Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 09:32:30 -0400
Subject: Tenants Online 10/1/99
Tenants Online 10/1/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue...
1. Brooklyn Museum Demo
2. Hundreds Protest Housing Proposal
3. Mitchell-Lama Conversion Halted
5. Oct. 1 Public Hearing on proposed "Lead Protection" Regulations
6. Comments by Northern Manhattan Inprovement Corporation
7. Comments by NYPIRG
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKLYN MUSEUM DEMO
Artists, Writers, and NYCLU to Protest New York City Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani’s Latest Attack on the First Amendment at the Brooklyn Museum of Art
WHAT
New York Civil Liberties Union protest rally to defend
constitutionally-protected artistic expression at the Brooklyn Museum of
Art which is under attack from New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Mayor Giuliani is threatening to cut funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art,
terminate its lease, and seize control of the museum’s board of directors
if they open “Sensation”, a show featuring the work of young British
artists, on Saturday, October 2nd. Mayor Giuliani has not seen the show,
according to published reports, but has criticized it as “disgusting and
horrible.”
In response to the Mayor’s assault on free expression, the NYCLU along with
some of the city’s artists and writers, and supporters of the Constitution,
have organized a protest rally and candlelight vigil in front of the
Brooklyn Museum of Art.
WHEN
Friday, October 1, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in front of the Brooklyn Museum of
Art located at 200 Eastern Parkway. (The Eastern Parkway station on the 2/3
subway trains.) Info, call Eddie Borges at 212-344-3005 ext 229
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNDREDS PROTEST HOUSING PROPOSAL
Newsday, September 30, 1999
By Pete Bowles and Robert Polner
An overflow crowd of 1,000 showed up a city hearing last night to sound off
against a plan that would give preference to higher-income families over
those who depend on public assistance as apartments become vacant in city
housing projects.
Despite fears expressed by angry speakers, Housing Authority officials said
no tenants would be evicted or required to pay higher rent under the new
plan, which is to go into effect next year.
But one speaker, Melvin Lippman, who lives in a public housing development
on the West Side, said tenants feared that under the proposal the current
rent ceiling of $500 a month would be eliminated and that rents would be
based on market values in the neighborhood.
"They said the goal is to create a mixed-income environment, but that is a
subterfuge," Lippman said. "The real plan is to phase out lower income
people over time as they die off, by attrition, and erode the whole concept
of public housing." Diane Esannasaem, who lives in the Boston Secor Houses
in the north Bronx, said she believed the Housing Authority would try to
lure higher-income families to housing projects by offering them larger
apartments that have been long- sought by current tenants.
"We have got people who have been doubled up who have put in for a transfer
to get into larger apartments," she said. "This new tenant selection and
assignment plan would bump them off the waiting lists." A spokesman for the
Legal Aid Society said it was opposed to allowing the Housing Authority to
skip over families who have been on waiting lists for years to obtain
subsidized apartments. The society said the authority should postpone the
new admission policy until it comes up with a specific plan for the future
housing of low-income families.
Councilman Stephen DiBrienza (D-Brooklyn), head of the council's general
welfare committee, said many housing projects might be more attractive now
to non-welfare families because of lower crime rates.
"Working families might find the projects attractive but shouldn't get
preference because others have been on waiting lists," he said. "They will
put out poor and working people who have turned to the Housing Authority as
a last resort." Howard Marder, a spokesman for the Housing Authority, said
the new admission policy is required under 1998 revisions in the federal
Housing Act. He said the revisions are aimed at stabilizing housing
projects by creating a wider income mix.
"We are trying to create a mix of people so you don't have just one segment
of society living in just one building," he said.
Last night's meeting was held at Pace University across the street from
City Hall. About 600 people were allowed into the meeting room and about
400 others were kept behind police barricades outside. About a dozen police
officers were on hand to keep order, but no incidents were reported.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL-LAMA CONVERSION HALTED
New York Law Journal, Wednesday, September 29, 1999
BY MICHAEL A. RICCARDI
MORE THAN 1,400 residents of an East Side apartment complex will be able to
stay in their homes as the result of a decision by a Manhattan Supreme
Court justice to place on hold a planned conversion of the property from
Mitchell-Lama housing to a private apartment complex .
Justice Paula J. Omansky granted the tenants a preliminary injunction
stopping state housing officials from processing the application of the
owners of the development, Waterside Plaza, which is headed by former
mayoral candidate Richard Ravitch.
In Davis v. Waterside Housing Company, Index No. 112284/99, Justice Omansky
said that the tenato retain their protections under the Rent Stabilization
law. She issued a preliminary injunction and said they should stay put
pending a final court determination of their status.
Under the Mitchell-Lama program, rents are set by private owners of the
building, but subject to approval by state officials. The owners of the
Mitchell-Lama building, a limited-profit housing company, may buy out of
the program after a set period of time.
The central question to be determined in the case is whether leases in the
building are subject to the Rent Stabilization Law.
The owners, who want to take the building private, say that the current
tenants are not entitled to stabilized rents, but the tenants argue that
they are.
The general rule is that the tenants are protected under Rent Stabilization
Law. But it is not clear whether buildings completed or rehabilitated after
1974 are included in that general rule. Some parts of the complex were
apparently completed before 1974, but the last occupancy permit was not
issued until 1976.
"[P]laintiffs have been able to show the likelihood of success," Justice
Omansky wrote. "Prior case law and administrative rulings have favored
continuing rent protection for Mitchell-Lama tenants under the Rent
Stabilization scheme, at least in certain circumstances."
The equities of the case, she also reasoned, favor staying the owners'
application, since the court, rather than housing officials, are better
positioned to determine the rent status of the present tenants.
Mr. Ravitch himself is not a party to the action, but he is the general
partner of the Waterside Redevelopment Company, and president of the
corporation that allegedly holds title to the apartment complex.
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Mr. Ravitch has masterminded a
"de-control campaign" that has included "scar[ing]" tenants into
"surrendering their homes so that they might be immediately re-rented ...
at far higher rental rates."
In February of this year, Waterside Redevelopment asked state housing
officials for a ruling on the continuation of rent stabilized status for
current residents of Waterside Plaza. After that request was made, new and
renewing tenants were asked not to sign a Rent Stabilization Law rider to
their leases, but a rider recognizing the owners' application.
Waterside Plaza owners have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On the pleadings, Justice Omansky refused to dismiss the complaint. She
said that the terms of the complaint, if proven, would make out a case of
tenant harassment.
David Rosenberg, of Marcus Rosenberg & Diamond, represents the tenants.
Marcia Hirsch and Sheldon Melnitsky represented the state Division of
Housing and Community Renewal, and the Waterside Plaza owners are
represented by Albert A. Walsh and Dale C. Christenson Jr., of Seward & Kissel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC HEARING OCT. 1 ON PROPOSED "LEAD PROTECTION" REGULATIONS
from New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, Inc.
When the New York City Council passed a "lead protection" law last June
over strong protests of tenant, public health, and occupational safety
advocates, City Councilman Stanley Michels, Chairman of the Environmental
Protection Committee, referred to it as "nothing more than a landlord
protection bill." Later this week there will be a public hearing on the
proposed regulations the City has written to put the law into effect.
"These regulations improve on the law -- however, they are still not
sufficient to protect children and workers from lead poisoning," commented
NYCOSH Executive Director Joel Shufro. "They are based on a law that is
seriously flawed, so lead-abatement projects that follow these regulations
will have the potential to increase exposure rather than reduce it."
The proposed regulations will be the subject of a public hearing on Oct. 1
at 100 Gold Street, the headquarters of the City's Department of Housing
Preservation and Development. The meeting is scheduled to take place from
10 to noon.
An example of both how the regulations fall short of what is safe at the
same time they improve on the weak law can be seen in their requirement
that floors and furniture be covered with plastic sheeting during abatement
work, and the sheeting be "secured." "The law itself says nothing about
plastic being ‘secured,' so this is an improvement," notes Shufro, "but
what does ‘secure' mean? The City Health Department's regulation and
federal protocols say exactly how sheeting will be secured, because if
sheeting is not properly taped down, it can give the appearance, but not
the reality, of an abatement job that will do some good," remarked Shufro.
"Plastic that isn't properly secured isn't an effective barrier to
lead-contaminated dust, so large amounts of the dust could wind up on the
floor and the furniture, where it will remain when the abatement job is
over for residents to breathe in."
Another objection to the regulations is their lack of a specification for
plastic sheeting. City Health Department and EPA lead-abatement protocols
require two layers of 6-mil plastic. The proposed regulations specify
plastic "of sufficient thickness and durability to prevent tearing," a
requirement that is not in the law, but which leaves landlords with
discretion over a technical detail that has been throughly settled by
experience and investigation.
A third flaw in the proposed regulations concerns testing at the end of an
abatement project. The law itself requires the landlord to do
post-abatement testing, but makes no provision for acting on the results of
the test, even if it shows the abatement was not successful. The
regulations take a middle ground between the law's "anything goes" testing
and federal protocols, which require a project to pass "clearance testing,"
before the work is approved and the residents are allowed back into their
apartment. Under the proposed regulations, landlords must report tests to
the City, but residents of an apartment will move back in before the
results of the post-abatement testing are known. "This isn't
‘clearance-testing' at all, said Shufro, "because ‘clearance' is permission
to re-enter a space. Under these rules, the results of the testing are
almost irrelevant, because even if a job has to be done over, it will be
too late for the residents will have been exposed to unhealthful levels of
lead dust for as long as it takes the lab to discover what happened and the
landlord to take action."
Currently, there are an estimated 30,000 lead-poisoned children in New York
City. Public health advocates maintain that the new regulations will result
in additional thousands of children being unnecessarily exposed to
lead-based paint each year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on the proposed HPD regs on lead paint, for the rulemaking hearing
on October
1, 1999. Also included are NYPIRG's comments.
TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW J. CHACHÈRE of
NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION before the
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
on PROPOSED RULES, 28 R.C.N.Y. CHAPTER 11, CONCERNING LEAD PAINT
PROPOSED RULES TO IMPLEMENT LOCAL LAW 38 OF 1999
Friday, October 1, 1999
I am a staff attorney with Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation
(NMIC), a non-profit multiservices provider in Washington Heights and
Inwood. NMIC, among other things, provides free legal representation to
low income tenants regarding housing problems.[1] In this capacity we also
serve as counsel to the New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning
(NYCCELP).
NYCCELP is a membership organization, founded in 1983, whose purpose is to
educate and advocate for children at risk of lead poisoning and work to
eliminate that risk.
The Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD") has proposed
to completely rewrite its regulations under 28 R.C.N.Y. Chapter 11
pertaining to lead paint. These proposals are in response to the enactment
of Local Law # 38 of 1999.
We strongly believe that Local Law #38 is deeply flawed and will result in
the increase in the number of lead-poisoned children in this City. While
the proposed regulations appear to attempt some minor amelioration of the
worst aspects of this law, we believe this is far too little to remedy the
many obvious flaws of Local Law # 38, flaws which NYCCELP and its members
addressed in testimony before the City Council on June 21 and 24, 1999, and
which we incorporated by reference here.
We agree with the comments submitted today by the New York Public Interest
Research Group, and respectfully incorporate them by reference into our
comments as well.
We wish to highlight, however, one critical flaw in the proposed rules, one
which we believe may render them virtually worthless: the apparent lack of
any enforcement mechanisms. Only one section, § 11-03 ("Owner's Duty Upon
Vacancy"), provides a violation if an owner fails to comply.
For example, § 11-02 ("Lead-based paint hazard") provides for a set of
so-called "interim controls" to be followed in removing defined "lead
hazards" either before a violation has been placed (§ 11-02(b)(1)) or for
an interim period even after a violation has been placed (§ 11-02)(c)(1) &
(d)(1). We do not believe that these "interim controls" are sufficient to
protect children from lead poisoning, and owners should be required to
follow the full scheme of safety procedures already provided for in the
Health Code at § 173.14. However, even if one accepts the viability of the
so-called "interim controls," the regulations appear to completely lack any
enforcement mechanism if an owner fails to follow them. An owner's failure
to comply is not denominated as a "violation," nor do the rules indicate
what HPD intends to do to enforce this provision - if in fact, the
department intends any enforcement at all!
Critically, the rule does not appear to provide tenants with any means to
obtain enforcement by HPD in the event a landlord is removing lead paint
without complying with these minimal so-called "interim controls." If the
landlord is carelessly performing work that is dispersing toxic lead dust
throughout the dwelling of a vulnerable two year old child, what is the
parent to do?
This is a crucial flaw, especially when compared to Health Code § 173.14,
where, in subsection (a)(3), HPD, DoH, and DEP are granted authority to
issue stop work orders, notices of violation, and seek fines for failure to
obey safety regulations -- including in the event other areas of the
building are being contaminated.[2]
Likewise, §§ 11-04 ("Notice of Inquiry Regarding the Presence of a Child")
and 11-05 ("Owner's Duty to Inspect"), also lack any enforcement
mechanisms. There do not appear to be any penalties if an owner fails to
comply with these provisions.
Only three years ago, then- Health Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, M.D.,
testified with respect to a scheme then under consideration that was
similar to Local Law # 38:
"Our first concern is that the safety procedures required when an owner
repairs peeling paint voluntarily ... are not adequate. Unfortunately, the
risk to young children is actually increased by work that disturbs
lead-based paint if it is done without appropriate safety precautions. The
safety procedures required in the Committee's proposal do not require
adequate containment of work areas nor do they require clearance testing
after work is completed to ensure that lead dust was cleaned
up. Furthermore, the bill only requires full safety measures when an owner
fails to voluntarily make the repair within 30 days. To reduce safety
requirements solely on the voluntary and rapid response of an owner, with
no risk assessment, is not logical."[3]
The safety standards set out in Health Code § 173.14 were put in place in
1993, and updated in 1996, after careful study by the Department of Health
and in harmony with current national trends and HUD guidelines. HPD should
be concerned with preventing the permanent, irreparable injury of the many
vulnerable children residing in dwellings with lead paint, and we therefore
urge that HPD incorporate into the proposed regulations, wherever possible,
all of the far more specific, and far more protective, provisions set out
in § 173.14. Our children deserve at least that much.
Footnotes
1. The communities served by NMIC in particular contain the City's highest
percentage (86%) of dwelling units in older, pre-1960 buildings, and some
16,018 children under the age of 6, representing the highest at-risk
population in the City with respect to lead poisoning. While only 13% of
Manhattan's population resides in Washington Heights/Inwood (1990 census
figures), the New York City Department of Health (DoH) statistics have
indicated that nearly half of Manhattan's reported cases of children with
blood lead levels in excess of 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood
(mg/dL) were in Washington Heights/Inwood.
2. While the procedures in Health Code (§ 173.14(e)(2)(aa)(i)) require a
warning sign ("Lead Hazard - do not enter") to be posted outside abatement
area, in English and Spanish, with agency phone numbers to call if tenants
have concerns about compliance with safe work practices, there is no
equivalent provision in HPD's proposed rules. Perhaps this is because
these rules intend that there will not be anywhere for tenants to call?
3. Testimony of Margaret Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner, DoH (N.Y.C. Council
Apr. 29, 1996).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony of Andrew Goldberg
of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)
before the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD)
on Proposed Rules to Implement Local Law 38 of 1999
Friday, October 1, 1999
Good morning. My name is Andrew Goldberg. I am Counsel to the New York
Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). NYPIRG is New York State's largest
student-directed research and advocacy organization, focusing on consumer
protection, environmental preservation and government reform. NYPIRG has
long been active on both the state and local level working with elected
officials and community groups to prevent lead poisoning.
While HPD's proposed rules at last provide some recognition that lead
contami-nated dust is a hazard that must be addressed whenever paint is
disturbed in a child-occupied apartment, this acknowledgment is far too
little and far too late. HPD Commis-sioner Richard Roberts did a terrible
disservice to this Agency and to the City of New York when he failed to
raise any objections to Local Law 38.
Nevertheless, HPD's proposed rules do make some attempts to repair Local
Law 38's obvious deficiencies, such as adding a clearance standard and an
obligation to re-clean when violations are placed on some limited surfaces.
Certainly HPD must not weaken any of these initiatives in response other
comments.
Within the confines of Local Law 38, NYPIRG believes that additional
improvements can and must be made:
· The term "reside" has different meanings under different
circumstances. Since Local Law 38 is designed to protect the public
health, it is a rule of statutory analysis that it be given a liberal
interpretation. In order to trigger a landlord's obligation to inspect and
repair, both the rule and the proposed model notices (Appendix A and B)
should instruct tenants that an apartment need not be the child's primary
residence. Instead HPD by rule should define the term "reside" to include
"the permanent, temporary or occasional occupancy of a child under the age
of six."
· The terms "detergent wash" and "wet-mop" should be defined as they were
intended to be, which is as terms of art to describe a functional cleaning
procedure. While recognized cleaning procedures require a HEPA vacuum,
wash, HEPA vacuum cleanup cycle, Local Law 38 requires either HEPA vacuum
or detergent washing. In all likelihood, wet wash alone will be the method
most often performed by landlords. However performing a wet wash
improperly does little to remove any existing lead dust hazard and can make
matters much worse. At a minimum, HPD's rules must expressly require the
washing of walls, from the ceiling to the floor, and then from the floor
outwards; the appropriate segregation of wash and rinse water, including
the frequent changing of both; and that dirty water be poured in the toilet
and not the sink or bath, were contamination may occur.
· The term "bind" as used in the phrase "so that no painted surfaces bind"
should address the problem of friction, not just the ease in which a door
or window may be moved, since dust generated by friction was the Council's
obvious concern. HPD by rule should define the term "bind" to mean "to
cause abrasion or friction."
· The term "upon any agreement to lease" as used in Local Law 38 at
§27-2056.3 (Owner's Duty to Notify, Inspect and Correct) should expressly
alert land-lords that their obligations under proposed subdivision (a) of §
11-04, pertaining to a notice of inquiry upon signing a lease, applies to
statutory lease renewals under the rent stabilization law and rent
stabilization code and not just at the time of initial occupancy.
· The term "wet scraping" is also a term of art to describe a method for
reducing lead dust when lead paint is removed from a surface. The
definition should make clear that wet scraping is not a substitute for
proper containment because the lead contaminated slurry that wet scraping
creates is difficult to clean if the slurry is not properly contained.
· Subdivision (a) of proposed § 11-02 must require that underlying
conditions that may cause paint to peel are required to be corrected. This
subdivision should state: "(a) An owner shall correct all lead-based paint
hazards and conditions that cause or may cause paint to peel, including but
not limited to water leaks."
· Subdivision (b)(2)(iii) of the same section requires the use of plastic
of sufficient thickness and durability to prevent tears, that the plastic
be of sufficient length to limit contamination, and that it be properly
secured to prevent movement. To prevent unnecessary contamination,
landlords must be given greater guidance. We urge HPD to incorporate the
existing Health Code § 173.14, which states that-
"Before [work] begins and continuously [afterwards] the floor
immediately under the surface to be abated and ex-tending six feet outward
in all directions, shall be covered with two layers of disposable
polyethylene sheeting of at least six-mil thickness. Such sheeting shall be
taped together with waterproof tape, and taped to the floors and, on walls
and base-boards that are not being abated, shall extend six (6) inches up
the walls or base-boards from the floor, so as to form a con-tinuous
barrier to the penetration of dust."
· In proposed § 11-05, while we strongly support the proposed requirement
that the landlord must document "the results of such inspection for each
surface," we also recommend that HPD promulgate a model recording document
in order to ensure that records of such inspections are uniform and
readable. It should list all possible surfaces in an apartment and have 3
check boxes: (1) "YES" indicating that a condition exists; (2) "NO"
indicating that a condition does not exist; and (3) "N/A" indicating not
applicable. After completion of the inspection, the landlord should sign it.
· In proposed § 11-08, for violations where the landlord need not conduct a
dust test, the certification should still require appropriate documentary
evidence, like a copy of invoices and a detailed description of the work
performed.
· HPD for the purpose of clearly advising landlords of their obligation and
for enforcement by the agency, should have a "different order number" for
violations that require a dust test and for those that do not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 22:29:52 -0400
Subject: Tenants Online 10/9/99
Tenants Online 10/9/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, see the bottom of this newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGE FROM TenantNet
Dear Readers:
In the next day or so, we will send you a separate email asking for your
help. With virtually no budget, our web site and this email newsletter are
created by volunteers and hosted by a local internet provider. However, our
internet provider is changing parts of its business and TenantNet can no
longer reside on its servers -- now we must provide our own servers, and
that will take some fundraising. We'll go into more detail in our letter to
you, but we're asking for your support for TenantNet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue...
1. Lower East Side Housing Conference
2. Distant Office Would Dis Tenants (Voice)
3. Washington Heights Landlady Tries to Evict Legal Tenants
4. Recent New York Law Journal Decisions of Interest
5. Recent New York Times Q&A's
6. Lead Update: Health Code on Lead - Proposed revisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOWER EAST SIDE HOUSING CONFERENCE
ORGANIZE: Eviction Protections, Tenant Associations, Tenant Ownership
FIGHT AGAINST: Privatization of Public Housing, Ending Section 8, Harassment
A full day of free workshops on the crisis in Low Income and Affordable
Housing, Public Housing, Project-Based Section 8 Housing, Tenants Rights,
Housing Court Changes, Tenant Ownership
Saturday, October 23, 1999
Boys and Girls Republic
888 East 6th Street (east of Avenue D)
10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Sponsored by Charas/El Bohio, CODA, Cooper Square Committee, GOLES, It's
Time, LESC, Lower East Side Tenants Union, Met Council, Project
Home-University Settlement. Info call 212-774-9404
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANT OFFICE WOULD DIS TENANTS
Queens Logic?
Village Voice, October 6, 1999
BY J. A. LOBBIA
When the state office that handles complaints of landlord harassment
announced a plan last month to move from downtown Manhattan to eastern
Queens, employees argued the relocation would mean a schlepp for themselves
and a disservice for the tenants they serve, most of whom come from
Brooklyn and Manhattan. But a closer look at the problems plaguing
the enforcement unit of the state's Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) shows that shuttling the office to Queens is just one more
way for governor George Pataki's administration, which is already brushing
off tenants in unprecedented numbers, to further neglect renters.
Since the GOP governor took office in January 1995, two of every three
harassment complaints have been rejected, a sharp hike from the early
1990s, when only one in three met such a fate, according to data provided
by enforcement unit (EU) staffers. Accompanying this rise is a plummet in
the number of EU attorneys who prosecute landlords for harassment, down
from 15 several years ago to five today. And while the number of complaints
filed by tenants has dipped— one insider blames tenants' "despair" of
getting any help from the agency— it is far outpaced by the drop in staff.
"Since the Republicans have been in office, the landlords think they walk
on water," says one veteran agency worker. "There's so many limits on
tenants and what kind of cases we should open, it deters them from filing
any complaint at all. The message is, 'Don't bother. We're going to make it
impossible for you.' "
EU staffers say that months after Pataki took office they were directed to
open cases only if the problems were "very, very serious" or numerous. "We
used to resolve more complaints, sometimes even without going to a formal
hearing," says one worker. "Just by opening a case you might get a landlord
to turn around. We don't do that much now." Sources say about 30 complaints
are made each week. Under Pataki, the once full-time EU director's post has
become part-time.
DHCR's press officer Donna Ackerman did not respond to repeated calls and
written requests to confirm data on the numbers of complaints filed, cases
opened, and staff lost. But EU workers say the faltering numbers reflect a
slump in the state's commitment to tenants. "Since Pataki came in, there
has been a gradual erosion of staff," says Ralph Carbone, president of the
union local that represents DHCR workers and an attorney at the EU. "When
you have only five attorneys and 1.2 million rent-regulated apartments,
just do the math. We can deal only with the worst cases." Says another EU
source, "More cases with merit now slip through the cracks."
Current complaints serious enough to warrant a hearing include one about a
Brooklyn landlord who blasted the heat in his Crown Heights apartments
during the summer, raising temperatures to 110 degrees, while freezing
tenants in the winter; and a case against the infamous Chelsea slumlord
team of Robert Sigmund and Thomas Iveli, charged by the EU with an array of
offenses including physical and verbal abuse of tenants, allowing drug and
prostitution rings in their buildings, and "permitting . . . an environment
of fear, lawlessness, and disorder." In 1997, the landlords generally
denied the charges; the case is pending.
The EU is essential because tenants cannot bring civil harassment charges
against a landlord themselves; they must go to the EU, which prosecutes
charges of harassment in civil hearings before administrative law judges
(ALJs).
DHCR's demise under Pataki is not surprising, considering that a
pre-inaugural task force insisted that the rent laws DHCR enforces be
dismantled. The landlord-backed governor showed his duplicity in 1997 when
he orchestrated a rent-law revision that gave owners huge incentive to
drive out rent-regulated tenants, then tried to temper the lure by enacting
the "toughest" antiharassment laws in the country. Some of those laws were
left to his decimated EU to enforce. "You can have the toughest laws in the
country," says Carbone, "but if you don't have a staff to implement them,
they become meaningless."
Pataki's incentives pair up with the city's frenetic real estate economy to
make tenant protections crucial. "Harassment occurs where profits are
greatest, and right now, that means all of Manhattan and much of the city,"
says Carbone. "If you have a building and you can get rid of a few tenants
and knock it down, you can make a tremendous amount of money."
In a September 9 memo about DHCR's plan to relocate the EU from 25 Beaver
Street in lower Manhattan to a state office building in Gertz Plaza in
Queens early next year, workers were told that refusing to transfer "might
result in your separation from state service." That, of course, made the
21- member EU staff nervous and got the union local involved. Currently,
DHCR plans to keep EU hearings in Manhattan. But conferences, in which the
EU investigates and tries to resolve harassment charges before going to a
full hearing, are likely to be held at Gertz Plaza, which is about a
half-mile from the last stop on the E subway. EU staff would be stationed
at Gertz, which Carbone says would mean time wasted in travel. And the
shuttling of documents, which in cases like the Sigmund and Iveli
prosecution amount to tomes, could jeopardize evidence.
(Indeed, this spring, DHCR relocated the ALJs who preside over harassment
hearings from Gertz to Beaver Street, where their proceedings are held,
after an internal audit concluded that traveling between Gertz and
Manhattan cut productivity.)
Despite staff concerns, DHCR general counsel and former landlord attorney
Marcia Hirsch boasted to the city's Rent Guidelines Board that she was
"pleased to report much progress" in slashing tens of thousands of all
sorts of complaints agency-wide.
"There's fewer cases because they accept fewer cases," argues the veteran
EU worker. "They accomplish that by denying tenants a lot." Says a
colleague, "We are here to enforce the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. Yet
everything now is geared to make it harder for tenants."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON HEIGHTS LANDLADY TRIES TO EVICT LEGAL TENANTS
Tenant/Inquilino, September 1999
By Jeanie Dubnau
Flerida Florentín, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, has been
living with her daughter, Sofia Torres, for 10 years in an apartment at 540
W. 157th St. Florentín is 78 and suffers from heart disease and a nervous
condition. In October 1998 Sofia Torres took a job as a child-care provider
in Connecticut, leaving her three children with Florentín during the week
and coming home on weekends.
As soon as the landlady, Mary Rodino, found out about this arrangement, she
sent them a “Notice to Cure,” charging that they were violating their lease
because Sofia Torres had moved out of her apartment and left an unknown
person (Florentín) in it—and would be evicted unless the situation was
corrected.
Rodino has harassed the tenants in 540 W. 157th St. for years. She has a
reputation for not making repairs and for not offering leases to legal
tenants in her other buildings in Washington Heights. She lost no time in
trying to evict this family and soon sent them a holdover eviction notice.
Legally, Florentin, as mother of the leaseholder, has the right to continue
living in the apartment and also to have her name added to the lease.
However, with the case in court, Torres had to quit her job because her
mother was too nervous to go to court by herself. The women went to the
Harlem Legal Aid offices, and were assigned a lawyer who convinced the
judge to order the landlord to accept their rent. They began to pay their
rent and thought the case was settled.
After about six months, however, the nightmare started all over again.
Rodino’s lawyers had filed a motion to continue the case, and the judge
granted it.
Sofia Torres is trying to hold down several jobs as a cleaning woman, and
has been forced to go to numerous depositions where she is grilled by the
landlady’s attorneys. Although she and her mother are in the United States
legally, they have been repeatedly asked about their passports and for the
passports of Torres’ children. They were asked to provide proof of where
the children went to school, and asked whether the three children were
“fathered by the same man?”
On June 23, Sofia and her mother appeared for a deposition at Rodino’s
lawyer’s office, and were held there for two hours while the attorneys kept
asking them the same questions over and over. Sofia became very nervous.
She fell down and could not walk; she went to the bathroom because she felt
like vomiting. Augusto Payano, a Riverside Edgecombe Neighborhood
Association member who was there to provide some moral support, was thrown
out of the office, amidst joking and laughter from the landlady and her
lawyers.
Rodino first offered a new lease with a rent increase from $534 to $750.
Recently she offered another lease at $610, more than three times the 4%
renewal increase allowed by law for rent-stabilized tenants. Florentín is
elderly and nervous, and her daughter cannot hold down a job because of the
repeated legal appearances. She and her daughter have documentation that
they both have been living in the apartment together for over 10 years—but
if their landlady can pressure them into moving out, she can get a 20%
vacancy increase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL DECISIONS OF INTEREST
October 6, 1999
LANDLORD/TENANT
DHCR Not Bound by Past Incorrect Decision Allowing Rent Increase Over
Reduction Order
LANDLORD OF rent-stabilized and rent-controlled premises brought an Article
78 proceeding to annul a Division of Housing and Community Renewal decision
on a major capital improvement increase. After a rent administrator granted
landlord's application for an increase in rent based on installation of new
windows, tenants filed an administrative appeal, arguing that the premises
had rent reduction orders against it. Given a rent reduction order, the
increase only became effective after a rent restoration order. Landlord
contended that the particular rent reduction order could not be regarded as
outstanding, as DHCR had earlier erroneously allowed an increase for a new
boiler. DHCR found that it was not bound by the erroneous determination.
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the administrative
determination was not arbitrary. Matter of Fisher Litchfield Co. v. Roldan,
Queens, Supreme Court, IA Part 4, Justice LaTorella.
LANDLORD/TENANT
Landlord Seeking Rent Arrears Cures Defect Of Not Listing In-City Agent on
Registration
IN A NONPAYMENT proceeding, tenant argued in part that the multiple
dwelling registration was incorrect because the managing agent did not
reside or list a business address within New York City. Tenant was correct
that landlord violated the Multiple Dwelling Law. The court noted that the
requirement of listing a city contact for a managing agent was for
emergency situations, enabling tenants and governmental authorities to
readily contact the person responsible for operating the building. However,
it said tenant failed to prove that landlord had not complied with the
underlying purpose of the statute and gave no evidence of any negative
effect or harm caused to the tenants. Prior registrations had properly
listed the agent. Also, the defect had been cured, and the new listed agent
was in the city. Landlord was not entirely precluded from collecting rent.
Digeso v. Kennedy, Queens, Civil Court, Judge B. Greenbaum.
LANDLORD/TENANT
Second, Noncontiguous Unit in Same Building Not Part of Marital Home;
Husband Is Licensee
RESPONDENT HUSBAND fought eviction by petitioners - his wife and her
parents - who owned the co-op apartment. The couple, who were in a divorce
proceedings, had lived in the apartment when they were first married but
then moved to another apartment that they bought in the same building.
After marital problems, husband moved to the original unit, on which he
paid the maintenance. Petitioners brought this licensee proceeding seeking
use and occupancy and possession. Husband argued in part that the apartment
was a noncontiguous part of the marital residence and that his occupancy
should not be decided in a summary proceeding. However, Supreme Court had
already decided that only the other apartment was the marital home. The
instant court granted petitioners a judgment of possession but said they
could not seek use and occupancy. George v. Cohn, Queens, Civil Court, Part
B, Judge Hoffman.
LANDLORD/TENANT
Use of Two-Family House for Three Units Does Not Cause Dismissal of Rent
Petition
IN A NONPAYMENT proceeding, landlord also sought possession of the
premises. Before trial, the parties entered a stipulation of settlement in
which tenant agreed to pay certain arrears and to vacate. Tenant now argued
that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the legal
two-family premises had been used as a three-family residence. He contended
that the petition must be dismissed because rent cannot be collected for an
illegal dwelling and the petition was defective for failing to allege that
the building was a multiple dwelling. The court held that this failure or
defect did not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction but related to
landlord's ability to prove its prima facie case. However, landlord could
not collect rent from any tenant during the period of noncompliance. The
stipulation was found binding as to the agreement to vacate. Marrocco v.
Lugero, Richmond, Civil Court, Judge Straniere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT NYT Q&A'S
Subletting Stabilized Apartment
Q: I live in a two-bedroom rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan for
which I pay $450 a month rent. I have recently been offered a position
outside New York City. Friends of mine are willing to pay me $1,200 a month
to sublease my apartment for one year, maybe two. Is it legal for me to
sublease the apartment for that amount of rent? . . . Mario Hammer, Manhattan.
A: Peter Schwartz, a Manhattan lawyer who specializes in landlord-tenant
matters, said that a rent-stabilized tenant generally has a right to sublet
his apartment for up to two years in a four-year period.
And while the tenant's right to sublet is subject to the owner's consent,
the law provides that such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Mr.
Schwartz noted, however, that the law requires the tenant to give notice of
a sublease to the landlord and to provide the landlord with information
about the subtenancy agreement if the landlord requests such information.
Failure to notify the landlord of the sublease — or failure to respond
to a landlord's reasonable request for information about the
subtenancy — can constitute a substantial breach of the lease agreement
and could subject the tenant to eviction.
Mr. Schwartz added that while the law permits a rent-stabilized tenant to
sublet an apartment, the rent being charged to the subtenant cannot exceed
the current legal rent for the apartment, plus an additional 10 percent if
the apartment is being rented furnished. That means that if the
letter-writer rents his $450 a month apartment to a subtenant for $1,200 a
month, he is clearly violating the law by overcharging the subtenant and
could be subject to eviction.
Moreover, Mr. Schwartz said, since a tenant who sublets an apartment
essentially becomes a landlord to the subtenant, he or she could be held
liable for paying the subtenant treble damages — or three times the
amount of the overcharge — even though the subtenant had agreed to pay
the higher rent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Update
Health Code on Lead - Proposed revisions
From: Matthew Chechere
NYC Department of Health has published proposed amendments to the Health
Code pertaining to lead paint safety standards. Comments are due by Nov 5,
1999, and a public hearing will be held that same date at Dept. of Health.
The proposed changes are available in Acrobat PDF format. Please email
and we will email you the file (about 500k)
I have not done a full analysis of these proposals. It appears, at first
glance, that they intend to accomplish several things
1) To centralize enforcement of safety practices with DoH (now currently
split among DoH, DEP, and HPD, with DEP taking the principal role),
probably a good thing, in my opinion
2) To deal with the fact that landlords can now use the sloppy so-called
"interim controls" when dealing with violations placed under Local Law 38
(the Vallone law), by limiting the scope of applicability of the Health
Code section 173.14 (the existing safety standards)
3) Adding a new section which will attempt the massive enforcement gap
created by Local Law 38 -- which is "who enforces interim controls" ---
still a major problem, in my opinion...
4) Creating a "surface dust testing course" - since Local Law 38 -- in the
rare instance when anyone is required to do any dust testing at all --
requires those who do it to pass a DoH course on how to do a dust test. Of
course, the entire intent of this scheme is to avoid having landlord having
to use certified workers....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NYtenants Tenant's Online is subscription-based. To unsubscribe, go to
TenantNet's web page at http://tenant.net and insert your email address on
the NYtenants Mailing List form. Make sure your email is exactly the same
as when you subscribed, including capitalization. Check "unsubscribe" and
click "submit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:15 -0400
Subject: Now, TenantNet Needs Your Help.
Dear TenantNet Readers:
We need YOUR help. Without your financial help, we may have to discontinue
or severely curtail TenantNet.
Since 1994, TenantNet has been on-line providing information, advice and
our independent opinion to New York tenants. Our readership has grown from
a few visitors per day to thousands. Our NYtenants Email List and Forum
have exploded in the same manner.
Just as it was when we started over five years ago, TenantNet is created
and maintained by tenant volunteers (with a shoestring budget* and not
enough time do to all we would like to do).
One reason we've been able to keep TenantNet up is through the generosity
of "The Internet Connection (http://www.cnct.com)," a small internet
provider that has allowed TenantNet on its computers and internet backbone
for virtually no cost. We deeply appreciate this company's generosity.**
But times change. Businesses grow and change. The "Internet Connection" is
changing part of its business and TenantNet will be affected by this change.
Soon, the computers that have served TenantNet's web pages and email list
will no longer be available. Although "Internet Connection" is still
willing to provide TenantNet with a connection to the internet backbone, it
will be necessary for TenantNet to provide its own server. That will cost
money -- money which we don't have.
So we find ourselves in the unfortunate and awkward position of asking our
readership for financial help -- whatever you can give. We must raise
several thousand dollars in the next few weeks in order to purchase,
configure and install separate servers for TenantNet (unlike normal desktop
computers, servers require high-capacity disk drives and other specialized
equipment). For the technically minded, it's not only a question of drive
capacity and internet traffic (bandwidth) -- it also involves having
functional control over a server, with room to grow.
If we are unable to meet this challenge, it's possible that TenantNet might
go down or be curtailed.
So we are asking for donations.*** If our services have given you important
information, or made a difference in knowing your rights as a tenant, we
ask for your help. Any amount will be appreciated. If you can help, please
contact us at donate, or just send donations to:
TenantNet
305 West 45th St. Suite #6-D (be sure to include the apartment number)
New York, NY 10036
Please make checks payable to "TenantNet"
Thank you for your support
John Fisher
Director/Webmaster
TenantNet
----------------
* TenantNet does accept paid advertising, but the amount generated from the
advertising only covers the costs of basic supplies.
** We recommend Internet Connection for web-hosting. Go to
http://www.hoster.com.
*** TenantNet(tm) is owned and operated by a tenant activist. Although it
is a non-profit entity, it is not a 501(c)(3) organization, so
contributions are not tax deductible. TenantNet is not affiliated with any
other organization or political party, and does not receive any government,
corporate or foundation funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:19:06 -0400
Subject: NYTenants Online: Charter Revision News 10/17/99
NYTenants Online: Charter Revision News 10/17/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from NYtenants, see the bottom of this newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Revision News is not associated with the Public Advocate,
or any other organization, person or political party. See more
information on "Smarter Charter?" http://www.RetireRudy.com/charter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IS YOUR COUNCILMEMBER BEING QUIET ON RUDY'S CHARTER PROPOSAL?
Call him/her and ask why. Even though this is not a big election
year, we urge you to go to the polls and vote 'No' on the
Charter Revision proposal.
In this issue...
1. Council quiet on charter referendum... (Crains)
2. Vote Looms, but Debate on Altering Charter Falls (NYT)
3. 'NO' on Charter Revision (NY Post Op-Ed)
4. By All Means, Revise The Charter (NY Post Editorial)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL QUIET ON CHARTER REFERENDUM...
Crains Insider (October 18)
Although Mayor Giuliani's proposed city Charter amendments would sharply
curtail the power of the City Council , council leaders have yet to come up
with a strategy for opposing the referendum. ``That's up in the air right
now,'' concedes a spokesman for Speaker Vallone.
Last week, the council passed a bill requiring trigger locks on guns, one
of the charter proposals, in an effort to show that the mayor's proposals
can be enacted through legislation. ``This shows why charter change is
unnecessary,'' says a Vallone spokeswoman. Mr. Vallone has also scheduled a
hearing on the referendum Wednesday, Oct. 20.
However, it is unclear whether Mr. Vallone will use the council's political
committee to drum up an anti-referendum vote. The charter referendum would
limit the ability of the council to increase spending and make it more
difficult to override a mayoral veto of tax increases.
...while Mastro ponders mass mailing
Meanwhile, the mayor's Charter Revision Commission is planning a mass
mailing to ``educate'' voters about the charter amendments that will be on
the November ballot. Commission officials say the mailing comes under the
panel's public service responsibilities and will not urge passage of the
controversial amendments.
``It's allowed to educate, not advocate,'' says a spokeswoman for the
panel. ``The (city's) corporation counsel has been consulted.'' The size of
the mailing is unclear. The commission has obtained a computer tape with
the addresses of all registered city voters, but commission chairman Randy
Mastro says the mailing is unlikely to be that extensive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOTE LOOMS, BUT DEBATE ON ALTERING CHARTER FALLS
New York Times, October 13, 1999
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
When Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani announced the creation of a Charter Revision
Commission in June, he did not deny that a primary motivation was to block
one of his principal tormentors, Mark Green, the Public Advocate, from
succeeding him as Mayor.
But now that Green's future is no longer part of the 14 proposals that the
commission will put before voters on Nov. 2, Giuliani, with less than three
weeks to go before the election, has been largely silent on a subject he
once described as vital to the city's future.
Although Randy M. Mastro, the commission's chairman and a former Deputy
Mayor under Giuliani, said this week that the Mayor "has done everything
that I would have hoped he would do up to this point," aides at City Hall
said they could not remember the last time the Mayor had spoken out in
support of the commission's work. In September, shortly after the
commission decided to drop a proposal that could have hindered Green's
mayoral ambitions, Giuliani's responses to reporters about the committee's
work grew tepid.
When Sunny Mindel, the Mayor's spokeswoman, was asked on Tuesday about the
Mayor's support of the commission's proposals, she said she would have to
find out and call back. She never did. Mastro did say that the Mayor has
submitted a statement in support of the commission's work in the New York
City Voter Guide, a nonpartisan publication to be mailed out next week.
"Perhaps he's keeping his distance because he sees what a stinker it is,"
Green said on Tuesday of the charter initiative. But Green, whose staff
spent the summer heckling the commission during a series of public
hearings, has himself retreated, literally from the front row, now that the
proposals no longer directly affect his political future.
Nonetheless, Green and Mastro both said they could not attribute the
relative quiet on the charter changes to the absence of a brawl between two
major political personalities who have been in near-constant conflict with
each other for the last five years. Instead, both said it was because
voters in a minor election year with only a handful of races at stake are
almost entirely uninterested in the issue.
"It's not that it's too close to call," Green said. "It's too obscure to
call."
Gene Russianoff, the senior lawyer for the New York Public Interest
Research Group, a civic advocacy organization, said this: "It's charter
revision. You know what I mean? It's like 11 people care about it."
In fact, Russianoff and a number of critics have cared enough to say
vociferously that changing the city's basic governing document is a bad
idea in a year when the expected voter turnout will be 5 to 10 percent.
Although some of the commission's proposals, such as banning guns within
1,000 feet of schools, are clearly popular, critics also say that Giuliani
has rushed the initiative through in a high-handed, politicized and
undemocratic way.
Other proposals, like a cap on budget increases, are seen by opponents as
efforts to restrict the City Council's powers in favor of the Mayor.
Critics are also displeased that voters will have to approve or reject the
entire initiative instead of individual proposals.
Both Green and Mastro made promises of increased activity from each of
their sides closer to the election. Mastro said there would be "some public
education campaign," although he also said he had not decided what form it
might take.
Green said that his side would pass out leaflets in the week before the
campaign. But neither talked about the kind of television advertising wars
that some opponents of the charter revision had predicted in the summer.
Green's side consists of a coalition of labor groups, who are positioning
to oppose Giuliani in his presumed Senate campaign, as well as Vote No on
Charter Inc., an advocacy group led by Richard Schrader, who went on leave
as Green's chief of public affairs to campaign against the changes.
Under the original proposals, the commission would have required a special
election within 60 days if the Mayor leaves office early, as is possible if
Giuliani runs for the United States Senate in 2000 and is elected with a
year left in his term as Mayor. Under the Charter's current provisions, the
Public Advocate automatically finishes the term of any Mayor who leaves
office early.
The special election proposal was immediately attacked by critics who said
Giuliani was engaging in a political vendetta against Green, who by the
nature of his job and his personality has gnawed at the Mayor since both
men took office in 1994. Mastro retreated under the assaults on the
proposal, and last month announced that the commission would delay the
special election provision until 2002, when both Green and Giuliani are out
of office.
The City Council has also opposed the changes as cynical and an assault on
democracy, and plans hearings next week to urge voters to reject the
charter revision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'NO' ON CHARTER REVISION
New York Post, October 16, 1999
By MARK GREEN
WHEN the Mastro charter commission earlier this month abandoned under
public pressure its original proposal to alter the rules of mayoral
succession mid-term, many people thought the charter-referendum controversy
was over.
Wrong. The commission's 14-point referendum will be on the ballot this
November. It should be rejected as both a mayoral power grab and a grab-bag
of unrelated ideas that are wrong, meaningless or better enacted by
legislation.
Over 90 elected officials, civic groups and unions - including Citizens
Union and NYPIRG; the Central Labor Council; State Comptroller Carl McCall;
Reps. Charles Rangel, Jose Serrano and Carolyn Maloney; City Council
Speaker Peter Vallonek and Borough Presidents Fernando Ferrer and Virginia
Fields - have urged voters to vote no on the Charter Referendum, for four
reasons:
1) One "take-it-or-leave-it" charter referendum in a low-turnout election
is undemocratic. Lumping all 14 proposals into one referendum holds
uncontroversial items on guns and human rights hostage to bad proposals on
budget and succession. We vote separately for governor, senator, attorney
general and representative - not on one all-or-nothing slate. And it's
inconsistent for a mayor who says that 5- to 10-percent turnouts of
eligible voters in local school-board elections are a joke to then
intentionally propose changing the city's governing document in a 5- to
10-percent turnout year.
2) It's a mayoral power grab bypassing the City Council. A constitution or
charter should be largely concerned with the structure of government, not
used to push specific legislative ideas, good or bad. It's a radical and
wrong shift of power for an annual summer commission of mayoral supporters
to effectively replace our elected legislative branch of government.
Many of the commission's proposals could and should be enacted by the City
Council. For example, the council passed legislation this week that would
accomplish the commission's goal of increasing the safety of our children
by requiring trigger locks on all firearms. Similarly, the council could
create an Organized Crime Control Commission to coordinate the city's
efforts at reducing the influence of organized crime in legitimate industries.
Because the legislative process is deliberative and allows for consensus
building and compromise, several of the commission's more complicated
proposals - such as merging the Health and Mental Health departments - are
better left to the give and take of a legislative process rather than to a
charter commission hearing three-minute pro or con monologues.
3. If succession ain't broke, don't fix it. The referendum would, starting
in 2002, replace the 168-year precedent of a stable mayoral succession
followed by an election the next November with a costly, chaotic,
low-turnout, special election. But having two mayoral elections within six
months risks having four mayors in one year. There's a reason we have a
tradition in this country - special elections for any of the hundreds of
legislative offices that might become vacant but next-in-line succession
for the one chief executive office of president, governor or New York City
mayor. If our municipal system of automatic succession is so deficient, why
hasn't Mr. Mastro called it undemocratic for the vice president to succeed
the president or the lieutenant-governor the governor?
Also, the requirement of a special nonpartisan mayoral election within 60
days of a vacancy a) helps Republicans who'd prefer to run without party
labels in a city that is 4-1 Democratic, and b) may violate the Voting
Rights Act banning election-law changes that hurt minority prospects.
Per-capita African-American and Latino turnout is lower in special and
off-year elections (like 1999), and it's harder for a minority candidate to
win a non-partisan special election than to win a regular Democratic
primary and a general election with a united party behind the nominee.
4. A Tainted Process = A Tainted Result. While mayors appointed charter
commissions every 22 years on average this century, Mayor Giuliani has had
two in two summers. Mayor Koch appointed a distinguished, diverse charter
panel in 1988 (half of whose members came recommended by other officials),
which held 31 hearings over two years. Mayor Giuliani, on the contrary,
appointed 15 allies, 10 of whom had contributed to his campaigns. This
hand-picked panel then held just six hearings in the vacation month of
August and hurriedly whittled 40 ideas down into 14. Voters shouldn't
reward such a flawed process with their votes.
The few good ideas in the charter referendum are an attempt to sweeten a
lemon. But you don't buy an Edsel because it has the best radial tires.
Voting 'No' on the charter is a way of telling the mayor to work for the
best interests of our city by negotiating with the legislative branch, not
circumventing it.
---
Mark Green is the New York City public advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BY ALL MEANS, REVISE THE CHARTER
NY Post Editorial, October 14, 1999
In less than three weeks, New York voters will accept or reject changes to
the City Charter - the document that can best be described as Gotham's
constitution.
Heretofore, most discussion of charter revision centered on a plan to alter
the mayoral succession - a notion that never made the final cut. Now it's
time to look at what actually is on the ballot proposal.
There's a whole lot to like.
Specifically, the revision commission has recommended making permanent a
number of fiscal reforms adopted early on by the Giuliani administration.
First of all, year-to-year increases in city spending would have to be
limited to the actual inflation rate, unless both the mayor and the City
Council formally declare - and justify - a fiscal "emergency." Among other
things, this would make it virtually impossible for politicians to
negotiatelarger-than-inflation wage hikes with the municipal unions.
Second, all tax increases would need a two-thirds vote in the council - and
if the lawmakers sought to override a mayoral veto of a tax hike, they
would need a four-fifths vote to carry the day.
And at least one-half of any future budget surpluses would be placed in a
rainy-day fund - and, if not used by the end of the fiscal year, used to
pay down the municipal debt.
There are other, duller good-government elements in the charter-revision
package. But right now, it's enough to note that the fiscal safeguards
written into the proposed charter revisions would go a long way toward
preserving the budget stability achieved by the Giuliani administration.
For that reason alone, all thinking New Yorkers should vote "YES" on Nov. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NYtenants Tenant's Online is subscription-based. To unsubscribe, go to
TenantNet's web page at http://tenant.net and insert your email address on
the NYtenants Mailing List form. Make sure your email is exactly the same
as when you subscribed, including capitalization. Check "unsubscribe" and
click "submit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:12:09 -0400
Subject: Tenants Online 10/17/99 (part 1)
Tenants Online 10/17/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, see the bottom of this newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue...
1. Joe Holland and Toxic Peter Vallone (News)
2. More on Toxic Vallone/REBNY (Crains)
2. Met Council Meeting on Brooklyn Council Race
3. City Hit for Raids On Illegal Housing (News)
4. Recent New York Times Landlord/Tenant Q&A's
5. No Fun to Stay at the YMCA: Chelsea Y Moves to Oust Tenants
6. Citizens for Open Access to Legislation Budget Bill Alert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
POLITICAL NOTES: JOE HOLLAND AND PETER VALLONE
By JOEL SIEGEL
Daily News, 10/14/1999
Political Comeback: From the "Whatever happened to ...?" file comes word
that ex-state Housing Commissioner Joe Holland has emerged as one of
presidential hopeful George W. Bush's leading African-American supporters
in New York.
He co-chaired Gov. Pataki's 1994 campaign, then landed the state's top
housing post. But he abruptly quit in 1996 to deal with a cascade of
financial problems, including disclosures he had $508,000 in court
judgments against him.
Holland raised $10,000 for last week's Bush fund-raiser in New York and is
committed to raising $15,000 more.
He has also founded Holistic Hardware, a national, faith-based,
welfare-to-work consultancy that gives former welfare recipients the
educational tools and job skills to help them lead productive lives.
PETER VALLONE
Flexing Muscles: The real estate industry is flexing its political muscle
in the 2001 mayoral race, and City Council Speaker Peter Vallone (D-Queens)
will be the first beneficiary.
Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, wrote last
week to thousands of members seeking donations for Vallone's mayoral
campaign. "This is the first time we've asked [the Real Estate Board's]
broader membership to be involved in fund-raising of this kind," he wrote.
He praised Vallone's "moderate course" as speaker.
Spinola didn't rule out similar appeals to help other mayoral wanna-bes in
the 2001 race.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORE ON VALLONE AND REBNY
Crains Insider, October 18, 1999
REBNY pitches in for Vallone...
Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, last week
sent a personal letter to members of the influential industry trade group
asking them to contribute to City Council Speaker Peter Vallone's mayoral
campaign. ``Peter has been a friend of the industry,'' Mr. Spinola says.
``This was a solicitation to help him get his message across.''
Mr. Spinola says the letter did not constitute at REBNY endorsement of Mr.
Vallone, noting that REBNY officials have sent similar letters on behalf of
other mayoral candidates, including Public Advocate Mark Green , city
Comptroller Alan Hevesi and former Deputy Mayor Fran Reiter. However, Mr.
Spinola acknowledged those mailings were not as extensive last week's
solicitation for Mr. Vallone.
Meanwhile, Mr. Vallone's close ties with the real estate industry continue
to cause him grief with tenant groups. The New York State Tenants and
Neighbors Coalition picketed his campaign office last week because the
recently-passed lead paint law protects landlords from lawsuits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MET COUNCIL MEETING ON BROOKLYN COUNCIL RACE
from Met Council
Michael Nelson's office has tentatively confirmed that Mike Nelson will
attend Met Council's tenant forum Tuesday October 19, 7:00-9:00 pm at
Sheepshead Bay H.S., 3000 Avenue X (betw Doyle + Batchelder), which will
also feature Sonya Ostrom, Green Party and Working Families Party candidate
for the 48th Council district, currently occupied by Nelson, who voted for
the Lead Poisoning Act of 1999 (Local Law 38) in June; and Leo Werner, a
tenant from Mill Basin, and will be moderated by Met
Council vice chair Kenny Schaeffer. For further information call Dave
Powell, Met Council, 212-693-0553 or Kenny Schaeffer, 212-663-3293 ext.133.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY HIT FOR RAIDS ON ILLEGAL HOUSING
Daily News, 10/17/1999
By MAKI BECKER
With the city continuing its crackdown on illegal conversion of homes,
Indo-Caribbeans who have settled in Queens say they fear they are being
unfairly singled out.
"I feel we are definitely being targeted," said Sherry, who owns a
two-family house in Richmond Hill.
Sherry, who asked that her full name not be used, said city building
inspectors have gone into her basement without her permission and
subsequently fined her for having a toilet, bathroom sink and kitchen stove
in her basement — all amenities she said were there when she bought the house.
Sherry does not rent the basement out as a separate unit, she said. She
uses it for recreation and Hindu rituals.
"I don't see the city's name on my mortgage," Sherry said. "It's my
business who I have in my house."
Buildings Department spokesman Paul said the city investigates suspected
illegal conversions only after a complaint has been made.
The investigations have nothing to with race or where people live, Wein
insisted.
Rules are rules, Wein said, and if an apartment was created in a basement
or attic without proper permits, it is illegal, and the premises must be
restored to their original condition.
"It's a matter of legality," Wein said.
Over the last two years, the city Buildings Department in Community Board 9
— which includes Richmond Hill — logged more than 3,000 illegal housing
conversion complaints. That's nearly a thousand more than in any other
community board in Queens.
Richmond Hill is a popular destination for Indo-Caribbean immigrants from
Guyana and Trinidad.
For financial and cultural reasons, low-income Indo-Caribbean immigrants
often live as large extended families in these homes — homes originally
intended for one family, explained Leyland Roopnaraine, an Ozone Park real
estate broker and local community activist.
To accommodate larger numbers of residents, basements and attics in these
one-family houses are sometimes converted into separate apartment units,
something city building officials say is not only illegal but dangerous.
Buildings Department officials say illegal conversions and extra residents
also lead to parking problems and overuse of utilities, Buildings
Department officials say.
For the last two years, Borough President Claire Shulman has headed a task
force aimed at stopping unscrupulous landlords from renting out unsafe,
illegal apartment units.
She is planning to introduce a bill at City Hall next month that would put
even more teeth into the city's arsenal. New provisions could include
allowing the city to seize the vehicles of conversion violators; requiring
real estate agents, purchasers and sellers to certify at closing that the
property up for sale doesn't have any illegal dwelling units; and
prohibiting the Buildings Department from issuing new permits to violators
who have not paid their fines.
The Indo-Caribbean community in Queens says the measures are too harsh.
Dozens of Indo-Caribbeans gathered Thursday night at the Chateau Royale in
Richmond Hill to plan a protest against the new bill.
"This whole scenario here is highly political and racist," said
Roopnaraine. "People use their basements in other neighborhoods."
Many Indo-Caribbeans feel other ethnic groups are not cited as often as
they are. And many don't realize they've done anything wrong by converting
their own homes, Roopnaraine said, and are baffled when they are cited.
Roopnaraine and Sherry would like the Buildings Department to make a
concerted effort to clearly explain to their community what is legal and
what is not.
Wein suggested that anyone worried about alterations to their home should
call the Buildings Department at (718) 520-3401.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT NEW YORK TIMES LANDLORD/TENANT Q&A'S
Landlord's Liability in Dog Attack 10/10/99
Q: I live in a luxury high-rise rental building on the Upper West Side.
Recently, a family moved in with two vicious dogs, one a pit bull. On
several occasions, these dogs have tried to attack my dog in the lobby,
only to be restrained with difficulty by their owner's housekeeper. What is
my landlord's responsibility with regard to protecting tenants and their
pets from these two dangerous animals? . . . Steve Forrest, Manhattan.
A: Thomas Higgins, a Manhattan real estate lawyer, said that under
certain circumstances a landlord may be held liable for injuries caused by
an animal in the building. "The legal standard is pretty clear," Mr.
Higgins said, explaining that for a landlord to be held liable it must be
shown that the landlord "knew or should have known" that a particular
animal had "vicious propensities" and that the landlord had the power to
"remove or otherwise confine" the animal.
He said that an animal with "vicious propensities" has been defined by the
courts as one with a "natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a
manner that might endanger the person or property of another."
"That means that prior attacks, bites and even barking viciously could be
considered evidence of vicious propensities in a dog," Mr. Higgins said. He
said, however, that the mere fact that the dog in question is a pit bull
would not by itself create a presumption that the dog is vicious.
"At least one judge has held that a pit bull is not inherently dangerous
simply because it's a pit bull," Mr. Higgins said. "So, in order to
establish liability on the part of the landlord, you always have to prove
that the particular dog in question had vicious propensities."
Moreover, Mr. Higgins said, even if the landlord was aware that a
particular dog was vicious — but had no legal right or ability to
require the removal or confinement of the animal — the viciousness
alone would not be enough to hold the landlord liable for damages caused by
the dog.
Case of the Shrinking Elevator 10/17/99
Q: I am a rent-stabilized tenant and my landlord has reduced the size of
the elevators in the building. We have no freight elevators, and the couch
in my apartment will now not fit in the smaller elevator. My landlord has
advised me that it is not his responsibility and that I will have to carry
the couch down nine floors or pay someone to do the job for me. Is he
correct? . . . Lori Samet, Manhattan.
A: Colleen F. McGuire, a Manhattan landlord-tenant lawyer, said that
under the rent stabilization code, a tenant is entitled to the same level
of "required services" that the tenant had when he or she took possession.
"There are a wealth of items that come under the rubric 'required service,'
" Ms. McGuire said. For example, she said, a tenant who rents an apartment
with air-conditioning is entitled to have air-conditioning for as long as
the tenant occupies the apartment. "I would argue that a reduction in the
size of the elevator is a reduction of a required service," she said.
Generally speaking, Ms. McGuire said, when there is a reduction in required
services, the affected tenant can file a complaint with the Division of
Housing and Community Renewal requesting a rent decrease until the original
service is restored.
And while the D.H.C.R. has considered some elevator-related complaints as
too minor to require action — ruling, for example, that the removal of
fans, ashtrays or Muzak from elevators is not significant enough to warrant
a reduction in rent — Ms. McGuire said that she believes that a
reduction in the size of an elevator would not be considered minor.
At the same time, she said, since it is unlikely that the agency would feel
that the reduction in service was significant enough to compel the landlord
to restore the elevator to its former size, it would perhaps be wise for
the letter-writer to make it known to D.H.C.R. that she is willing to
accept a reasonable compromise as a way of settling the dispute.
"A reasonable compromise should result in the landlord paying for the cost
of movers to carry the couch downstairs," she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NO FUN TO STAY AT THE YMCA: CHELSEA Y MOVES TO OUST TENANTS
Tenant/Inquilino, October 1999
By Colby Lenz
As the McBurney YMCA’s management continues to lead potential buyers
through its buildings on West 23rd Street, tenants, advocates, and elected
officials continue to fight for the tenants to stay. Relieved that the
rumored Sept. 1 move-out date was lifted, the building’s 34 residents still
live in limbo, fearing that they will wake up to find an eviction notice on
their door any day.
In early July the McBurney YMCA surprised its tenants with the news that
they would soon be forced to leave their homes. In line with the city-wide
move away from affordable housing, the YMCA plans to sell the 95-year-old
building at 215 West 23rd St. to build a new health club without
residences. This move is particularly serious, because in a time when SRO
housing is disappearing rapidly, the Y provides one of the last sources of
affordable housing for non-special-needs tenants.
Attempting to defend the YMCA against bad press reports and pressure from
tenants, elected officials and tenant advocates, Paula Gavin, president of
the YMCA of Greater New York, claimed that “it is not [the YMCA’s] intent
to evict any long-term residents… it is our intention to assist them in
locating alternative suitable housing.” But in July, when the YMCA
introduced a few of the tenants to Lutheran Social Services (the
organization hired to relocate tenants), one tenant asked about the
organization’s success rate in finding housing. The social workers, whom
the YMCA had presented as experts, replied that this was the first time
they had undertaken such a mass relocation.
The YMCA also refuses to acknowledge that while most of the 34 tenants are
not covered by the city’s rent-regulation laws (because of the YMCA’s
nonprofit status), the ones who moved in before 1971 are covered and cannot
be forced to leave. YMCA officials, who tell potential buyers that the
buildings will be delivered vacant, persist in evading the fact that some
of these rent-controlled tenants plan to stay.
In mid-July, a majority of the McBurney’s tenants started the McBurney Y
Tenants’ Association to organize against the YMCA’s attempts to force them
out. Supported by the Chelsea Housing Group, the Chelsea Coalition on
Housing, the West Side SRO Law Project, Councilmember Christine Quinn,
State Senator Tom Duane, and Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, these
tenants are busy writing letters of protest, speaking out at community
meetings and planning their next steps for preserving their homes.
After two months of tedious nonprofit-gone-corporate rhetoric and meetings
between YMCA officials and tenants and their supporters, it seems as though
little has changed. Despite repeated public commitments by Paul Kooster,
vice-president of operations at the Greater New York YMCA, to “seriously
consider alternatives to relocating tenants,” the YMCA now sends out
festive weekly faxes describing the “progress” of the relocation process.
The YMCA has offered no alternatives, and recently shot down every issue
the tenants’ association brought to an agenda-setting meeting for an
upcoming forum called by the YMCA to “address tenant concerns.”
Concurrently, the coalition of support for the tenants continues to grow.
Some members of the McBurney YMCA’s health club are now pressuring the YMCA
to reconsider evicting its tenants. And SRO tenants from around the city
are joining in the struggle—a struggle with unsettling and potentially
harsh ramifications for both the McBurney’s 34 tenants and the future of
affordable housing on the whole.
To show support for the McBurney tenants, please write or call Paula Gavin
at 337 7th Ave., New York, NY 10001; (212) 630-9600.
Colby Lenz is a tenant organizer with the West Side SRO Law Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS FOR OPEN ACCESS TO LEGISLATION
Budget Reform Bill Alert
From: neale@servtech.com (Reginald Neale)
see also www.servtech.com/public/~neale
Independent, non-partisan views on legislative information access and
reform issues in New York State.
Everyone knows the New York State Budget has been late for fourteen years
in a row. Everyone knows this hurts schools and libraries, and destroys our
credit rating. What everyone doesn't know is how bipartisan efforts to end
this huge, politically motivated waste of time and money are being
frustrated - by some of the very people whose job it is to draft solutions
to these problems.
At any one time there are usually a dozen or more bills before the
Legislature that aim to improve the budget process. Assemblywoman Sandy
Galef (D-Ossining) introduced one of the simpler and more sensible ones. It
calls for conference committees to be made a permanent part of the
legislative process. That's the way it's done in Congress and in other
states. In 1998, when we experimented with this approach in drafting a
state budget, we missed the deadline by only two weeks. Conference
committees would help to resolve differences in other types of bills, too.
Support for Sandy Galef's bill is extraordinarily wide. Of the Assembly's
151 members, 103 have signed on as co-sponsors or have pledged their
support. Supporters include approximately equal numbers of Republicans and
Democrats. This level of support for a reform bill is little short of historic.
With better than two out of every three legislators supporting it, why
hasn't A1966 passed the Assembly?
Because the Legislature's internal rules allow leaders to control the flow
of legislation. This bill appears destined to sit in the Assembly's
Governmental Operations Committee forever, because Sheldon Silver - the
Speaker of the Assembly - has the power to keep it there.
Perhaps the Speaker disagrees with a super-majority of his chamber's
members about the need for this bill. More likely, he sees it as
potentially diluting his enormous personal power over individual
legislators' share of everything from pork to parking spaces. Whatever the
motive, preventing this bill from even being considered is profoundly
anti-democratic. This is a particularly egregious example of how a few
powerful politicians continue to keep our state government dysfunctional.
In August the Legislature finally passed a budget and left Albany, but it
will be back in December to address unfinished business. Action on this
bill should be at the top of the list. Assembly Bill A1966 should be
allowed a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.
It never hurts to call your local Assembly Member, but the odds are very
good that he or she has already pledged to support it. The call you really
need to make is to Speaker Silver's office. Say that you're tired of our
state being micromanaged by three men in a room. Tell him it's time for
rank and file legislators to be part of the process again. Tell the Speaker
you want to see Bill A1966 come to the floor for a vote. Maybe when the
democratic process is allowed to work the way it's supposed to, late
budgets will be just a bad memory.
Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) is at 518-455- 3791.
To access this bill on the Assembly's Legislative Information System, go
to: http://assembly.state.ny.us/ALIS/billsearch.html and enter A1966
To request a copy of Assemblywoman Sandy Galef's 10 page report "Joint
Conference Committees - Structure and Practice In Other States," call her
Ossining office at 914-941-1111
Next Update: Over in the Senate, A1966's companion bill also faces problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NYtenants Tenant's Online is subscription-based. To unsubscribe, go to
TenantNet's web page at http://tenant.net and insert your email address on
the NYtenants Mailing List form. Make sure your email is exactly the same
as when you subscribed, including capitalization. Check "unsubscribe" and
click "submit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:10:28 -0400
Subject: Tenants Online 10/17/99 (part 2)
Tenants Online (part 2) 10/17/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, see the bottom of this newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We're clearing out our backlog, so we're sending this 2nd part
In this issue...
1. New Public Housing Rules Shun the Poorest New Yorkers (Voice)
2. Lawyers Who've Gone to the Dogs (And Are Proud of It) (Law Journal)
For tenants with Pets. Karen Copeland (mentioned in the article),
has written "So you want to keep a pet, but your lease has a
'No Pet' Clause" available at http://tenant.net/Rights/pets.html.
One of TenantNet's advertisers, Eric Feinberg also specializes
in landlord/pet issues. Go to http://tenantlawyer.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNWELCOME MAT
New Public Housing Rules Shun the Poorest New Yorkers
Village Voice, October 12, 1999
BY J. A. LOBBIA
Of the 17 benches in Collect Pond Park across from Manhattan's criminal
court, Roger Tyson says the best are the six that flank the Lafayette
Street side. Pointing to another group of green benches on the other side
of a low iron fence, Tyson explains, "Rats stay over there all the time."
So when Tyson sleeps in the park— which he does with some frequency— he
avoids the vermin by selecting the third seat from the corner along Lafayette.
Tyson, 48, has worked on construction jobs, as a messenger for Chase
Manhattan bank, and, until police repeatedly raided his midtown stand, a
street vendor of scented oils, socks, and shirts. But it is his 13 years
without his own home that have schooled Tyson in rat-dodging and other
street-survival techniques. Starting in 1986, Tyson's addresses have
included Bowery hotels (he left when landlords hiked the nightly rates from
$10 to $15) and city shelters (he was kicked out after a fight he says
another resident started). Since June, Tyson has slept variously on a
friend's couch or a park bench, preferably one sheltered by a tree, given
the recent squalls.
Tyson's current straits have made him a high- priority applicant to the New
York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). "We're very anxious to give him
housing," says NYCHA spokesman Howard Marder. Tyson applied to NYCHA in
February 1997, and Marder says if Tyson gets an agency to verify that he is
"street homeless," that status might whittle his wait for housing— to just
under three years. Ironically, Tyson's housing crisis makes him fortunate
compared to the average NYCHA applicant, who, according to the federal
government, will wait an average of eight years to get an apartment. Marder
calls that estimate "hyperbole," but with more than 110,000 families
waiting for fewer than 8000 apartments each year, no one disputes that
scoring a NYCHA apartment in less than three years is the bureaucratic
equivalent of warp speed.
Now, for the poorest of New York's poor who are not favored with a priority
status, and for the tens of thousands of overcrowded NYCHA tenants seeking
larger apartments, the wait is about to get longer. That's because NYCHA
has drafted plans to implement the federal Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act, part of the welfare reform fad that overtook Congress
in the mid '90s. Conceived largely by Long Island congressman and would-be
senator Rick Lazio, early drafts aimed to put an end to public housing
altogether. Under a compromise bill passed in October 1998, the housing
survived, but with profound changes. Perhaps most significant for New
Yorkers is the way NYCHA will implement the act's order to "deconcentrate"
poverty by luring higher-income applicants to extremely impoverished
developments, a goal that raises the question: Who is public housing for?
According to a draft plan now in the midst of public hearings, NYCHA will
allow only higher-income applicants into more than 40 high-poverty
developments containing nearly 10 percent of its apartments. NYCHA hopes to
draw them by offering a shorter wait, accomplished by skipping over poorer
applicants. And because the targeted developments have higher-than-average
vacancy rates, poorer applicants and overcrowded tenants will be funneled
to developments where openings are rarer.
"It limits choices dramatically because all the vacancies are in places
where you can't go," says Judith Goldiner, a Legal Aid attorney who has
long battled NYCHA policies. "People who need housing most will be the ones
who are hurt most." Marder says the agency will try to offset the imbalance
by offering very low-income applicants at least 75 percent and probably all
of 3000 or so housing vouchers that become available annually. Tenants use
the vouchers to rent apartments from private landlords.
The Quality Housing Act will also shove the very poor aside in most other
NYCHA developments. While public housing will remain available only to low-
income people— NYCHA tenants cannot earn more than $38,450 for a family of
three— the law requires the agency to reserve only 40 percent of its
vacancies for very low-income tenants, defined as families of three who
make under $13,440. To bring higher- income tenants into NYCHA, in some
projects, the agency will first place transferred tenants, then working
families, and only then poorer applicants. Since 83 percent of the families
on NYCHA's waiting list are very low-income— and since the act takes the
unprecedented step of forbidding NYCHA from expanding its stock— it's
obvious who will get squeezed.
"The goal of mixed income in and of itself is not bad, but it is a problem
when the housing stock is fixed," says Victor Bach, a housing analyst for
the nonprofit Community Service Society, who estimates that over 10 years,
very low-income New Yorkers will be cut out of between 10,000 and 16,000
units. On average, NYCHA's plan will each year force about 88,800 very poor
applicants to compete for about 3200 units.
NYCHA must submit its draft for approval to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) by December 1. After a raucous September 29
hearing that packed a 655-seat auditorium at Pace University and left
hundreds of people locked outside, NYCHA has scheduled several other forums
on the plan, beginning October 19. (See sidebar.)
"Nothing here is written in stone," says NYCHA's Marder. "The reason we go
through this process is to get public comment . . . and perhaps say, Let's
make a change here. A lot of people are looking at this document and saying
this is what it's going to be. But it's not a fait accompli."
The Quality Housing Act comes as NYCHA itself is undergoing change. It is
awaiting a Washington, D.C., agreement on HUD's ever-dwindling budget. It
has a new chair, John G. Martinez, appointed in April after former chair
Ruben Franco resigned. It must continue to operate for two more years under
a complicated court settlement intended to rectify its years-old practice
of racially steering applicants. It is planning its first major demolition.
And it is inching toward privatization, a move that is in sync not only
with the mood of Congress but also of City Hall, which appoints NYCHA's
three-member board.
All of this, of course, plays out against the backdrop of a city with a
decades-long housing emergency and a real estate market that has sent
prices into the stratosphere.
"The intersection of things couldn't be worse," says CSS president David
Jones. "There's welfare reform, HUD is retrenching, and Rudy Giuliani is
moving away from the mission of housing the very poor. The script is
already being written for an '80s-style growth in homelessness."
And that is something that Roger Tyson knows about. "The politicians make
all these rules that sound good to their constituents, but this is
unbelievable," Tyson said recently, sitting on a park bench that would
later double as his bed. "The real question is, where you going to live?
Where are poor people going to go?"
The outcry at NYCHA's September hearing began when the audience heckled
NYCHA chair Martinez during his welcoming speech and ended three hours— and
45 speakers— later when moderators unplugged the mike of one tenant who
called the three-member NYCHA board devils. In between, they were also
labeled "the new Hitlers," their plans "snake in the grass . . .
conniving," and their goal nothing short of "genocide." Hearing them, one
wouldn't think the speakers were talking about a housing system where they
actually wanted to live.
Yet even the most strident critics made this point: NYCHA is an essential
and in fact preferred housing stock for millions of low-income New Yorkers.
As Anne Johnson, a 31-year resident of Bernard Baruch Houses on the Lower
East Side, put it, "Public housing saved my life." She vowed to file a
class-action suit to guarantee it will remain available.
The fact is, NYCHA has a reputation as not only the biggest but also one of
the best public housing authorities in the country. With 181,000 units in
344 developments, NYCHA makes up 9 percent of the city's rental housing and
an even bigger chunk of affordable housing for the poor. NYCHA no doubt has
problems— from aging buildings to chronic elevator breakdowns to disasters
like deadly stairwell blazes caused by flammable paint. But for 65 years it
has been a reliable component of the city's infrastructure.
Part of NYCHA's strength comes from its economic mix. When it began in
1934, applicants had to pass a credit check. In the 1950s, public housing
became a repository for tenants displaced by urban renewal, and income
levels were considered less important. In 1981, Congress forbade
authorities from filling more than 25 percent of their existing units or 15
percent of future buildings with higher-income applicants. By 1983, Marder
says, only half of NYCHA tenants had jobs, and "in 1996, it was under 30
percent and moving down."
Even so, NYCHA developments never disintegrated into the kind of projects
that prompted Congress to try to ditch public housing entirely. That
impetus came from places like the "vertical ghettos" of Newark's Stella
Wright Homes or Chicago's State Street corridor, where more than two miles
of high-rise projects constituted 11 of the city's 15 poorest census
tracts; the buildings are being demolished.
But while public housing in New York may have remained intact, no other
city suffers the kind of housing crunch that we do. "In New York, public
housing is the housing of choice in many poor neighborhoods," says CSS's
Jones. "There just are no comparable units available in the private market."
Even so, the mistrust that NYCHA tenants have of their landlord is obvious
and deep. At the September hearings, tenants railed against day-to-day
hassles— Judith Smith of Manhattan's Frederick Douglass Houses raised
deafening hoots and hollers when she complained about appliances— and grave
social problems. Harold Durant from Surfside in Brooklyn lashed out at the
board "sitting there all smug and all because they know the law is already
passed and they think we're all the same damn Negroes that we've always
been. This is a plan to move us all out." One senior resident of Farragut
Houses in Brooklyn summed up the distrust best: "While we were sleeping,"
she said, "they were thinking."
Tenants were most outraged at a NYCHA plan to draw higher-income applicants
to impoverished developments by offering an extra bedroom. NYCHA estimates
at least 105,000 tenants are doubled up, waiting years for larger units.
"There's nothing wrong with bringing more working people to public
housing," said Dwayne Francis of Holmes-Isaacs Houses in Manhattan. "But it
should not be at the expense of tenants who have been here and dealt with
high crime and drugs and urine-soaked elevators all these years." NYCHA has
subsequently scrapped the offer.
While the plan, so far, seems wildly unpopular, it is much toned down from
earlier versions that would have ultimately killed HUD and, in the
meanwhile, required tenants to get high school diplomas or GEDs, pay more
than 30 percent of their income for rent, and move out after five years.
What finally passed is a milder bill, but one that still hurts the poorest
people.
Marder says NYCHA has made some attempts to soften the blow: Besides
dedicating most if not all available vouchers to the very poor, it will
reject an option to lower the percentage of apartments that go to the very
poor from 40 percent to 30 percent. And it will retain old federal
standards that give preference to applicants who are homeless, victims of
domestic violence, living in substandard housing, or paying more than half
their income in rent, among other things. "We came up with a system that
will allow us to help people who need help and still bring more working
families into public housing," says Marder. "We had no obligation to do that."
But critics say NYCHA has failed to take advantage of the latitude it does
have. "The problem we're seeing is how they exercise their discretion,"
says Goldiner of Legal Aid. "They could, for instance, say, well, we only
have to give 40 percent of our vacancies to very low- income people, but
because they make up more than 80 percent of the waiting list, we'll do
more. They could try to do a deconcentration plan to give poorer people the
opportunity to move into nicer developments instead of just taking
apartments away from the poor."
NYCHA says its deconcentration plan aims only to attract higher-income
applicants to high-poverty communities because it has no "high-income"
developments for its poorest applicants to go to. NYCHA says the average
development has a poverty rate of 63 percent — critics say it's lower— but
NYCHA figures show it has 10 developments with poverty rates below 45
percent, and another 15 with rates at 50 percent.
Tenants also said they were worried about NYCHA's plan for implementing
Congress's requirement that it phase in "flat rents" based on neighborhood
market rents. While NYCHA rents would not equal market rents, the
complicated formula could hike rents substantially, especially in
developments that are in higher-income neighborhoods.
"Basing NYCHA rents on the market is like saying, It's okay, to landlords
who have harassed tenants out of their rent-regulated apartments to drive
up rents," city councilwoman Christine Quinn, whose Chelsea district
includes two large NYCHA developments in a very hot neighborhood, said at
the hearing.
Indeed, many complaints stem from fear that NYCHA will try to simulate the
private market. Although not the result of the new federal law, NYCHA's
goals for privatization are mentioned in its Quality Housing Act plan. For
example, NYCHA says it hopes to leverage private money and enter into joint
ventures with the private sector, but gives no details. Ditto for plans at
several projects where "mixed finance" is a goal, including the massive
Baruch Houses. Since Baruch is located in a popular neighborhood, tenants
fear losing public housing stock. But Marder says changes at Baruch will
probably involve only renting space to stores and using the revenue to
subsidize the project.
In two Bronx developments— Betances III and University Avenue Consolidated—
NYCHA plans to demolish and not replace some apartments, and take others
out of the public housing system. At Prospect Plaza in Brooklyn, one of
four towers will be razed because NYCHA says it is structurally unsound.
Its 128 units will be replaced by smaller buildings nearby, but it is
unclear how many will be available to current Prospect Plaza tenants.
NYCHA's plan for implementing the Quality Housing Act will likely become
more contentious next year, when it must tell HUD how it will enforce one
of Congress's most regressive changes, requiring that unemployed adult
NYCHA tenants work eight hours a month in community service. Failure to do
so requires eviction.
"That's something that I don't think even NYCHA wants to do," says
Goldiner. "When they make people who get a mortgage tax deduction do
community work, and when they make corporations that get tax subsidies for
decades do community service, then I think it will be a fine idea for poor
people to do that, to do volunteer slave labor so they can have a place to
live."
Where To Go To Be Heard
NYCHA will hold the following forums on its Quality Housing and Work
Responsiblity Act Plans:
October 19, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.: Brooklyn West, New York Technical College,
285 Jay Street; Bronx North, Lehman College, 250 Bedford Park Boulevard
West; Queens, Electchester Industries Center, 67-35 Parsons Boulevard.
October 21: Brooklyn East, Thomas Jefferson High School, 400 Pennsylvania
Ave, 6:30 to 8:30; Bronx South, Lehman College, address above, 6:30 to
8:30; Manhattan South, Murray Bergtraum High Schol, 411 Pearl Street, 7 to
9 p.m.
October 25, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.: Brooklyn South, Abraham Lincoln High School,
2100 Ocean Parkway; Staten Island, IS 49, 101 Warren Street; Manhattan
North, Riverbank State Park, Riverside Drive at West 145th Street. — J.A.L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWYERS WHO'VE GONE TO THE DOGS (AND ARE PROUD OF IT)
New York Law Journal, October 18, 1999
BY VICTORIA RIVKIN
WHILE LAWYERS often measure success in terms of dollars, a small and
dedicated band of New York lawyers define success as winning legal rights
for animals.
In their day-to-day work, animal law practitioners protect farm and
domestic animals from cruelty, while shielding the animals' human owners —
their paying clients — from such problems as eviction.
The main staples of an animal law attorney's practice include landlord and
tenant law, pet-custody issues with shelters or pet stores, animal cruelty
and veterinary malpractice cases. Clearly, these practitioners, who are
typically on their own or with small firms, are not concerned with amassing
the financial fortunes their colleagues have in other areas of the law.
Instead, they derive much satisfaction from their work.
"I have no complaints about my life," said Maddy Tarnofsky, a Manhattan
lawyer who represents tenants facing eviction because of their pets. "What
could be better than keeping someone and their pet together," she said.
And there has recently been a growing interest in animal law among young
attorneys, according to Elinor Molbegott, a solo practitioner on Long
Island who has been devoted to winning legal rights for animals since 1977.
"I do think there is opportunity in this area for attorneys, it's
definitely a growing field. There is enough work to go around because there
is enough cruelty," she said.
Ms. Molbegott, the former general counsel for the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), recently helped draft the Felony
Animal Cruelty Law, which elevated to a felony intentional and extreme
cruelty toward non-farm domesticated animals, including stray dogs and cats.
The law, also known as "Buster's Law," named for an 18-month-old tabby cat
that was doused with kerosene and burned to death by a Schenectady teenager
in 1997, was signed into law by Governor Pataki on June 28 and will take
effect on Nov. 1.
"Times are changing. It is no longer a laughable issue in the legal
community, for the most part," said Ms. Molbegott.
Growing Recognition
Animal rights are now beginning to be taken seriously by at least some in
the legal community. For instance, next spring, Harvard Law School will be
offering a course in animal rights law for the first time in its history.
The course will be taught by Steven M. Wise, a private practitioner from
Boston who is a leading figure in the animal rights movement.
Currently, in New York State, only Pace University School of Law offers
such a course for its students. But David J. Wolfson, an associate in the
mergers and acquisitions group at Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, who logs
in his pro bono hours working to prevent cruelty to farm animals, is
looking to teach an animal law course in other New York law schools.
In addition, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York is one of
the few bar groups in the country to have a committee on animal rights law.
In fact, the 30-member Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals had
a conference last month on the legal status of nonhuman animals — the
group's term for animals. Speakers included some of the country's leading
legal and nonlegal scholars in this topic, and lawyers received continuing
education credit for attendance.
Not an Easy Field
But lawyers without trust funds should be aware that surviving as an animal
law practitioner is not easy. Many who venture into the field must still
find various other ways to supplement their incomes.
For example, Karen Copeland, a New York City animal law lawyer specializing
in tenant evictions and housing discrimination against the disabled,
generally charges her clients $200 an hour, less than many practitioners
charge in other legal fields. According to Ms. Copeland, she is paid
between $1,000 to $2,000 for a typical tenant eviction case. But if the
case gets complicated, with many contested motions and a trial, then she
might collect up to $6,000.
One thing all animal law practitioners seem to have in common is that they
keep their overhead to a minimum by either practicing out of their home or
maintaining an office with very low rent, said Ms. Tarnofsky, of Manhattan.
Also, for these attorneys, secretaries and support staff are a luxury,
which most do without.
"I've made peace with the fact that I'm never going to be rich," said Ms.
Tarnofsky.
And some lawyers practice animal law while also specializing in other, more
lucrative, legal areas.
For instance, Darryl M. Vernon of Vernon & Ginsburg, a five-lawyer general-
practice firm in Manhattan, has been practicing animal law since 1983, long
before lawyers even considered it a legitimate field. But, Mr. Vernon also
has a lucrative practice in other tenant, real estate and commercial law
areas.
"I'm not sure someone can just do [animal law] exclusively. It would be a
hard practice to start," said Mr. Vernon. "But I really love doing it. It
can often be such an emotional thing," he explained.
Another animal law attorney, Suzan Porto, a solo practitioner specializing
in cruelty to animals and veterinary malpractice, supplements her income by
teaching an animal law course at Pace Law School.
Ms. Porto said she went to law school with the express purpose of
practicing animal law. "There is a great injustice out there being done to
those who can't speak for themselves," said Ms. Porto. "My whole focus in
life is for the animals."
To enter this field, a young lawyer should take on pro bono cases from
various animal rights organizations and humane societies, suggested Ms.
Copeland. She warned that there is no lack of work out there, just a lack
of money. And since some clients have very limited means, even experienced
practitioners must often take cases pro bono or work out fee arrangements
that are lower than the attorney's hourly rate, she said. However, in some
animal disputes, the attorney's fees are paid by the opposing side.
"You do have to make sacrifices, but I support myself," said Ms. Copeland.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NYtenants Tenant's Online is subscription-based. To unsubscribe, go to
TenantNet's web page at http://tenant.net and insert your email address on
the NYtenants Mailing List form. Make sure your email is exactly the same
as when you subscribed, including capitalization. Check "unsubscribe" and
click "submit".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:42:54 -0400
Subject: Update on TenantNet 10/24
Dear TenantNet Readers:
(We'll try to get a regular newsletter out later this week)
We can't thank you enough -- the generosity of those readers who have sent
in contributions and those who have made pledges. We would also like to
thank the many readers who wrote in with a plethora of ideas and advice. We
will follow-up on some of those suggestions, but we're concentrating on
keeping the site up and available.
Before we made our request for help of a few weeks ago, we looked at
various options and somewhat settled on a "co-location" setup, where we
would have a server located at the office of an internet provider, allowing
the web site to have a fast and direct connection to the internet. This is
a common setup and we would maintain the server remotely. We also looked
for a system that would accommodate our growth for the next few years given
our current setup, assuming we can maintain the co-location arrangement.
We are getting close to our fundraising target (about 80% of $2,500 for the
server and associated items) and hope that we can purchase and configure
the needed equipment in the next few weeks. We don't yet know when the
current servers will be powered down. We hope our providers will give us
the time needed to configure and install the new server, but if not, we
will have a "splash screen" on the web site indicating a temporary downtime.
As before, any donations* may be sent to:
TenantNet
305 West 45th St. Suite #6-D (be sure to include the apartment number)
New York, NY 10036
Please make checks payable to "TenantNet"
Thank you for your support.
John Fisher
Director/Webmaster
TenantNet
----------------
* TenantNet(tm) is owned and operated by a tenant activist. Although it is
a non-profit entity, it is not a 501(c)(3) organization, so contributions
are not tax deductible. TenantNet is not affiliated with any other
organization or political party, and does not receive any government,
corporate or foundation funding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net
email:
NYtenants(tm) Discussion List: email to
and in the body of the message put "subscribe nytenants".
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.
|
