other community uses, contributing to the ongoing revitalization taking place along West 125th Street, Broadway and 12th Avenue,” Columbia’s statement reads.
Approximately 5 million square feet will be developed for “research facilities, classrooms, administrations, faculty and student housing, recreation and active ground floor uses, such as stores and restaurants,” according to the Neighbors website. Another 1.5 million square feet underground would be used for support services, including utilities, a central loading dock and parking.
The Manhattanville expansion could lead to a loss of more than 1,150 jobs, members of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification said.
“The replacement of those jobs with jobs of a difference character that will not be broadly available to local residents,” according to the website of the coalition, which is composed of 20 students. The group also said the move would also limit affordable housing and displace people living in the area.
Geiser said the coalition spoke with 40 students groups throughout Columbia to ensure the community concerns of West Harlem are heard on campus.
Several hundred people have become involved through petitions distributed by the coalition, and 60 Columbia faculty members signed the petition last spring, Geiser said.
“They don’t believe they are in genuine dialogue with the community and they are not willing to redesign its own plans,” she said, adding that the coalition continues to work with faculty to ensure the university remains accountable for the expansion’s effects.
Community Board 9, which includes residents from Manhattanville, is opposed Columbia’s Manhattanville plan and its use of eminent domain.
"We have a resolution that we will not allow the taking of private property to be given to another organization, whether it is non-profit or for-profit," CB9 chairman Jordi Reyes-Montblanc said.
Residents are also worried even if they aren’t forced to move, they will be driven out by rent increases due to the expansion, Reyes-Montblanc said.
Most tenants in Manhattanville are low-wage and blue-collar workers and would be forced to move if rent increases occur, he said, adding that CB9 has been working for the past 20 years on an alternate development plan called the 197-A plan.
The 197-A plan, which rejects the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville, proposes a special mixed-use district for Manhattanville. This district will include affordable housing and the preservation of industrial jobs. The plan was officially recognized in November 2005 when it passed threshold reviews by the Department of City Planning.
In 2003, the Harlem Community Development Corporation and the Pratt Center for Community Development joined with CB9 to develop the plan after Columbia announced its Manhattanville plan that February.
“Columbia is proposing to develop a mixed-use campus comprising academic, residential, retail and public open spaces,” according to the Columbia statement. “Since announcing the proposed Manhattanville expansion the university has continued to engage in discussions with community leaders, the city, elected officials and Community Board 9.”
Earlier this month, CB9 submitted its written response to an Environmental Impact Statement, which was performed. The response repeated the need for a revised draft scope to include the 197-A plan.
Columbia Expansion Extensive
Post your feedback on this topic here
Feedback will open in a new window.
JavaScript is disabled. Feedback will open in the current window.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Mayor Bloomberg Announces Launch of Affordable Housing Online Resource
Subject: Mayor Bloomberg Announces Launch of Affordable Housing Online Resource
Date: 1/20/2006 5:22:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.6i5rk.7fyp.rs.0.6838b.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
January 20, 2006
MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONLINE RESOURCE
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today the creation of the online Affordable Housing Resource Center, which aims to dramatically increase New Yorkers' access to information from more than a dozen City agencies involved in housing matters. The Affordable Housing Resource Center can be found on the web at: www.nyc.gov/housing. The site will provide information and advice on buying and renting in the private market, legal rights and responsibilities, and health tips.
"During my re-election campaign I pledged that City government would combine all of its existing data on available housing into a comprehensive Web site that will also include information on legal services, assistance for building owners and information on City services for tenants," said Mayor Bloomberg. "The online Affordable Housing Resource Center fulfills that promise. In the same way that 311 brings together comprehensive information on City services through one telephone number, this Web site will provide New Yorkers with a single point of entry to affordable housing information."
To help more New Yorkers learn about affordable housing opportunities and other critical housing information, 12 City agencies worked together to enact the Mayor's pledge to combine key elements of the City's existing housing data into a comprehensive portal on the City's main Web site, www.nyc.gov. In addition to current lotteries of housing financed through City programs, this Affordable Housing Resource Center provides information on the following:
* Apartment and house hunting tips
* Down payment assistance
* Public housing
* Emergency housing assistance
* Federal rental assistance
* Repairs and maintenance
* Tenants' rights
* Foreclosure prevention
* Housing for people with special needs, and
* Mayoral announcements on housing
To read the complete press release, visit the HPD Web site at www.nyc.gov/hpd
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested For:
Apartments and Homes for Rent or Sale
Residential Building Owner Information
HPD Press Releases
To subscribe please go to this link:
https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
Date: 1/20/2006 5:22:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: MyNYC@nyc.gov
Reply To: msngrprdb2-1.6i5rk.7fyp.rs.0.6838b.-nc2thg@popcsms.csc.nycnet
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
January 20, 2006
MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONLINE RESOURCE
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today the creation of the online Affordable Housing Resource Center, which aims to dramatically increase New Yorkers' access to information from more than a dozen City agencies involved in housing matters. The Affordable Housing Resource Center can be found on the web at: www.nyc.gov/housing. The site will provide information and advice on buying and renting in the private market, legal rights and responsibilities, and health tips.
"During my re-election campaign I pledged that City government would combine all of its existing data on available housing into a comprehensive Web site that will also include information on legal services, assistance for building owners and information on City services for tenants," said Mayor Bloomberg. "The online Affordable Housing Resource Center fulfills that promise. In the same way that 311 brings together comprehensive information on City services through one telephone number, this Web site will provide New Yorkers with a single point of entry to affordable housing information."
To help more New Yorkers learn about affordable housing opportunities and other critical housing information, 12 City agencies worked together to enact the Mayor's pledge to combine key elements of the City's existing housing data into a comprehensive portal on the City's main Web site, www.nyc.gov. In addition to current lotteries of housing financed through City programs, this Affordable Housing Resource Center provides information on the following:
* Apartment and house hunting tips
* Down payment assistance
* Public housing
* Emergency housing assistance
* Federal rental assistance
* Repairs and maintenance
* Tenants' rights
* Foreclosure prevention
* Housing for people with special needs, and
* Mayoral announcements on housing
To read the complete press release, visit the HPD Web site at www.nyc.gov/hpd
This is the NYC.gov News You Requested For:
Apartments and Homes for Rent or Sale
Residential Building Owner Information
HPD Press Releases
To subscribe please go to this link:
https://www.nyc.gov/portal/signin.jsp
Comment on this news service
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
Subject: Eminent domain article
Date: 1/18/2006 2:39:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
As long as Richard Brodsky and others portray Eminent Domain as only a right-wing issue, any reform will be stalled. Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and will not do anything to curb the abuse. Remember, City Council was ready to approve the stadium and are likely to approve Atlantic Yards.
The Times reporter did not really do her homework on this. Most progressives I know also find huge problems with ED. It gets its support from money-pit liberals and Democratic hacks ... they type you see populating city council or the legislature.
See http://www.richardbrodsky.com/ Notice that Gottfried has endorsed Brodsky ... those two refused to allow us to testify on Hudson Yards. I'm not a fan of Green or Cuomo, but Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and he's not earning any brownie points.
January 18, 2006
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
NY Times
By TERRY PRISTIN
Bank of America agreed to join the developer Douglas Durst in 2003 in building a 54-story tower in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, giving a psychological and economic lift to a city that was still reeling from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Durst said he would not have been able to negotiate with Bank of America or other prospective tenants had the state not authorized him to use eminent domain, a redevelopment tool that is coming under fire in the wake of a United States Supreme Court ruling last June in a Connecticut case.
Now under construction at 42nd Street and the Avenue of Americas, the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park, as the project is known, was decades in the making as the Durst family assembled the site. Ultimately, only two buildings remained, but their owners kept raising the price, Mr. Durst said.
Eventually, the state told Mr. Durst that if he found an anchor tenant the buildings could be condemned even though the site was not in a blighted neighborhood. That threat alone was enough to break the impasse. "Once we had that ability, we were able to quickly come to a resolution on the two properties and meet Bank of America's schedule," Mr. Durst said.
Using eminent domain for private projects has long been a divisive issue, but never more so since the Supreme Court upheld the right of officials in New London, Conn., to condemn homes and businesses to increase the tax base of one of the state's poorest cities.
That decision, coupled with reports of abuses in places like the predominantly African-American community of Riviera Beach, Fla., where plans called for replacing thousands of homes with upscale condos, has prompted a onslaught of legislation, both federal and state.
In November, the House of Representatives approved a bill by F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, that would penalize government agencies for using condemnation powers for private projects by denying them economic development funds for two years. Legislation has been introduced in 27 states, and more is coming, said Larry Morandi, the director of the environment, energy and transportation program of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In California, where eminent domain can be used only in urban areas - and only when there is substantial evidence of blight - four ballot initiatives have been filed with the state attorney general's office to further limit condemnation, said John F. Shirey, the executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, a trade group.
The outcry has given heart to property-rights advocates. "We lost the Supreme Court case, but we're ultimately going to win in changing the way that eminent domain is going to be used in this country," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, the most prominent advocacy group.
But around the country, developers and city officials say weakening or destroying the power to condemn property will seriously undermine efforts to rehabilitate decaying cities and might even hinder the rebuilding of New Orleans. Without eminent domain, the Inner Harbor, which played an essential role in Baltimore's success in building its tourist industry, could not have been redeveloped, said Ralph S. Tyler, the city solicitor.
Yet many developers and politicians have been loath to speak up, said Jeffrey Finkle, the president and chief executive of the International Economic Development Council, a professional group. For example, the Real Estate Roundtable, which represents the nation's largest real estate companies, has refrained from officially opposing the federal bill, said Roger Platt, a senior vice president.
Mr. Finkle also said the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, had not put its lobbying muscle to work on the issue. But Herb L. Tyson, a lobbyist for the council, said he had privately urged lawmakers to preserve eminent domain for economic development. "Our feeling is that land use is a local issue," he said.
Mr. Finkle said that for many politicians, defending eminent domain was as perilous as endorsing gay marriage. "This issue is the third rail right now," Mr. Finkle said. "You step on it, you die."
One business group that has opposed restrictions on eminent domain is the Partnership for New York City, whose members include most of the city's top developers. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said her members opposed any efforts to alter condemnation procedures through federal or state legislation. "When you add restrictions on development, you are never quite sure what the results are going to be," she said. "We want to avoid political reaction to an issue that adds more problems and obstacles to economic growth."
Some lawmakers and public officials, however, are trying to carve out a moderate position, saying that reform is needed to address legitimate grievances. "What you're seeing is a coherent attack by the right on the power of eminent domain," said Richard L. Brodsky, a New York State assemblyman from Westchester County who is seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. "It does no one any good to pretend that things aren't going to change. If we take that view, we're going to see the extreme position triumph."
Since June, three states have passed bills banning the use of eminent domain for economic development (though a measure in Texas exempts the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington). Michigan lawmakers have approved a constitutional amendment that is subject to a popular vote.
In a more cautious vein, Ohio has effectively denied state funding for one year to private projects in nonblighted areas that involve condemnation. The state also created a bipartisan task force to study the issue. "Ohio is saying, 'We need some breathing space,' " Mr. Morandi, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said.
Mr. Brodsky's bills would increase protections for property owners. Homeowners, for example, would be guaranteed compensation equal to 150 percent of the value of their property. An ombudsman would oversee condemnation, which would be limited to projects that were part of a redevelopment plan approved by an elected local government. Government agencies would have to justify the taking of homes by weighing the benefits against the impact.
But Ms. Berliner said that requiring city council approval would not cure the abuses. "Cities know how to jump through their own hoops," she said.
One issue that has divided advocates of eminent domain is whether its use should be limited to blighted areas, as in California and other states. John D. Echeverria, the executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, views eminent domain as a critical weapon in fighting sprawl, but he said that a finding of blight should not be a prerequisite. "Justifying eminent domain on a finding of blight invariably targets low-income communities," he said.
The word "blight" is not mentioned in the Sensenbrenner bill, which does, however, allow condemnation of contaminated land, known as brownfields. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no hearings have been scheduled.
That may be because Congress has already passed stop-gap legislation. A vaguely worded rider to an annual appropriations bill in November restricts use of federal funds to support condemnation that "primarily benefits private entities." The measure also called for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a yearlong nationwide study.
Economic development officials, who contend that property-rights groups have exaggerated the threat from eminent domain, said they welcomed the study. "The public is understandably upset because they've not been told the whole story," said Mr. Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association.
Date: 1/18/2006 2:39:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
As long as Richard Brodsky and others portray Eminent Domain as only a right-wing issue, any reform will be stalled. Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and will not do anything to curb the abuse. Remember, City Council was ready to approve the stadium and are likely to approve Atlantic Yards.
The Times reporter did not really do her homework on this. Most progressives I know also find huge problems with ED. It gets its support from money-pit liberals and Democratic hacks ... they type you see populating city council or the legislature.
See http://www.richardbrodsky.com/ Notice that Gottfried has endorsed Brodsky ... those two refused to allow us to testify on Hudson Yards. I'm not a fan of Green or Cuomo, but Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and he's not earning any brownie points.
January 18, 2006
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
NY Times
By TERRY PRISTIN
Bank of America agreed to join the developer Douglas Durst in 2003 in building a 54-story tower in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, giving a psychological and economic lift to a city that was still reeling from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Durst said he would not have been able to negotiate with Bank of America or other prospective tenants had the state not authorized him to use eminent domain, a redevelopment tool that is coming under fire in the wake of a United States Supreme Court ruling last June in a Connecticut case.
Now under construction at 42nd Street and the Avenue of Americas, the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park, as the project is known, was decades in the making as the Durst family assembled the site. Ultimately, only two buildings remained, but their owners kept raising the price, Mr. Durst said.
Eventually, the state told Mr. Durst that if he found an anchor tenant the buildings could be condemned even though the site was not in a blighted neighborhood. That threat alone was enough to break the impasse. "Once we had that ability, we were able to quickly come to a resolution on the two properties and meet Bank of America's schedule," Mr. Durst said.
Using eminent domain for private projects has long been a divisive issue, but never more so since the Supreme Court upheld the right of officials in New London, Conn., to condemn homes and businesses to increase the tax base of one of the state's poorest cities.
That decision, coupled with reports of abuses in places like the predominantly African-American community of Riviera Beach, Fla., where plans called for replacing thousands of homes with upscale condos, has prompted a onslaught of legislation, both federal and state.
In November, the House of Representatives approved a bill by F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, that would penalize government agencies for using condemnation powers for private projects by denying them economic development funds for two years. Legislation has been introduced in 27 states, and more is coming, said Larry Morandi, the director of the environment, energy and transportation program of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In California, where eminent domain can be used only in urban areas - and only when there is substantial evidence of blight - four ballot initiatives have been filed with the state attorney general's office to further limit condemnation, said John F. Shirey, the executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, a trade group.
The outcry has given heart to property-rights advocates. "We lost the Supreme Court case, but we're ultimately going to win in changing the way that eminent domain is going to be used in this country," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, the most prominent advocacy group.
But around the country, developers and city officials say weakening or destroying the power to condemn property will seriously undermine efforts to rehabilitate decaying cities and might even hinder the rebuilding of New Orleans. Without eminent domain, the Inner Harbor, which played an essential role in Baltimore's success in building its tourist industry, could not have been redeveloped, said Ralph S. Tyler, the city solicitor.
Yet many developers and politicians have been loath to speak up, said Jeffrey Finkle, the president and chief executive of the International Economic Development Council, a professional group. For example, the Real Estate Roundtable, which represents the nation's largest real estate companies, has refrained from officially opposing the federal bill, said Roger Platt, a senior vice president.
Mr. Finkle also said the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, had not put its lobbying muscle to work on the issue. But Herb L. Tyson, a lobbyist for the council, said he had privately urged lawmakers to preserve eminent domain for economic development. "Our feeling is that land use is a local issue," he said.
Mr. Finkle said that for many politicians, defending eminent domain was as perilous as endorsing gay marriage. "This issue is the third rail right now," Mr. Finkle said. "You step on it, you die."
One business group that has opposed restrictions on eminent domain is the Partnership for New York City, whose members include most of the city's top developers. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said her members opposed any efforts to alter condemnation procedures through federal or state legislation. "When you add restrictions on development, you are never quite sure what the results are going to be," she said. "We want to avoid political reaction to an issue that adds more problems and obstacles to economic growth."
Some lawmakers and public officials, however, are trying to carve out a moderate position, saying that reform is needed to address legitimate grievances. "What you're seeing is a coherent attack by the right on the power of eminent domain," said Richard L. Brodsky, a New York State assemblyman from Westchester County who is seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. "It does no one any good to pretend that things aren't going to change. If we take that view, we're going to see the extreme position triumph."
Since June, three states have passed bills banning the use of eminent domain for economic development (though a measure in Texas exempts the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington). Michigan lawmakers have approved a constitutional amendment that is subject to a popular vote.
In a more cautious vein, Ohio has effectively denied state funding for one year to private projects in nonblighted areas that involve condemnation. The state also created a bipartisan task force to study the issue. "Ohio is saying, 'We need some breathing space,' " Mr. Morandi, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said.
Mr. Brodsky's bills would increase protections for property owners. Homeowners, for example, would be guaranteed compensation equal to 150 percent of the value of their property. An ombudsman would oversee condemnation, which would be limited to projects that were part of a redevelopment plan approved by an elected local government. Government agencies would have to justify the taking of homes by weighing the benefits against the impact.
But Ms. Berliner said that requiring city council approval would not cure the abuses. "Cities know how to jump through their own hoops," she said.
One issue that has divided advocates of eminent domain is whether its use should be limited to blighted areas, as in California and other states. John D. Echeverria, the executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, views eminent domain as a critical weapon in fighting sprawl, but he said that a finding of blight should not be a prerequisite. "Justifying eminent domain on a finding of blight invariably targets low-income communities," he said.
The word "blight" is not mentioned in the Sensenbrenner bill, which does, however, allow condemnation of contaminated land, known as brownfields. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no hearings have been scheduled.
That may be because Congress has already passed stop-gap legislation. A vaguely worded rider to an annual appropriations bill in November restricts use of federal funds to support condemnation that "primarily benefits private entities." The measure also called for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a yearlong nationwide study.
Economic development officials, who contend that property-rights groups have exaggerated the threat from eminent domain, said they welcomed the study. "The public is understandably upset because they've not been told the whole story," said Mr. Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association.
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
Subject: Eminent domain article
Date: 1/18/2006 2:39:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
As long as Richard Brodsky and others portray Eminent Domain as only a right-wing issue, any reform will be stalled. Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and will not do anything to curb the abuse. Remember, City Council was ready to approve the stadium and are likely to approve Atlantic Yards.
The Times reporter did not really do her homework on this. Most progressives I know also find huge problems with ED. It gets its support from money-pit liberals and Democratic hacks ... they type you see populating city council or the legislature.
See http://www.richardbrodsky.com/ Notice that Gottfried has endorsed Brodsky ... those two refused to allow us to testify on Hudson Yards. I'm not a fan of Green or Cuomo, but Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and he's not earning any brownie points.
January 18, 2006
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
NY Times
By TERRY PRISTIN
Bank of America agreed to join the developer Douglas Durst in 2003 in building a 54-story tower in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, giving a psychological and economic lift to a city that was still reeling from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Durst said he would not have been able to negotiate with Bank of America or other prospective tenants had the state not authorized him to use eminent domain, a redevelopment tool that is coming under fire in the wake of a United States Supreme Court ruling last June in a Connecticut case.
Now under construction at 42nd Street and the Avenue of Americas, the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park, as the project is known, was decades in the making as the Durst family assembled the site. Ultimately, only two buildings remained, but their owners kept raising the price, Mr. Durst said.
Eventually, the state told Mr. Durst that if he found an anchor tenant the buildings could be condemned even though the site was not in a blighted neighborhood. That threat alone was enough to break the impasse. "Once we had that ability, we were able to quickly come to a resolution on the two properties and meet Bank of America's schedule," Mr. Durst said.
Using eminent domain for private projects has long been a divisive issue, but never more so since the Supreme Court upheld the right of officials in New London, Conn., to condemn homes and businesses to increase the tax base of one of the state's poorest cities.
That decision, coupled with reports of abuses in places like the predominantly African-American community of Riviera Beach, Fla., where plans called for replacing thousands of homes with upscale condos, has prompted a onslaught of legislation, both federal and state.
In November, the House of Representatives approved a bill by F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, that would penalize government agencies for using condemnation powers for private projects by denying them economic development funds for two years. Legislation has been introduced in 27 states, and more is coming, said Larry Morandi, the director of the environment, energy and transportation program of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In California, where eminent domain can be used only in urban areas - and only when there is substantial evidence of blight - four ballot initiatives have been filed with the state attorney general's office to further limit condemnation, said John F. Shirey, the executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, a trade group.
The outcry has given heart to property-rights advocates. "We lost the Supreme Court case, but we're ultimately going to win in changing the way that eminent domain is going to be used in this country," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, the most prominent advocacy group.
But around the country, developers and city officials say weakening or destroying the power to condemn property will seriously undermine efforts to rehabilitate decaying cities and might even hinder the rebuilding of New Orleans. Without eminent domain, the Inner Harbor, which played an essential role in Baltimore's success in building its tourist industry, could not have been redeveloped, said Ralph S. Tyler, the city solicitor.
Yet many developers and politicians have been loath to speak up, said Jeffrey Finkle, the president and chief executive of the International Economic Development Council, a professional group. For example, the Real Estate Roundtable, which represents the nation's largest real estate companies, has refrained from officially opposing the federal bill, said Roger Platt, a senior vice president.
Mr. Finkle also said the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, had not put its lobbying muscle to work on the issue. But Herb L. Tyson, a lobbyist for the council, said he had privately urged lawmakers to preserve eminent domain for economic development. "Our feeling is that land use is a local issue," he said.
Mr. Finkle said that for many politicians, defending eminent domain was as perilous as endorsing gay marriage. "This issue is the third rail right now," Mr. Finkle said. "You step on it, you die."
One business group that has opposed restrictions on eminent domain is the Partnership for New York City, whose members include most of the city's top developers. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said her members opposed any efforts to alter condemnation procedures through federal or state legislation. "When you add restrictions on development, you are never quite sure what the results are going to be," she said. "We want to avoid political reaction to an issue that adds more problems and obstacles to economic growth."
Some lawmakers and public officials, however, are trying to carve out a moderate position, saying that reform is needed to address legitimate grievances. "What you're seeing is a coherent attack by the right on the power of eminent domain," said Richard L. Brodsky, a New York State assemblyman from Westchester County who is seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. "It does no one any good to pretend that things aren't going to change. If we take that view, we're going to see the extreme position triumph."
Since June, three states have passed bills banning the use of eminent domain for economic development (though a measure in Texas exempts the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington). Michigan lawmakers have approved a constitutional amendment that is subject to a popular vote.
In a more cautious vein, Ohio has effectively denied state funding for one year to private projects in nonblighted areas that involve condemnation. The state also created a bipartisan task force to study the issue. "Ohio is saying, 'We need some breathing space,' " Mr. Morandi, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said.
Mr. Brodsky's bills would increase protections for property owners. Homeowners, for example, would be guaranteed compensation equal to 150 percent of the value of their property. An ombudsman would oversee condemnation, which would be limited to projects that were part of a redevelopment plan approved by an elected local government. Government agencies would have to justify the taking of homes by weighing the benefits against the impact.
But Ms. Berliner said that requiring city council approval would not cure the abuses. "Cities know how to jump through their own hoops," she said.
One issue that has divided advocates of eminent domain is whether its use should be limited to blighted areas, as in California and other states. John D. Echeverria, the executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, views eminent domain as a critical weapon in fighting sprawl, but he said that a finding of blight should not be a prerequisite. "Justifying eminent domain on a finding of blight invariably targets low-income communities," he said.
The word "blight" is not mentioned in the Sensenbrenner bill, which does, however, allow condemnation of contaminated land, known as brownfields. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no hearings have been scheduled.
That may be because Congress has already passed stop-gap legislation. A vaguely worded rider to an annual appropriations bill in November restricts use of federal funds to support condemnation that "primarily benefits private entities." The measure also called for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a yearlong nationwide study.
Economic development officials, who contend that property-rights groups have exaggerated the threat from eminent domain, said they welcomed the study. "The public is understandably upset because they've not been told the whole story," said Mr. Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association.
Date: 1/18/2006 2:39:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
As long as Richard Brodsky and others portray Eminent Domain as only a right-wing issue, any reform will be stalled. Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and will not do anything to curb the abuse. Remember, City Council was ready to approve the stadium and are likely to approve Atlantic Yards.
The Times reporter did not really do her homework on this. Most progressives I know also find huge problems with ED. It gets its support from money-pit liberals and Democratic hacks ... they type you see populating city council or the legislature.
See http://www.richardbrodsky.com/ Notice that Gottfried has endorsed Brodsky ... those two refused to allow us to testify on Hudson Yards. I'm not a fan of Green or Cuomo, but Brodsky's ED bill is very weak and he's not earning any brownie points.
January 18, 2006
Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain
NY Times
By TERRY PRISTIN
Bank of America agreed to join the developer Douglas Durst in 2003 in building a 54-story tower in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, giving a psychological and economic lift to a city that was still reeling from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Durst said he would not have been able to negotiate with Bank of America or other prospective tenants had the state not authorized him to use eminent domain, a redevelopment tool that is coming under fire in the wake of a United States Supreme Court ruling last June in a Connecticut case.
Now under construction at 42nd Street and the Avenue of Americas, the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park, as the project is known, was decades in the making as the Durst family assembled the site. Ultimately, only two buildings remained, but their owners kept raising the price, Mr. Durst said.
Eventually, the state told Mr. Durst that if he found an anchor tenant the buildings could be condemned even though the site was not in a blighted neighborhood. That threat alone was enough to break the impasse. "Once we had that ability, we were able to quickly come to a resolution on the two properties and meet Bank of America's schedule," Mr. Durst said.
Using eminent domain for private projects has long been a divisive issue, but never more so since the Supreme Court upheld the right of officials in New London, Conn., to condemn homes and businesses to increase the tax base of one of the state's poorest cities.
That decision, coupled with reports of abuses in places like the predominantly African-American community of Riviera Beach, Fla., where plans called for replacing thousands of homes with upscale condos, has prompted a onslaught of legislation, both federal and state.
In November, the House of Representatives approved a bill by F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, that would penalize government agencies for using condemnation powers for private projects by denying them economic development funds for two years. Legislation has been introduced in 27 states, and more is coming, said Larry Morandi, the director of the environment, energy and transportation program of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In California, where eminent domain can be used only in urban areas - and only when there is substantial evidence of blight - four ballot initiatives have been filed with the state attorney general's office to further limit condemnation, said John F. Shirey, the executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, a trade group.
The outcry has given heart to property-rights advocates. "We lost the Supreme Court case, but we're ultimately going to win in changing the way that eminent domain is going to be used in this country," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, the most prominent advocacy group.
But around the country, developers and city officials say weakening or destroying the power to condemn property will seriously undermine efforts to rehabilitate decaying cities and might even hinder the rebuilding of New Orleans. Without eminent domain, the Inner Harbor, which played an essential role in Baltimore's success in building its tourist industry, could not have been redeveloped, said Ralph S. Tyler, the city solicitor.
Yet many developers and politicians have been loath to speak up, said Jeffrey Finkle, the president and chief executive of the International Economic Development Council, a professional group. For example, the Real Estate Roundtable, which represents the nation's largest real estate companies, has refrained from officially opposing the federal bill, said Roger Platt, a senior vice president.
Mr. Finkle also said the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, had not put its lobbying muscle to work on the issue. But Herb L. Tyson, a lobbyist for the council, said he had privately urged lawmakers to preserve eminent domain for economic development. "Our feeling is that land use is a local issue," he said.
Mr. Finkle said that for many politicians, defending eminent domain was as perilous as endorsing gay marriage. "This issue is the third rail right now," Mr. Finkle said. "You step on it, you die."
One business group that has opposed restrictions on eminent domain is the Partnership for New York City, whose members include most of the city's top developers. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said her members opposed any efforts to alter condemnation procedures through federal or state legislation. "When you add restrictions on development, you are never quite sure what the results are going to be," she said. "We want to avoid political reaction to an issue that adds more problems and obstacles to economic growth."
Some lawmakers and public officials, however, are trying to carve out a moderate position, saying that reform is needed to address legitimate grievances. "What you're seeing is a coherent attack by the right on the power of eminent domain," said Richard L. Brodsky, a New York State assemblyman from Westchester County who is seeking the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. "It does no one any good to pretend that things aren't going to change. If we take that view, we're going to see the extreme position triumph."
Since June, three states have passed bills banning the use of eminent domain for economic development (though a measure in Texas exempts the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington). Michigan lawmakers have approved a constitutional amendment that is subject to a popular vote.
In a more cautious vein, Ohio has effectively denied state funding for one year to private projects in nonblighted areas that involve condemnation. The state also created a bipartisan task force to study the issue. "Ohio is saying, 'We need some breathing space,' " Mr. Morandi, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said.
Mr. Brodsky's bills would increase protections for property owners. Homeowners, for example, would be guaranteed compensation equal to 150 percent of the value of their property. An ombudsman would oversee condemnation, which would be limited to projects that were part of a redevelopment plan approved by an elected local government. Government agencies would have to justify the taking of homes by weighing the benefits against the impact.
But Ms. Berliner said that requiring city council approval would not cure the abuses. "Cities know how to jump through their own hoops," she said.
One issue that has divided advocates of eminent domain is whether its use should be limited to blighted areas, as in California and other states. John D. Echeverria, the executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, views eminent domain as a critical weapon in fighting sprawl, but he said that a finding of blight should not be a prerequisite. "Justifying eminent domain on a finding of blight invariably targets low-income communities," he said.
The word "blight" is not mentioned in the Sensenbrenner bill, which does, however, allow condemnation of contaminated land, known as brownfields. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no hearings have been scheduled.
That may be because Congress has already passed stop-gap legislation. A vaguely worded rider to an annual appropriations bill in November restricts use of federal funds to support condemnation that "primarily benefits private entities." The measure also called for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a yearlong nationwide study.
Economic development officials, who contend that property-rights groups have exaggerated the threat from eminent domain, said they welcomed the study. "The public is understandably upset because they've not been told the whole story," said Mr. Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association.
New York Council Calendar for the week of 01/23/2006 to 01/27/2006:
New York Council Calendar for the week of 01/23/2006 to 01/27/2006:
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, January 23, 2006
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Zoning & Franchises, Chairperson(s):Tony Avella
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, January 18, 2006, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Daniel R. Garodnick
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, January 18, 2006, Room 5 City Hall
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
*Selected Commitees are not listed.
This is an automated mailer, so please confirm these dates by checking the Hearings and Meetings Calendar on our website, for the schedule may change at the last minute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Webmaster of the New York City Council
*************************************************************
DATE: Monday, January 23, 2006
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Zoning & Franchises, Chairperson(s):Tony Avella
TIME: 9:30 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, January 18, 2006, Room 5 City Hall
COMMITTEE: Planning, Dispositions & Concessions, Chairperson(s):Daniel R. Garodnick
TIME: 1:00 PM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: See Land Use Calendar Available Wednesday, January 18, 2006, Room 5 City Hall
*************************************************************
DATE: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
*************************************************************
COMMITTEE: Land Use, Chairperson(s):Melinda R. Katz
TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Committee Room - City Hall
DETAILS: All items reported out of the subcommittees
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
*Selected Commitees are not listed.
This is an automated mailer, so please confirm these dates by checking the Hearings and Meetings Calendar on our website, for the schedule may change at the last minute. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Webmaster of the New York City Council
Friday, January 20, 2006
The New Abbot & Costello
The New Abbot & Costello
You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this.
For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...
If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on First?" might have turned out something like this:
*COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT*
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals track expenses and run my business. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I ! need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W".
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. What about financial bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!
(A few days later)
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?
ABBOTT: Click on "START".......
"Ah! How sweet coffee tastes! Lovelier than a thousand kisses, sweeter far than muscatel wine!"
J.S. Bach, Coffee Cantata
You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this.
For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...
If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on First?" might have turned out something like this:
*COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT*
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals track expenses and run my business. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I ! need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W".
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. What about financial bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!
(A few days later)
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?
ABBOTT: Click on "START".......
"Ah! How sweet coffee tastes! Lovelier than a thousand kisses, sweeter far than muscatel wine!"
J.S. Bach, Coffee Cantata
Reps Update CB9 at First Meeting of 2006
Columbia Spectator
Home > News
Reps Update CB9M at First Meeting of 2006
By Anna Phillips Spectator Staff Writer
Issue date: 1/20/06 Section: News
Page 1 of 1
Correction appended.
Emerging from a brief holiday hibernation, Community Board 9 held its monthly meeting last night with tempered enthusiasm.
Frequently interrupted by malfunctioning microphones and the chatter of a full house, speakers struggled to make themselves heard over the whirl of several fans.
For the first hour, representatives from State Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Harlem), State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell (D-Morningside Heights), Councilwoman Inez Dickens (D-Harlem) and State Senator Eric Schneiderman's (D-Upper Manhattan) offices stopped by to give updates on their officials' recent legislative successes and failures.
City Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Washington Heights) led the audience in a preacher-like call and response routine as he listed the various committees on which he serves.
Jackson then spoke about the importance of the "women and minority-based enterprise bill" signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg on Dec. 29.
"It was like a plant you have on your radiator that, if you don't water, dies," said Jackson of the bill's near-death in the City Council. The audience accepted this analogy with approving nods.
The new law, popular among CB9's large African-American and Hispanic population, sets aside money for contracts granted to women and minority-owned businesses with the assumption that business owners will hire employees who share their minority background.
But L. Ann Rocker, awarded the Humanitarian Senior Award by Governor George Pataki on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, also criticized Bloomberg for comments he made last month.
"I was wondering if professors of English at NYU and Columbia could help the mayor with adjectives when he wants to describe the behavior of his workers when he violates their contract," said an exasperated Rocker, commenting on Bloomberg's description of the MTA strike as "thuggish."
Seth Andrew, proposed head of school for Democracy Prep, introduced the topic of education, speaking of a new college preparatory in Harlem that will serve grades 6-12. Democracy Prep plans to distinguish itself by offering its students eight hour class days for free, an experience Andrew described as "intense."
Harlem's "middle schools are the worst in New York, and [Democracy Prep] remedies that," said Andrew.
As patience with politics and the unforgiving seats waned, CB9's executive board quickly guided two resolutions to passage.
The first conveyed the board's approval of the proposed restoration of two apartment complexes on W. 152nd Street. The second carried its objection to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York's request for public funding to build housing for CUNY professors.
After some confusion as to whether a "yes" or a "no" meant approval or objection, the meeting adjourned and an exodus ensued as those in attendance rushed to meet the January cold.
Correction
This article incorrectly stated that the board had passed a resolution objecting to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York's request for public funding to build housing for CUNY professors. The institution referred to in the resolution was Teachers College, not CUNY.
Home > News
Reps Update CB9M at First Meeting of 2006
By Anna Phillips Spectator Staff Writer
Issue date: 1/20/06 Section: News
Page 1 of 1
Correction appended.
Emerging from a brief holiday hibernation, Community Board 9 held its monthly meeting last night with tempered enthusiasm.
Frequently interrupted by malfunctioning microphones and the chatter of a full house, speakers struggled to make themselves heard over the whirl of several fans.
For the first hour, representatives from State Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Harlem), State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell (D-Morningside Heights), Councilwoman Inez Dickens (D-Harlem) and State Senator Eric Schneiderman's (D-Upper Manhattan) offices stopped by to give updates on their officials' recent legislative successes and failures.
City Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Washington Heights) led the audience in a preacher-like call and response routine as he listed the various committees on which he serves.
Jackson then spoke about the importance of the "women and minority-based enterprise bill" signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg on Dec. 29.
"It was like a plant you have on your radiator that, if you don't water, dies," said Jackson of the bill's near-death in the City Council. The audience accepted this analogy with approving nods.
The new law, popular among CB9's large African-American and Hispanic population, sets aside money for contracts granted to women and minority-owned businesses with the assumption that business owners will hire employees who share their minority background.
But L. Ann Rocker, awarded the Humanitarian Senior Award by Governor George Pataki on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, also criticized Bloomberg for comments he made last month.
"I was wondering if professors of English at NYU and Columbia could help the mayor with adjectives when he wants to describe the behavior of his workers when he violates their contract," said an exasperated Rocker, commenting on Bloomberg's description of the MTA strike as "thuggish."
Seth Andrew, proposed head of school for Democracy Prep, introduced the topic of education, speaking of a new college preparatory in Harlem that will serve grades 6-12. Democracy Prep plans to distinguish itself by offering its students eight hour class days for free, an experience Andrew described as "intense."
Harlem's "middle schools are the worst in New York, and [Democracy Prep] remedies that," said Andrew.
As patience with politics and the unforgiving seats waned, CB9's executive board quickly guided two resolutions to passage.
The first conveyed the board's approval of the proposed restoration of two apartment complexes on W. 152nd Street. The second carried its objection to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York's request for public funding to build housing for CUNY professors.
After some confusion as to whether a "yes" or a "no" meant approval or objection, the meeting adjourned and an exodus ensued as those in attendance rushed to meet the January cold.
Correction
This article incorrectly stated that the board had passed a resolution objecting to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York's request for public funding to build housing for CUNY professors. The institution referred to in the resolution was Teachers College, not CUNY.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
City Receives Expansion Comments
Columbia Spectator
City Receives Expansion Comments
By Erin Durkin
Spectator Staff Writer
January 18, 2006
After November�s official meeting for those concerned about Columbia�s proposed Manhattanville plans, the city has received 50 official comments asking Columbia to reassess the possible impact of expansion.
Following the November scoping session, the public had until Jan. 6�allowing 45 days instead of the standard 10�to submit comments to the Department of City Planning on Columbia�s draft scope of work for its Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS has to be completed before the city will make the zoning changes necessary for the expansion. Most of the comments requested a broader and more in-depth study than the one outlined in the scope.
The University is still reviewing the comments and has not yet decided what changes will be made to the scope in response to them. University officials said in a statement, �The Department of City Planning, as lead agency, will review all of the comments that have been received and will begin work shortly on the Final Scope of Work. The Final Scope will summarize and provide responses to the substantive comments received from members of the public.�
State Senators Eric Schneiderman (D-Upper Manhattan) and David Paterson (D-Harlem) were the only elected officials to submit comments. Both urged city planning to consider Community Board 9�s 197-a plan, a framework for development in West Harlem, as a viable alternative to Columbia�s proposal.
The most extensive comments came from CB9 and West Harlem Environmental Action, known as WEACT, which recommended dozens of individual modifications to the scope. WEACT wrote, �We are disappointed to find that, as a document prepared by one of the world�s leading centers for learning and intellectual inquiry, the [scope] is utterly incomplete in its project description and grossly inadequate in its environmental analysis.�
CB9 said that the EIS should analyze an alternative without the use of eminent domain. It also said that the EIS should explore ways to avoid major environmental impact, rather than simply mitigating them, as proposed in the draft scope.
The EIS will have to compare the current situation on topics like socioeconomic conditions with the �reasonable worst case scenario� that may be created by the expansion. CB9 recommended that Columbia use an earlier year�2000 rather than 2005�as its �existing conditions baseline,� noting that �Columbia aggressively started purchasing property in this area around the year 2000, which could have been a direct cause for residential and business displacement.�
WEACT and CB9 both emphasized that the EIS should look at a much larger study area than the half to quarter mile proposed in the scope, since the expansion would create ripple effects such as rising rents across Harlem. They suggested that a more appropriate study area would stretch from Morningside Heights to Columbia University Medical Center in Washington Heights, saying that the construction of a new campus between the two existing ones would likely lead to gentrification throughout the entire area.
They also requested that Columbia carefully analyze potential harm caused by hazardous waste that may be produced by the research labs it plans to build in Manhattanville. The hazmat study outlined in the draft scope focuses more on materials that are already in the area, created by its historical industrial uses.
While echoing many of CB9�s comments, the Coalition to Preserve Community, a group that opposes the expansion, added a plea for the University to focus on the human aspects of �neighborhood character.�
�At the heart of any discussion of neighborhood character must be the type of community that the neighborhood serves and the atmosphere that it promotes on a human and social level,� CPC�s comments said. �The Scoping Document must address the possibility that Columbia�s proposed development could facilitate the eradication of Harlem�s essential identity as an African-American community.�
The Harlem Community Development Corporation, a state agency, disputed Columbia�s assertion that Manhattanville is a depressed community in need of revitalization. �Recent examples of investment in commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and residential projects ... contradict the project description statement that Manhattanville and West Harlem have not shared in the economic renaissance occurring in central and East Harlem.�
Several comments expressed concern that the EIS would give inadequate treatment to Mahattanville�s historical landmarks. However, the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission wrote that �the text is acceptable for architectural resources.�
City Receives Expansion Comments
By Erin Durkin
Spectator Staff Writer
January 18, 2006
After November�s official meeting for those concerned about Columbia�s proposed Manhattanville plans, the city has received 50 official comments asking Columbia to reassess the possible impact of expansion.
Following the November scoping session, the public had until Jan. 6�allowing 45 days instead of the standard 10�to submit comments to the Department of City Planning on Columbia�s draft scope of work for its Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS has to be completed before the city will make the zoning changes necessary for the expansion. Most of the comments requested a broader and more in-depth study than the one outlined in the scope.
The University is still reviewing the comments and has not yet decided what changes will be made to the scope in response to them. University officials said in a statement, �The Department of City Planning, as lead agency, will review all of the comments that have been received and will begin work shortly on the Final Scope of Work. The Final Scope will summarize and provide responses to the substantive comments received from members of the public.�
State Senators Eric Schneiderman (D-Upper Manhattan) and David Paterson (D-Harlem) were the only elected officials to submit comments. Both urged city planning to consider Community Board 9�s 197-a plan, a framework for development in West Harlem, as a viable alternative to Columbia�s proposal.
The most extensive comments came from CB9 and West Harlem Environmental Action, known as WEACT, which recommended dozens of individual modifications to the scope. WEACT wrote, �We are disappointed to find that, as a document prepared by one of the world�s leading centers for learning and intellectual inquiry, the [scope] is utterly incomplete in its project description and grossly inadequate in its environmental analysis.�
CB9 said that the EIS should analyze an alternative without the use of eminent domain. It also said that the EIS should explore ways to avoid major environmental impact, rather than simply mitigating them, as proposed in the draft scope.
The EIS will have to compare the current situation on topics like socioeconomic conditions with the �reasonable worst case scenario� that may be created by the expansion. CB9 recommended that Columbia use an earlier year�2000 rather than 2005�as its �existing conditions baseline,� noting that �Columbia aggressively started purchasing property in this area around the year 2000, which could have been a direct cause for residential and business displacement.�
WEACT and CB9 both emphasized that the EIS should look at a much larger study area than the half to quarter mile proposed in the scope, since the expansion would create ripple effects such as rising rents across Harlem. They suggested that a more appropriate study area would stretch from Morningside Heights to Columbia University Medical Center in Washington Heights, saying that the construction of a new campus between the two existing ones would likely lead to gentrification throughout the entire area.
They also requested that Columbia carefully analyze potential harm caused by hazardous waste that may be produced by the research labs it plans to build in Manhattanville. The hazmat study outlined in the draft scope focuses more on materials that are already in the area, created by its historical industrial uses.
While echoing many of CB9�s comments, the Coalition to Preserve Community, a group that opposes the expansion, added a plea for the University to focus on the human aspects of �neighborhood character.�
�At the heart of any discussion of neighborhood character must be the type of community that the neighborhood serves and the atmosphere that it promotes on a human and social level,� CPC�s comments said. �The Scoping Document must address the possibility that Columbia�s proposed development could facilitate the eradication of Harlem�s essential identity as an African-American community.�
The Harlem Community Development Corporation, a state agency, disputed Columbia�s assertion that Manhattanville is a depressed community in need of revitalization. �Recent examples of investment in commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational and residential projects ... contradict the project description statement that Manhattanville and West Harlem have not shared in the economic renaissance occurring in central and East Harlem.�
Several comments expressed concern that the EIS would give inadequate treatment to Mahattanville�s historical landmarks. However, the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission wrote that �the text is acceptable for architectural resources.�
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
CB9M & HPD West Harlem Housing Clinic
CB9M Manhattan Community Board 9
and
The NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development
Present
WEST HARLEM HOUSING CLINIC
Featuring Presentations on:
Fair Housing Laws, Tenant
Owner Rights
Housing Opportunities
Building Loans
and more!
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
@
Community Board 9
565 West 125th Street
New York, NY 10031
6:30 PM
HomeworkNYC.org
HomeworkNYC.Org
Powered by New York City's public libraries
Browse Subjects
Login:
Forgot Password? Sign Up!
Hot Topics
New York City school science fairs happening now. Make your science project the best it can be.
Read More
Top 10 Resources
EBSCO Animals
General Science Collection
Science Online
New Book of Popular Science
Regents Prep
Searchasaurus
Lands & Peoples
Encyclopedia Britannica
InfoTrac OneFile
MasterFILE Premier
Languages
Chinese French German Latin Russian Spanish More
Math
Algebra Addition & Subtraction Calculus Division Fractions More
People
Explorers Inventors Scientists More
Science
Animals The Environment Planets Science Projects More
World History & Geography
Ancient Egypt Mayans Inca Middle Ages Industrial Revolution Cold War
More
Language Arts
Grammar Authors Shakespeare Book Reports More
Music & Art
Architecture Art History Dance Music Painting Photography More
Religion
Christianity Buddhism Saints Islam Judaism Mythology Philosophy Ethics
More
U.S. History & Government
Pilgrims Colonial America Maps Slavery Civil War American Revolution States NYC Social Issues More
Etc.
Phys. Ed Health More
The Wallace Foundation Brooklyn Public Library The New York Public Library Queens Public Library
About For Parents For Teachers Contact Us What's New
GETTING STARTED
Find Articles
Writing & Research
Study Skills
Tests & Projects
Research Guides
Help
Choose Style Default Blackberry Coney
TOOLBOX
Ask-a-Librarian
Quick answers by phone, chat, or e-mail
Calculator
Add it up, quick
Dial-a-Teacher
Real-time help services
Get a Library Card
Sign up for a library card
Study Notes
Spark Notes, CliffsNotes
Textbooks
Math textbooks
Live
Powered by New York City's public libraries
Browse Subjects
Login:
Forgot Password? Sign Up!
Hot Topics
New York City school science fairs happening now. Make your science project the best it can be.
Read More
Top 10 Resources
EBSCO Animals
General Science Collection
Science Online
New Book of Popular Science
Regents Prep
Searchasaurus
Lands & Peoples
Encyclopedia Britannica
InfoTrac OneFile
MasterFILE Premier
Languages
Chinese French German Latin Russian Spanish More
Math
Algebra Addition & Subtraction Calculus Division Fractions More
People
Explorers Inventors Scientists More
Science
Animals The Environment Planets Science Projects More
World History & Geography
Ancient Egypt Mayans Inca Middle Ages Industrial Revolution Cold War
More
Language Arts
Grammar Authors Shakespeare Book Reports More
Music & Art
Architecture Art History Dance Music Painting Photography More
Religion
Christianity Buddhism Saints Islam Judaism Mythology Philosophy Ethics
More
U.S. History & Government
Pilgrims Colonial America Maps Slavery Civil War American Revolution States NYC Social Issues More
Etc.
Phys. Ed Health More
The Wallace Foundation Brooklyn Public Library The New York Public Library Queens Public Library
About For Parents For Teachers Contact Us What's New
GETTING STARTED
Find Articles
Writing & Research
Study Skills
Tests & Projects
Research Guides
Help
Choose Style Default Blackberry Coney
TOOLBOX
Ask-a-Librarian
Quick answers by phone, chat, or e-mail
Calculator
Add it up, quick
Dial-a-Teacher
Real-time help services
Get a Library Card
Sign up for a library card
Study Notes
Spark Notes, CliffsNotes
Textbooks
Math textbooks
Live
125th St. Escalators: A Transit Shutdown of Another Kind
125th St. Escalators: A Transit Shutdown of Another Kind
By Anna Phillips
Spectator Staff Writer
January 17, 2006
For many residents of Morningside Heights and West Harlem, the escalators at the 125th Street subway station are a joke they have long stopped laughing at.
Built in 1904, the above-ground station has been a focus of community activism for decades due to its ancient trestle and unreliable escalators�a particularly pressing issue in a community with many senior citizens and disabled residents.
�I have arthritis, you know, and it�s kind of difficult for me to walk up the stairs,� Gloria Allen, a 79-year-old resident of the General Grant Houses, said. �Some times I don�t even ride the train because I can�t walk up the stairs. Sometimes I take the bus. There are times when I just decide to wait until [the escalators] are running.�
The New York City Transit Authority �put in escalators that are kind of lawsuit-proof,� Joan Levin, a resident of Morningside Gardens since 1957, said. �In other words, they are constructed in a way that the least thing will turn them off so that nobody sues them for getting their foot cut off.�
Stepping on the escalator treads too heavily can cause them to stop, as can sitting on the rubber handrails. If too many people lean to one side, the machine may also stop. Then there�s the allure of pressing the emergency stop button�a temptation that proves too great for some.
Poor lines of communication further complicate the problem. Due to union regulations, station attendants work in their own spheres and often don�t know that the escalators have stopped unless someone notifies them.
In 2004, members of Morningside Gardens Community Relations Committee and General Grant Houses Residents Association circulated a petition expressing dissatisfaction with the 125th street station�s maintenance, obtaining over 1,200 signatures. CB9 has received piles of escalator complaints too: as of January 2005 it had over 200.
�CB9 has been assiduously after the MTA on the stoppages of the escalators and has requested installation of sensors and faster response,� Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, CB9 chair, wrote in an e-mail.
But the problem is not limited to the initial malfunction. Once transit workers are aware of a service failure, either a mechanic must be found or an employee entrusted with an escalator key must restart the escalators. In the meantime, passengers are left to climb a set of stairs that, at its zenith, is about eye-level with the neighborhood�s five-story buildings.
According to NYC Transit spokeswoman Deirdre Parker, this will soon change.
�One of the things we are doing is training our station agents and station supervisors so they can key start our escalators if they stop,� Parker said. �We�ve trained about 1,000 people and we have a class every week.�
CB9 secretary Theodore Kovaleff expressed incredulity that restarting an escalator would require training.
�Running an escalator is not rocket science,� Kovaleff said. �Macy�s does it and it seems to work.�
By Anna Phillips
Spectator Staff Writer
January 17, 2006
For many residents of Morningside Heights and West Harlem, the escalators at the 125th Street subway station are a joke they have long stopped laughing at.
Built in 1904, the above-ground station has been a focus of community activism for decades due to its ancient trestle and unreliable escalators�a particularly pressing issue in a community with many senior citizens and disabled residents.
�I have arthritis, you know, and it�s kind of difficult for me to walk up the stairs,� Gloria Allen, a 79-year-old resident of the General Grant Houses, said. �Some times I don�t even ride the train because I can�t walk up the stairs. Sometimes I take the bus. There are times when I just decide to wait until [the escalators] are running.�
The New York City Transit Authority �put in escalators that are kind of lawsuit-proof,� Joan Levin, a resident of Morningside Gardens since 1957, said. �In other words, they are constructed in a way that the least thing will turn them off so that nobody sues them for getting their foot cut off.�
Stepping on the escalator treads too heavily can cause them to stop, as can sitting on the rubber handrails. If too many people lean to one side, the machine may also stop. Then there�s the allure of pressing the emergency stop button�a temptation that proves too great for some.
Poor lines of communication further complicate the problem. Due to union regulations, station attendants work in their own spheres and often don�t know that the escalators have stopped unless someone notifies them.
In 2004, members of Morningside Gardens Community Relations Committee and General Grant Houses Residents Association circulated a petition expressing dissatisfaction with the 125th street station�s maintenance, obtaining over 1,200 signatures. CB9 has received piles of escalator complaints too: as of January 2005 it had over 200.
�CB9 has been assiduously after the MTA on the stoppages of the escalators and has requested installation of sensors and faster response,� Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, CB9 chair, wrote in an e-mail.
But the problem is not limited to the initial malfunction. Once transit workers are aware of a service failure, either a mechanic must be found or an employee entrusted with an escalator key must restart the escalators. In the meantime, passengers are left to climb a set of stairs that, at its zenith, is about eye-level with the neighborhood�s five-story buildings.
According to NYC Transit spokeswoman Deirdre Parker, this will soon change.
�One of the things we are doing is training our station agents and station supervisors so they can key start our escalators if they stop,� Parker said. �We�ve trained about 1,000 people and we have a class every week.�
CB9 secretary Theodore Kovaleff expressed incredulity that restarting an escalator would require training.
�Running an escalator is not rocket science,� Kovaleff said. �Macy�s does it and it seems to work.�
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Harlem Tenants Oppose PINNACLE Mgt
Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem
will have a meeting for tenants and owners to get informed about Pinnacle's condo conversion plans for Harlem. Pinnacle owns many properties on Riverside Drive as well as other streets.
Where: Riverbank State Park, Rehearsal Room (145th Street & Riverside Drive)
When: Martin Luther King Day, MONDAY, Jan. 16th at 4:30 pm
[please forward to friends who may be in Pinnacle owned buildings]
Pinnacle have bought up hundreds of buildings in Harlem and the Bronx. They claim they are converting buildings to condos and are trying to force residents out.
will have a meeting for tenants and owners to get informed about Pinnacle's condo conversion plans for Harlem. Pinnacle owns many properties on Riverside Drive as well as other streets.
Where: Riverbank State Park, Rehearsal Room (145th Street & Riverside Drive)
When: Martin Luther King Day, MONDAY, Jan. 16th at 4:30 pm
[please forward to friends who may be in Pinnacle owned buildings]
Pinnacle have bought up hundreds of buildings in Harlem and the Bronx. They claim they are converting buildings to condos and are trying to force residents out.
Community Board 7's outstanding, meticulously detailed letter to the City Planning Commission re: Fordham University's expansion
Subject: Fwd: This is a MUST read. Community Board 7's outstanding, meticulously detailed letter to the City Planning Commission re: Fordham University's expansion proposals.
Date: 1/15/2006 7:11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: whitmananne@yahoo.com
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
COMMUNITY BOARD 7 Manhattan
December 29, 2005
Honorable Amanda Burden
Chairperson
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NewYork 10007
Re: Fordham University
Dear Chairperson Burden:
As you may know, Community Board 7 of Manhattan (as well as residents of several large apartment buildings surrounding Fordham University) has attempted to engage in a review of Fordham's proposed "master plan" for its Manhattan campus in advance of an anticipated ULURP. Board members have met several times with representatives of Fordham and have toured the area. We have not prejudged the issue, and any formal judgment will have to await certification, a public hearing and more formalized community input; but, at least at the Community Board level, we have formed reasonably strong preliminary views which we believe are appropriate to share with you even prior to certification.
While Fordham has available to it virtually the entire superblock site from Amsterdam to Columbus Avenues and West 60t" to West 62nd Streets, it has chosen to deacquisition for fund-raising purposes the Amsterdam Avenue comer sites and has chosen not to build on a large interior area which, although denominated "open space" is elevated at least 15 feet from grade and is therefore not practically accessible to the public, either visually or for actual use. These decisions, coupled with a refusal by Fordham to compromise on its goal of using all available FAR for the remaining footprint, would result in overly massive buildings on the periphery featuring nearly unbroken street fronts on three sides of the superblock.
Because Fordham has attempted to maximize the FAR which can be squeezed onto the site, it has proposed a development which, in its individual components, and more importantly, as an ensemble, is overwhelming in scale. The site simply will not accommodate what Fordham wishes to do.
With respect to design, we have concerns about each major aspect of the project:
1. Preserving the podium "quadrangle" benefits Fordham but not the community
In developing the plan, Fordham's architects have been constrained by a number of Fordham's nonnegotiable imperatives. For example, Fordham insists that it retain in substantially its present form a so called "podium" which currently covers the entire area between the Lowenstein building on West 60th Street and the Law School on West 62nd Street. Presently, the roof of the podium is used as a sculpture garden and is landscaped. The interior under the "podium" contains the Manhattan campus library and a warren of wide corridors, miscellaneous interior rooms and back stage facilities for the existing auditorium. Additionally, all of the utilities for the Manhattan campus are within the podium at the ceiling level (apparently because the site rests on bedrock at or just below grade and can be excavated only at great cost) .
We are sympathetic to Fordham's desire to retain the podium because of the costs involved in relocating the utilities, the need for library space and desire to have a "quadrangle" within the site. Nonetheless, the elevation of the podium, as a practical matter, means that it is and will be totally inaccessible from the street level. Although Fordham plans to provide staircases up to the podium, none of the plans that we have seen to date appear to embody an inviting entry into the interior of the site. The conclusion is inescapable, that the quadrangle is intended for and will be used by Fordham's students and faculty almost exclusively.
One consequence of keeping the open space on top of the podium is that in order to maximize the FAR available to the site, Fordham must build taller and wider buildings along West 62nd Street and Columbus Avenue. We believe that if Fordham is not willing to remove or reduce the height oft he podium, the "quadrangle" must be viewed solely as an amenity for Fordham's students and faculty and not as a community resource (even if it is nominally"open to the public"). From the community's perspective, it makes sense for Fordham to build lower buildings with a larger footprint even if the enlargement encroaches upon the quadrangle. Alternatively, Fordham could keep more interior open space and reduce the total floor area of the project.
In this connection, we note that Fordham has demonstrated a willingness to encroach on the open space when it suits Fordham's purpose. Thus, Fordham's plans call for a substantial portion of the library\chapel\law school\theater to be erected on the current open space.
We call upon Fordham to take a fresh look at its "podium problem". Of all possible solutions it seems to us that leaving the podium as is, fifteen feet above the nearest sidewalk and unusable by the public, is the worst.
2. The north-facing street walls are too massive: The West 62nd Street frontage is presented as a long and unarticulated wall of buildings stretching from the comer of Columbus Avenue to the proposed new residential tower at Amsterdam Avenue. For almost the entire distance, the wall will be more than 200 feet in height. While there will be marginal street level activity (e.g., a university store and. theater entrance), there will essentially be a fortress wall facing Lincoln Center and Damrosch Park virtually the entire length of the block.
3. The Columbus Avenue towers are too tall and too long: With respect to Columbus Avenue, Fordham proposes to build two block-long towers of 485' and 445' (plus elevator tower), stretching from West 62nd Street to West 60th Street, lot line to lot line, separated only by a staircase and connected by a bridge. These towers are unrelated to any context anywhere on Columbus Avenue.
4. The stairways are not designed to invite the community : As mentioned above, the access stairway to the podium on West 62nd Street and on Columbus Avenue do not appear to be suited to achieve their ostensible purpose of inviting the community up and in. While Fordham has compared the staircases to the Spanish Steps in Rome, any such comparison is ludicrous. The staircases as proposed by Fordham are unlikely to be areas of congregation and lounging (neither will be in the sunlight at any time) and appear more likely to act as barriers to anyone not having actual business at Fordham.
If Fordham truly were desirous of creating an invitation to use the podium (a goal which we believe is nearly impossible to achieve), it might consider designing a broad and pleasing gradual incline at the comer of West 60th Street and Columbus Avenue. Such a broad entryway (like the steps to the Metropolitan Museum of Art) might attract casual use and even increase use of the quadrangle by the community.
5. Fordham fails to address West 60th Street at all: Tellingly, Fordham's plan makes no effort whatsoever to address or ameliorate significant design flaws with respect to its existing structures. Most important of these is the West 60th Street wall forming the southern barrier of the podium. This wall is at least 15 feet in height and is unadorned by doors, windows, banners, artwork, or even graffiti . It deadens the entire northern side of West 6011' Street for the length of the podium. The space within the wall is currently in use, and it would require very little imagination to dedicate that space to uses for which windows and/or doors on West 60th Street would be appropriate. This minor amenity for the community has not even been considered by Fordham.
6. Development of design criteria would be a win-win for Fordham, the -private developer and the community:Many elements of design are not and can-not be governed by the Zoning Resolution. Nonetheless, good design is an important part of good planning. An excellent example of how good design ideas can create a positive impact is the Rose building, a few blocks north of Fordham. In approving various special permits for Lincoln Center, the City Planning Commission required that certain design parameters be adhered to, among them the chamfering of a corner of he building. The resulting project benefited immensely from the design guidelines. We believe that considering design features at an
early stage in connection with Fordham's application will benefit all involved -particularly the community. We urge City Planning, in conjunction with Fordham and with our participation to develop clear, mandatory design guidelines for all buildings (including the parcels being deacquisitioned) and streets with a view to promoting excellence in architecture, pedestrian circulation, animated facades, transparency. This is a great opportunity to create something special; no one should look back with regret.
7. Any approvals must be accompanied by use restrictions: We have a significant concern, which Fordham has been unwilling to address, that if the requested height and bulk restriction waivers are granted Fordham will at some future date sell off all or a portion of its remaining property for private use; that Fordham will never build or having built, will abandon the remaining structures on Columbus Avenue and West 62nd Street. Accordingly, as a minimum, any proposed waivers must be acknowledged by a firm and legally binding restriction as to use so that any structures built on the site would be dedicated to educational purposes.
8. The garage requires study: Fordham's plans are so problematic and create so many issues that Community Board 7 has not had time to consider what in any other project would be a huge red flag:- the creation of a massive parking, garage on a site which is supposed to provide an urban educational experience. Perhaps use of the floor area reserved for garage use can be used for more direct educational purposes, thereby reducing the size of the buildings being proposed.
This letter expresses some of our larger concerns. We have given some thought to other ideas but have not fully developed those ideas and will not do so unless Fordham is willing to consider radical departures from its plan. For example, we have imagined the creation of an arcade/passageway at grade level within the podium from West 60th Street through to West 62nd Street and from Columbus Avenue through to the cul de sac on west 61st Street. These intersecting arcades could be attractive for students and faculty alike and could be used during non-business hours and for motorized deliveries .
We have also imagined a design in which some or all of the buildings are not strictly rectangular but are angled on one or more sides to create more open space on the street frontages, rather than the interior.
Fordham's Public Trust
In the foregoing analysis we have refrained from commenting, for the present, on the underlying ethical issue about which many in the community have strong, feelings: Fordham acquired its site following the city's exercise of its powers of eminent domain. Construction on the site was dependent upon the eviction on thousands of tenants who resided there. The underlying rationale was that the educational goals of Fordhain justified the hardship entailed in clearing the site. For more than forty years a substantial portion of the site has been warehoused and has not been used for educational or any other purposes.
Fordham has apparently concluded that it will never need to use the sites it proposes to sell off. Many in the community believe that, if Fordham cannot use the land, it should be reacquired by the city and dedicated to educational use. Anything less, it is argued, would be a betrayal of those former residents who were forcibly dispossessed.
The ethical issue is compounded by the apparent fact that the only way Fordham can afford the overly massive structures it proposes for the remainder of the site is to sell off a portion of this land made available to it only through the draconian powers of eminent domain.
Conclusion
In general, Community Board 7 objects to a process which has required Fordham's architects to maximize the floor area, minimize the cost and disregard public amenities, Given that Fordham received this property at nominal cost to itself and at great cost to those who sacrificed their homes to make it possible, the very least Fordham can do is to attempt to be a good neighbor.
Community Board 7 respectfully suggests that this project is not ready for certification. To date, all of the thought-processes which have informed the plan have been to do the bidding of Fordham at the expense of the community. The time has come to re-order Fordham's priorities and to redesign a university campus that does not turn its back on the community.
Respectfully yours,
Sheldon J. Fine, Chairman
Richard Asche, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
Page Cowley, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
Date: 1/15/2006 7:11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: whitmananne@yahoo.com
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
COMMUNITY BOARD 7 Manhattan
December 29, 2005
Honorable Amanda Burden
Chairperson
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NewYork 10007
Re: Fordham University
Dear Chairperson Burden:
As you may know, Community Board 7 of Manhattan (as well as residents of several large apartment buildings surrounding Fordham University) has attempted to engage in a review of Fordham's proposed "master plan" for its Manhattan campus in advance of an anticipated ULURP. Board members have met several times with representatives of Fordham and have toured the area. We have not prejudged the issue, and any formal judgment will have to await certification, a public hearing and more formalized community input; but, at least at the Community Board level, we have formed reasonably strong preliminary views which we believe are appropriate to share with you even prior to certification.
While Fordham has available to it virtually the entire superblock site from Amsterdam to Columbus Avenues and West 60t" to West 62nd Streets, it has chosen to deacquisition for fund-raising purposes the Amsterdam Avenue comer sites and has chosen not to build on a large interior area which, although denominated "open space" is elevated at least 15 feet from grade and is therefore not practically accessible to the public, either visually or for actual use. These decisions, coupled with a refusal by Fordham to compromise on its goal of using all available FAR for the remaining footprint, would result in overly massive buildings on the periphery featuring nearly unbroken street fronts on three sides of the superblock.
Because Fordham has attempted to maximize the FAR which can be squeezed onto the site, it has proposed a development which, in its individual components, and more importantly, as an ensemble, is overwhelming in scale. The site simply will not accommodate what Fordham wishes to do.
With respect to design, we have concerns about each major aspect of the project:
1. Preserving the podium "quadrangle" benefits Fordham but not the community
In developing the plan, Fordham's architects have been constrained by a number of Fordham's nonnegotiable imperatives. For example, Fordham insists that it retain in substantially its present form a so called "podium" which currently covers the entire area between the Lowenstein building on West 60th Street and the Law School on West 62nd Street. Presently, the roof of the podium is used as a sculpture garden and is landscaped. The interior under the "podium" contains the Manhattan campus library and a warren of wide corridors, miscellaneous interior rooms and back stage facilities for the existing auditorium. Additionally, all of the utilities for the Manhattan campus are within the podium at the ceiling level (apparently because the site rests on bedrock at or just below grade and can be excavated only at great cost) .
We are sympathetic to Fordham's desire to retain the podium because of the costs involved in relocating the utilities, the need for library space and desire to have a "quadrangle" within the site. Nonetheless, the elevation of the podium, as a practical matter, means that it is and will be totally inaccessible from the street level. Although Fordham plans to provide staircases up to the podium, none of the plans that we have seen to date appear to embody an inviting entry into the interior of the site. The conclusion is inescapable, that the quadrangle is intended for and will be used by Fordham's students and faculty almost exclusively.
One consequence of keeping the open space on top of the podium is that in order to maximize the FAR available to the site, Fordham must build taller and wider buildings along West 62nd Street and Columbus Avenue. We believe that if Fordham is not willing to remove or reduce the height oft he podium, the "quadrangle" must be viewed solely as an amenity for Fordham's students and faculty and not as a community resource (even if it is nominally"open to the public"). From the community's perspective, it makes sense for Fordham to build lower buildings with a larger footprint even if the enlargement encroaches upon the quadrangle. Alternatively, Fordham could keep more interior open space and reduce the total floor area of the project.
In this connection, we note that Fordham has demonstrated a willingness to encroach on the open space when it suits Fordham's purpose. Thus, Fordham's plans call for a substantial portion of the library\chapel\law school\theater to be erected on the current open space.
We call upon Fordham to take a fresh look at its "podium problem". Of all possible solutions it seems to us that leaving the podium as is, fifteen feet above the nearest sidewalk and unusable by the public, is the worst.
2. The north-facing street walls are too massive: The West 62nd Street frontage is presented as a long and unarticulated wall of buildings stretching from the comer of Columbus Avenue to the proposed new residential tower at Amsterdam Avenue. For almost the entire distance, the wall will be more than 200 feet in height. While there will be marginal street level activity (e.g., a university store and. theater entrance), there will essentially be a fortress wall facing Lincoln Center and Damrosch Park virtually the entire length of the block.
3. The Columbus Avenue towers are too tall and too long: With respect to Columbus Avenue, Fordham proposes to build two block-long towers of 485' and 445' (plus elevator tower), stretching from West 62nd Street to West 60th Street, lot line to lot line, separated only by a staircase and connected by a bridge. These towers are unrelated to any context anywhere on Columbus Avenue.
4. The stairways are not designed to invite the community : As mentioned above, the access stairway to the podium on West 62nd Street and on Columbus Avenue do not appear to be suited to achieve their ostensible purpose of inviting the community up and in. While Fordham has compared the staircases to the Spanish Steps in Rome, any such comparison is ludicrous. The staircases as proposed by Fordham are unlikely to be areas of congregation and lounging (neither will be in the sunlight at any time) and appear more likely to act as barriers to anyone not having actual business at Fordham.
If Fordham truly were desirous of creating an invitation to use the podium (a goal which we believe is nearly impossible to achieve), it might consider designing a broad and pleasing gradual incline at the comer of West 60th Street and Columbus Avenue. Such a broad entryway (like the steps to the Metropolitan Museum of Art) might attract casual use and even increase use of the quadrangle by the community.
5. Fordham fails to address West 60th Street at all: Tellingly, Fordham's plan makes no effort whatsoever to address or ameliorate significant design flaws with respect to its existing structures. Most important of these is the West 60th Street wall forming the southern barrier of the podium. This wall is at least 15 feet in height and is unadorned by doors, windows, banners, artwork, or even graffiti . It deadens the entire northern side of West 6011' Street for the length of the podium. The space within the wall is currently in use, and it would require very little imagination to dedicate that space to uses for which windows and/or doors on West 60th Street would be appropriate. This minor amenity for the community has not even been considered by Fordham.
6. Development of design criteria would be a win-win for Fordham, the -private developer and the community:Many elements of design are not and can-not be governed by the Zoning Resolution. Nonetheless, good design is an important part of good planning. An excellent example of how good design ideas can create a positive impact is the Rose building, a few blocks north of Fordham. In approving various special permits for Lincoln Center, the City Planning Commission required that certain design parameters be adhered to, among them the chamfering of a corner of he building. The resulting project benefited immensely from the design guidelines. We believe that considering design features at an
early stage in connection with Fordham's application will benefit all involved -particularly the community. We urge City Planning, in conjunction with Fordham and with our participation to develop clear, mandatory design guidelines for all buildings (including the parcels being deacquisitioned) and streets with a view to promoting excellence in architecture, pedestrian circulation, animated facades, transparency. This is a great opportunity to create something special; no one should look back with regret.
7. Any approvals must be accompanied by use restrictions: We have a significant concern, which Fordham has been unwilling to address, that if the requested height and bulk restriction waivers are granted Fordham will at some future date sell off all or a portion of its remaining property for private use; that Fordham will never build or having built, will abandon the remaining structures on Columbus Avenue and West 62nd Street. Accordingly, as a minimum, any proposed waivers must be acknowledged by a firm and legally binding restriction as to use so that any structures built on the site would be dedicated to educational purposes.
8. The garage requires study: Fordham's plans are so problematic and create so many issues that Community Board 7 has not had time to consider what in any other project would be a huge red flag:- the creation of a massive parking, garage on a site which is supposed to provide an urban educational experience. Perhaps use of the floor area reserved for garage use can be used for more direct educational purposes, thereby reducing the size of the buildings being proposed.
This letter expresses some of our larger concerns. We have given some thought to other ideas but have not fully developed those ideas and will not do so unless Fordham is willing to consider radical departures from its plan. For example, we have imagined the creation of an arcade/passageway at grade level within the podium from West 60th Street through to West 62nd Street and from Columbus Avenue through to the cul de sac on west 61st Street. These intersecting arcades could be attractive for students and faculty alike and could be used during non-business hours and for motorized deliveries .
We have also imagined a design in which some or all of the buildings are not strictly rectangular but are angled on one or more sides to create more open space on the street frontages, rather than the interior.
Fordham's Public Trust
In the foregoing analysis we have refrained from commenting, for the present, on the underlying ethical issue about which many in the community have strong, feelings: Fordham acquired its site following the city's exercise of its powers of eminent domain. Construction on the site was dependent upon the eviction on thousands of tenants who resided there. The underlying rationale was that the educational goals of Fordhain justified the hardship entailed in clearing the site. For more than forty years a substantial portion of the site has been warehoused and has not been used for educational or any other purposes.
Fordham has apparently concluded that it will never need to use the sites it proposes to sell off. Many in the community believe that, if Fordham cannot use the land, it should be reacquired by the city and dedicated to educational use. Anything less, it is argued, would be a betrayal of those former residents who were forcibly dispossessed.
The ethical issue is compounded by the apparent fact that the only way Fordham can afford the overly massive structures it proposes for the remainder of the site is to sell off a portion of this land made available to it only through the draconian powers of eminent domain.
Conclusion
In general, Community Board 7 objects to a process which has required Fordham's architects to maximize the floor area, minimize the cost and disregard public amenities, Given that Fordham received this property at nominal cost to itself and at great cost to those who sacrificed their homes to make it possible, the very least Fordham can do is to attempt to be a good neighbor.
Community Board 7 respectfully suggests that this project is not ready for certification. To date, all of the thought-processes which have informed the plan have been to do the bidding of Fordham at the expense of the community. The time has come to re-order Fordham's priorities and to redesign a university campus that does not turn its back on the community.
Respectfully yours,
Sheldon J. Fine, Chairman
Richard Asche, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
Page Cowley, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Q&A: The National Do Not Call Registry
FTC Consumer Alert
PDF Version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A: The National Do Not Call Registry
En Espa�ol: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/spanishinfo/consumer.htm
Tell Me More About the National Do Not Call Registry
1. Why would I register my phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you an opportunity to limit the telemarketing calls you receive. Once you register your phone number, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to 31 days (starting January 1, 2005) from the date you register to stop calling you.
2. Who manages the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry is managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation�s consumer protection agency. It is enforced by the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and state law enforcement officials.
3. Why was the National Do Not Call Registry created?
The registry was created to offer consumers a choice regarding telemarketing calls. The FTC�s decision to create the National Do Not Call Registry was the culmination of a comprehensive, three-year review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), as well as the Commission�s extensive experience enforcing the TSR over seven years. The FTC held numerous workshops, meetings, and briefings to solicit feedback from interested parties and considered over 64,000 public comments, most of which favored creating the registry. You can review the entire record of the Rule review at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsrrulemaking/index.htm.
How Does Registration Work?
4. How soon after I register will I notice a reduction in calls?
As of January 1, 2005, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to
31 days from the date you register to stop calling you.
5. When I register my phone number, how long until it shows up on the National Do Not Call Registry?
After you register, your phone number will show up on the registry by the next day. Telemarketers have up to 31 days to get your phone number and remove it from their call lists.
6. What if I change my mind? Can I take my number off the National Do Not Call Registry?
You can delete your phone number only by calling toll-free 1-888-382-1222 from the telephone number you want to delete. After you contact the registry to delete it, it will be removed from the National Do Not Call Registry by the next day. But telemarketers have up to 31 days to access information about your deletion and add your number back to their call lists, if they choose to.
7. If I registered by phone, will I receive a confirmation?
No, but you can verify that your number is on the registry online at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry�s toll-free number (1-888-382-1222) and following the prompts for verifying that your number is on the registry.
8. I received a phone call from someone offering to put my name on the National Do Not Call Registry. Should I let them?
No. The FTC does not allow private companies or other such third parties to register consumers for the National Do Not Call Registry. Websites or phone solicitations that claim they can or will register a consumer�s name or phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry � especially those that charge a fee � are almost certainly a scam. Consumers may register directly, or through some state governments, but never through private companies. For consumers, the National Do Not Call Registry is a free service of the federal government.
What About the Privacy of My Information?
9. If I choose to register my phone number, how will my information be used and disclosed?
We collect your phone number and store it in the National Do Not Call Registry so that telemarketers and sellers covered by the FTC�s rules can remove your phone number from their call lists. Telemarketers are required to search the registry every 31 days and delete from their call lists phone numbers that are in the registry. Phone numbers in the registry also may be shared with law enforcement to assure compliance with federal and state law.
If you contact us via the Internet, we also collect your email address to confirm your registration request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.
For more information about the privacy of your information, please see our privacy policy at www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.
What Phone Numbers Can I Register?
10. Can I register my cell phone on the National Do Not Call Registry?
Yes, you may place your personal cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. The registry has accepted cell phone numbers since it opened for registrations in June 2003. There is no deadline to register a home or cell phone number on the Registry.
You may have received an email telling you that your cell phone is about to be assaulted by telemarketing calls as a result of a new cell phone number database; however, that is not the case. FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers don�t call consumers on their cell phones without their consent.
11. Can I register all my family and friends?
You should register only your own telephone numbers.
12. I have more than three personal telephone numbers. How can I register all of those numbers?
You may register up to three telephone numbers at one time on the National Do Not Call Registry website. You will receive a separate confirmation email for each number you wish to register online. You must open each email and click on the link in each one to complete the registration process. If you have more than three personal telephone numbers, you will have to go through the registration process more than once to register all of your numbers. There is a limit on the number of phone numbers you can register in this manner.
You can register only one phone number each time you call the National Do Not Call Registry, and you must call from the phone number you wish to register.
13. What happens if I register more than one number at a time online?
You will get an email for each number you register online. You need to open each email and click on the link in each email within 72 hours to register those numbers.
14. Can I register my business phone number or a fax number?
The National Do Not Call Registry is only for personal phone numbers. Business-to-business calls and faxes are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry.
When Does My Registration Expire?
15. How long does my phone number stay registered?
Your phone number will remain on the registry for five years from the date you register (unless you choose to take it off the registry or your phone number is disconnected). If you register online, you may want to print the Web page for your records when your registration is accepted.
16. How can I find out when my registration expires?
You can click on the Verify a Registration button any time to check your expiration date. Your registration will expire five years from your registration date. You may want to print the Web page with your registration date for your records.
What If I Move or My Phone Is Disconnected?
17. I moved and got a new phone number. Do I need to register the new number?
Yes.
18. Do I need to take my old phone number off the list when I get a new number?
No. You can if you would like to, but the system will automatically remove most numbers that are disconnected and reassigned.
19. What happens if my phone number is disconnected and then reconnected?
If your number is disconnected and then reconnected, you may need to re-register. In addition, there are actions that you or your telephone company might take that could cause your registered phone number to become unregistered � even if your service has not been interrupted (such as changing calling plans or other services, or changing the billing name on the account.) To verify that your number is in the Registry, go to www.donotcall.gov or call 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236). Each time you re-register, telemarketers will have 31 days to take your number off their call lists.
What If My Area Code �Splits�?
20. If my area code changes, do I need to re-register?
If the phone companies change the three-digit area code for your home or mobile phone number, you do not have to re-register it with the National Do Not Call Registry. The number with the new area code will be registered for you during the 90-day period when both the old and new area codes work. This is known as the Permissive Dialing Period.
21. Do I need to delete registration of my number with the old area code?
No. You do not need to delete the registration of your phone number with the old area code. An automated process will remove it after 90-day Permissive Dialing Period.
Registration and My Email Address
22. Why do you need my email address?
When you use the registry�s website to put a phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry, we collect your email address to confirm your request. We will send you an email and you will need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. We also collect your email address when you request to verify your registration online so that we can email you a response to your verification request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.
23. Can I register online if I do not have an active email address?
No. The online registration process requires an active email address. If you register online, we will send you an email message with a link in it. You need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. If you do not have an email address, you can register by phone
(1-888-382-1222).
24.Can I reply to the email I got when I was registering?
No. The email address is a one-way mail service. It cannot accept incoming emails. You must click on the link within the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration.
25. What if my email address changes after I register? Will I still be able to verify my registration on the national registry?
Yes, you will be able to use your new email address to verify your phone number online.
I�m Having Problems With Registration
26. I called to register my phone number, but the message said my phone number could not be verified. Why not?
When you call to register a phone number, you are asked to enter the number you are calling from. The system tries to match the number you enter to �Automatic Number Identification� or ANI, which is like Caller ID for the telephone network. A small percentage of U.S. phones do not have ANI. If your phone doesn�t, the system will have trouble locating your phone number. You can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.
27. I called to register my phone number, but the message said that the phone number I was calling from did not match the phone number I entered. What happened?
To register, you must call from the phone you want to register. For example, you cannot register your home phone number by calling from work.
Also, people in certain communities � such as senior living centers or university residences � have phone numbers that are hidden by a PBX (private branch exchange) telephone system and cannot be matched by the National Do Not Call system. If you live in such a community, you can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.
28. I received an email from Register@donotcall.gov, but I don�t get a �Registration Complete� message when I try to click on the link. What should I do?
You may not be able to click on the link in your email from Register@donotcall.gov, or it may take you to a page that says �Registration Incomplete.� You can complete your registration by using the �cut� and �paste� functions to insert the link in the email into the �address� line on your Web browser. You must cut and paste the entire link. It is very long � possibly more than one line of text. You cannot re-type the link.
Will All Telemarketing Calls Stop If I Register?
29. If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?
No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you�ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls.
30. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?
Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of �telemarketing.� Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.
31. What about telephone surveys?
If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered � that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.
32. My number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. After I bought something from a company, a telemarketer representing that organization called me. Is this a violation?
No. By purchasing something from the company, you established a business relationship with the company. As a result, even if you put your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, that company may call you for up to 18 months after your last purchase or delivery from it, or your last payment to it, unless you ask the company not to call again. In that case, the company must honor your request not to call. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.
An established business relationship with a company also will be created if you make an inquiry to the company, or submit an application to it. This kind of established business relationship exists for three months after the inquiry or application. During this time, the company can call you.
If you make a specific request to that company not to call you, however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an established business relationship with that company.
33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.
Other Ways To Limit Telemarketing Calls
34. I�m happy to have the choice to limit telemarketing contacts, but there are some telemarketing calls I don�t mind receiving. Is there a way to allow only certain companies to call?
Yes. If you give a company your written permission to call you, they may do so even if you have placed your number on the National Do Not Call Registry.
35. If I don�t want to put my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, can I still stop telemarketers from calling?
Yes. Even if you do not register with the National Do Not Call Registry, you can still prohibit individual telemarketers from calling by asking them to put you on their company�s do not call list.
36. What is the relationship between the state do not call lists and the National Do Not Call Registry in terms of coverage?
The National Do Not Call Registry requirements are at least as stringent as most state laws. Most unwanted telemarketing calls will be covered by the National Do Not Call Registry. States also can continue to enforce their laws, which will not be limited by the FTC. However, the FCC�s requirements impact some state laws. For information on the FCC�s rule, visit www.fcc.gov.
Filing a Do Not Call Complaint
37. When can I file a do not call complaint?
If your number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days (starting January 1, 2005) and you receive a call from a telemarketer that you believe is covered by the National Do Not Call Registry, you can file a complaint at the registry�s website at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry�s toll-free number at 1-888-382-1222 (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236). To file a complaint, you must know either the name or telephone number of the company that called you, and the date the company called you.
38. How do I file a do not call complaint? What do I need to file a complaint?
You can file your complaint on the registry�s website, www.donotcall.gov, using the File a Complaint page. You must know either the name or the phone number of the company that called you. You also must provide the date that the company called you and your registered phone number. You may provide your name and address, but it�s not required for you to submit a complaint. You also may call the registry�s toll-free number at (1-888-382-1222) to file a complaint (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236).
39. What happens to my complaint?
Do not call complaints will be entered into the FTC�s Consumer Sentinel system, a secure, online database available to more than 1,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies. While the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems, your complaint will help us investigate the company and could lead to law enforcement action.
40. What if I get a telemarketing call, but can�t get the telemarketer�s name or phone number?
For law enforcement officials to take action on your complaint, they need either the telemarketer�s name or phone number, as well as the date of the call. If you want to report a do not call violation, please get that information.
41. Where can I get more information?
If you have questions or complaints regarding the Do Not Call Registry, please contact the FTC by email at dncconsumerinquiry2@ftc.gov, or by mail at:
National Do Not Call Registry
Attn: DNC Program Manager
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
August 2005
Fight Identity Theft:
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft
Spam e-mail:
http://www.ftc.gov/spam
PDF Version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A: The National Do Not Call Registry
En Espa�ol: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/spanishinfo/consumer.htm
Tell Me More About the National Do Not Call Registry
1. Why would I register my phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you an opportunity to limit the telemarketing calls you receive. Once you register your phone number, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to 31 days (starting January 1, 2005) from the date you register to stop calling you.
2. Who manages the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry is managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation�s consumer protection agency. It is enforced by the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and state law enforcement officials.
3. Why was the National Do Not Call Registry created?
The registry was created to offer consumers a choice regarding telemarketing calls. The FTC�s decision to create the National Do Not Call Registry was the culmination of a comprehensive, three-year review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), as well as the Commission�s extensive experience enforcing the TSR over seven years. The FTC held numerous workshops, meetings, and briefings to solicit feedback from interested parties and considered over 64,000 public comments, most of which favored creating the registry. You can review the entire record of the Rule review at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsrrulemaking/index.htm.
How Does Registration Work?
4. How soon after I register will I notice a reduction in calls?
As of January 1, 2005, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to
31 days from the date you register to stop calling you.
5. When I register my phone number, how long until it shows up on the National Do Not Call Registry?
After you register, your phone number will show up on the registry by the next day. Telemarketers have up to 31 days to get your phone number and remove it from their call lists.
6. What if I change my mind? Can I take my number off the National Do Not Call Registry?
You can delete your phone number only by calling toll-free 1-888-382-1222 from the telephone number you want to delete. After you contact the registry to delete it, it will be removed from the National Do Not Call Registry by the next day. But telemarketers have up to 31 days to access information about your deletion and add your number back to their call lists, if they choose to.
7. If I registered by phone, will I receive a confirmation?
No, but you can verify that your number is on the registry online at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry�s toll-free number (1-888-382-1222) and following the prompts for verifying that your number is on the registry.
8. I received a phone call from someone offering to put my name on the National Do Not Call Registry. Should I let them?
No. The FTC does not allow private companies or other such third parties to register consumers for the National Do Not Call Registry. Websites or phone solicitations that claim they can or will register a consumer�s name or phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry � especially those that charge a fee � are almost certainly a scam. Consumers may register directly, or through some state governments, but never through private companies. For consumers, the National Do Not Call Registry is a free service of the federal government.
What About the Privacy of My Information?
9. If I choose to register my phone number, how will my information be used and disclosed?
We collect your phone number and store it in the National Do Not Call Registry so that telemarketers and sellers covered by the FTC�s rules can remove your phone number from their call lists. Telemarketers are required to search the registry every 31 days and delete from their call lists phone numbers that are in the registry. Phone numbers in the registry also may be shared with law enforcement to assure compliance with federal and state law.
If you contact us via the Internet, we also collect your email address to confirm your registration request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.
For more information about the privacy of your information, please see our privacy policy at www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.
What Phone Numbers Can I Register?
10. Can I register my cell phone on the National Do Not Call Registry?
Yes, you may place your personal cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. The registry has accepted cell phone numbers since it opened for registrations in June 2003. There is no deadline to register a home or cell phone number on the Registry.
You may have received an email telling you that your cell phone is about to be assaulted by telemarketing calls as a result of a new cell phone number database; however, that is not the case. FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers don�t call consumers on their cell phones without their consent.
11. Can I register all my family and friends?
You should register only your own telephone numbers.
12. I have more than three personal telephone numbers. How can I register all of those numbers?
You may register up to three telephone numbers at one time on the National Do Not Call Registry website. You will receive a separate confirmation email for each number you wish to register online. You must open each email and click on the link in each one to complete the registration process. If you have more than three personal telephone numbers, you will have to go through the registration process more than once to register all of your numbers. There is a limit on the number of phone numbers you can register in this manner.
You can register only one phone number each time you call the National Do Not Call Registry, and you must call from the phone number you wish to register.
13. What happens if I register more than one number at a time online?
You will get an email for each number you register online. You need to open each email and click on the link in each email within 72 hours to register those numbers.
14. Can I register my business phone number or a fax number?
The National Do Not Call Registry is only for personal phone numbers. Business-to-business calls and faxes are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry.
When Does My Registration Expire?
15. How long does my phone number stay registered?
Your phone number will remain on the registry for five years from the date you register (unless you choose to take it off the registry or your phone number is disconnected). If you register online, you may want to print the Web page for your records when your registration is accepted.
16. How can I find out when my registration expires?
You can click on the Verify a Registration button any time to check your expiration date. Your registration will expire five years from your registration date. You may want to print the Web page with your registration date for your records.
What If I Move or My Phone Is Disconnected?
17. I moved and got a new phone number. Do I need to register the new number?
Yes.
18. Do I need to take my old phone number off the list when I get a new number?
No. You can if you would like to, but the system will automatically remove most numbers that are disconnected and reassigned.
19. What happens if my phone number is disconnected and then reconnected?
If your number is disconnected and then reconnected, you may need to re-register. In addition, there are actions that you or your telephone company might take that could cause your registered phone number to become unregistered � even if your service has not been interrupted (such as changing calling plans or other services, or changing the billing name on the account.) To verify that your number is in the Registry, go to www.donotcall.gov or call 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236). Each time you re-register, telemarketers will have 31 days to take your number off their call lists.
What If My Area Code �Splits�?
20. If my area code changes, do I need to re-register?
If the phone companies change the three-digit area code for your home or mobile phone number, you do not have to re-register it with the National Do Not Call Registry. The number with the new area code will be registered for you during the 90-day period when both the old and new area codes work. This is known as the Permissive Dialing Period.
21. Do I need to delete registration of my number with the old area code?
No. You do not need to delete the registration of your phone number with the old area code. An automated process will remove it after 90-day Permissive Dialing Period.
Registration and My Email Address
22. Why do you need my email address?
When you use the registry�s website to put a phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry, we collect your email address to confirm your request. We will send you an email and you will need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. We also collect your email address when you request to verify your registration online so that we can email you a response to your verification request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.
23. Can I register online if I do not have an active email address?
No. The online registration process requires an active email address. If you register online, we will send you an email message with a link in it. You need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. If you do not have an email address, you can register by phone
(1-888-382-1222).
24.Can I reply to the email I got when I was registering?
No. The email address is a one-way mail service. It cannot accept incoming emails. You must click on the link within the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration.
25. What if my email address changes after I register? Will I still be able to verify my registration on the national registry?
Yes, you will be able to use your new email address to verify your phone number online.
I�m Having Problems With Registration
26. I called to register my phone number, but the message said my phone number could not be verified. Why not?
When you call to register a phone number, you are asked to enter the number you are calling from. The system tries to match the number you enter to �Automatic Number Identification� or ANI, which is like Caller ID for the telephone network. A small percentage of U.S. phones do not have ANI. If your phone doesn�t, the system will have trouble locating your phone number. You can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.
27. I called to register my phone number, but the message said that the phone number I was calling from did not match the phone number I entered. What happened?
To register, you must call from the phone you want to register. For example, you cannot register your home phone number by calling from work.
Also, people in certain communities � such as senior living centers or university residences � have phone numbers that are hidden by a PBX (private branch exchange) telephone system and cannot be matched by the National Do Not Call system. If you live in such a community, you can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.
28. I received an email from Register@donotcall.gov, but I don�t get a �Registration Complete� message when I try to click on the link. What should I do?
You may not be able to click on the link in your email from Register@donotcall.gov, or it may take you to a page that says �Registration Incomplete.� You can complete your registration by using the �cut� and �paste� functions to insert the link in the email into the �address� line on your Web browser. You must cut and paste the entire link. It is very long � possibly more than one line of text. You cannot re-type the link.
Will All Telemarketing Calls Stop If I Register?
29. If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?
No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you�ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls.
30. Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?
Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of �telemarketing.� Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.
31. What about telephone surveys?
If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered � that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.
32. My number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. After I bought something from a company, a telemarketer representing that organization called me. Is this a violation?
No. By purchasing something from the company, you established a business relationship with the company. As a result, even if you put your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, that company may call you for up to 18 months after your last purchase or delivery from it, or your last payment to it, unless you ask the company not to call again. In that case, the company must honor your request not to call. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.
An established business relationship with a company also will be created if you make an inquiry to the company, or submit an application to it. This kind of established business relationship exists for three months after the inquiry or application. During this time, the company can call you.
If you make a specific request to that company not to call you, however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an established business relationship with that company.
33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.
Other Ways To Limit Telemarketing Calls
34. I�m happy to have the choice to limit telemarketing contacts, but there are some telemarketing calls I don�t mind receiving. Is there a way to allow only certain companies to call?
Yes. If you give a company your written permission to call you, they may do so even if you have placed your number on the National Do Not Call Registry.
35. If I don�t want to put my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, can I still stop telemarketers from calling?
Yes. Even if you do not register with the National Do Not Call Registry, you can still prohibit individual telemarketers from calling by asking them to put you on their company�s do not call list.
36. What is the relationship between the state do not call lists and the National Do Not Call Registry in terms of coverage?
The National Do Not Call Registry requirements are at least as stringent as most state laws. Most unwanted telemarketing calls will be covered by the National Do Not Call Registry. States also can continue to enforce their laws, which will not be limited by the FTC. However, the FCC�s requirements impact some state laws. For information on the FCC�s rule, visit www.fcc.gov.
Filing a Do Not Call Complaint
37. When can I file a do not call complaint?
If your number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days (starting January 1, 2005) and you receive a call from a telemarketer that you believe is covered by the National Do Not Call Registry, you can file a complaint at the registry�s website at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry�s toll-free number at 1-888-382-1222 (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236). To file a complaint, you must know either the name or telephone number of the company that called you, and the date the company called you.
38. How do I file a do not call complaint? What do I need to file a complaint?
You can file your complaint on the registry�s website, www.donotcall.gov, using the File a Complaint page. You must know either the name or the phone number of the company that called you. You also must provide the date that the company called you and your registered phone number. You may provide your name and address, but it�s not required for you to submit a complaint. You also may call the registry�s toll-free number at (1-888-382-1222) to file a complaint (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236).
39. What happens to my complaint?
Do not call complaints will be entered into the FTC�s Consumer Sentinel system, a secure, online database available to more than 1,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies. While the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems, your complaint will help us investigate the company and could lead to law enforcement action.
40. What if I get a telemarketing call, but can�t get the telemarketer�s name or phone number?
For law enforcement officials to take action on your complaint, they need either the telemarketer�s name or phone number, as well as the date of the call. If you want to report a do not call violation, please get that information.
41. Where can I get more information?
If you have questions or complaints regarding the Do Not Call Registry, please contact the FTC by email at dncconsumerinquiry2@ftc.gov, or by mail at:
National Do Not Call Registry
Attn: DNC Program Manager
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
August 2005
Fight Identity Theft:
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft
Spam e-mail:
http://www.ftc.gov/spam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
