DEMOCRAT PARTY WINS -- TENANTS LOSE (revised 8/10/97) Many tenants are still in a fog as the full impact of the so-called "victory" is realized where Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver agreed to defacto Vacancy Decontrol merely by changing its name. We'll have more comments later, but the effect of the Democratic "Sellout '97" can best be summed up by Ken Rosenfield, a tenant member of the Rent Guidelines Board, who stated on June 23: "If tenants have any more victories like this, there won't be any of us left to go to the funeral." Landlords are dancing a jig; one group reportedly wants to give Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver the "Man of the Year" Award for giving them so much. (see Real Estate Weekly, June 25, 1997). New York State Tenants & Neighbors Coalition (NYSTNC) headed by Michael McKee and Billy Easton have for years shoved other tenant groups and tenant leaders out of the spotlight and out of the decision-making process. Two sources told us that late on June 15th, NYSTNC was the only "tenant group" allowed into Silver's office while leaders of Met Council and QLOUT (Queens League of United Tenants) had the door slammed in their face. In 1994 one NYC Democratic assemblymember (whose district is a mix of tenants, coops and home owners and who is only so-so when it comes to tenant issues) told this writer that tenants "will have a problem in 1997 if NYSTNC still controlled the agenda," i.e., that the Democrat party controlled the agenda and what was good for the party is not necessarily good for tenants. During the campaign McKee and Easton were quite public in slamming other tenant efforts -- the upstate boycott, a rent slowdown, Ruth Messinger's call for Home Rule, etc. No matter what one thinks of the merits of these ideas, (some were good, some needed further work and some were pretty awful ideas) they represented concerned tenants attempting to take the initiative -- and its ideas and leadership which is sorely needed by tenants. Indeed, it was the local grassroots groups -- who printed and distributed flyers, held meetings, demonstrated and lobbied legislators -- that were the workhorse of the campaign. When McKee/Easton complained that other tenants were undermining "their" agenda, and when they trot out the party hacks in defense (as I expect they will), you know something is wrong. While other tenants wanted to work together (no matter what you can say about their effectiveness), NYSTNC maintained the appearance of open cooperation, but surreptitiously worked to undermine much of the independent tenant efforts. One group was successful in convincing 10 of NYC's 59 community boards (representing over 200,000 city dwellers) to support a boycott of upstate goods if and when the rent laws expired. Upstate papers were all over this story and brought home to their readers that many upstate elected officials had been bribed by NYC landlords to vote to deny NYC tenants basic protections.Some said it wasn't an ustate-downstate issue, but it was landlords and the republicans that made it an upstate issue. With this potential threat forming, NYSTNC sent letters to all NYC community boards asking them to not support the boycott and Shel Silver packed a Manhattan Community Board #3 meeting with his staffers to have its previous resoultion supporting the boycott rescinded. When it appeared that tenants might have had a chance to repeal Vacancy Decontrol in the NYC City Council in March, it was reported to us that it was NYSTNC that told City Councilman Stanley Michaels it was "OK" to drop the effort ten days before the vote -- resulting in a mere "clarification" by Vallone. This failure by City Council to send a strong signal to Albany -- along with tenant failure to either define the debate on its terms or articulate well-accepted gut-level reasons of the value of rent regulations -- are considered by some prime reasons why the Democrats felt safe in giving away so much of the store. McKee/Easton were in the room. They had access to the party leadership. We won't buy the explanation that the hellish provisions of this law was "slipped by them" or that they were "lied to." Every time that the laws are weakened, we hear the same excuse. The only way the Democrats can maintain the appearance of being pro-tenant while working to undermine the tenant protection laws is to create a group like NYSTNC -- thereby controlling the agenda and other tenants. MCKEE/EASTON CLAIM VICTORY TO SAVE FACE WHEN THEY COULD NOT SAVE TENANTS The only other group we've heard that is claiming "victory" is the Communist Party -- most likely they feel the necessity to struggle rather than win. And what about "Showdown '97"? Well what about it? Although many honest and concerned tenants got involved, it simply became irrelevant -- because it was a creation of Shel Silver and Housing Chair Vito Lopez and tenants were controlled. You remember all those forums around town where the do-nothing/we-love-tenants politicians gave their scripted "set your sights on Pataki and Bruno" speeches? We claimed that tenants should "watch" Silver as well -- either box him in a corner or raise his expectations as a savior -- so that he could not, and would not, sell tenants out... but whatever it takes, watch him. No one did. Instead of Showdown '97, we got Sellout '97 Who won what? Shel Silver enjoyed an immense public relations coup in becoming a statewide household word. The Democratic Party (i.e., Gottfried, Abate, et al) maintained the fiction as working for tenants rights while never raising a finger to actually clean up Housing Court or DHCR. Vito Lopez made a deal with Guiliani along the same lines as Antonio Pagan. Although wounded, Pataki is working hard to (and probably will) recover his losses. D'Amato suffered little despite efforts to make him the prime boogie man (Bruno already had that crown). This writer has been asked on several occasions if McKee is actually working for real estate. Although there's no direct evidence to support this, when one critically looks at his and NYSTNC's historical record of failures, you might just start to wonder. If you follow the money from real estate to the Democratic Party coffers (you really didn't think that the Republicans were the only beneficiary of real estate largess, did you?), you can see how tenants and their issues have been co-opted. What is wrong is that for years the Democratic Party has controlled the tenant agenda and tenants have not had much say in forming their own destiny. (we'll see how long it takes for them to call us radicals and extremists)