[NYtenants-online] RGB and Lead Updates

[Tenant]

NYtenants Online/TenantNet                                7/14/03
=================================================================

IN THIS ISSUE ...

1. Housing Notebook Tonight
2. Rent Wars this Week
3. RGB Votes 7.5 Percent Increase
4. RGB vota por un incremento del 7.5% en contratos de 2 años
5. Lead Paint Regulation is in Limbo (NY Times)

=================================================================
HOUSING NOTEBOOK
Monday, July 13, 8:00-9:00 p.m.
WBAI-FM 99.5
www.wbai.org (for internet streaming)

Housing Notebook host Scott Sommer will review the latest developments in 
the struggle to end lead paint poisioning in NYC, inlcuding the NYS Court 
of Appeals decision throwing out the Vallone era lead paint law that 
weakend protections for children.

=================================================================
ON THIS WEEK'S RENT WARS:
Investigating an Illegal Eviction

A tenant gets evicted with papers that don't name him. The tenant has paid 
the landlord with personal checks with the building address, his apartment 
number, and his name, the landlord even put the tenant's name on the 
mailbox. So how was this tenant not named on the petition?

Rent Wars News airs in Brooklyn
Every Monday at 10:30am and 6:30pm.
Time Warner Channel 34
Cablevision Channel 67

Manhattan
Rent Wars News airs in Manhattan
Every Sunday at 6pm.
Time Warner Ch. 67, RCN Ch. 110
Without converter: Time Warner Ch. 16, RCN Ch. 110

=================================================================
RGB VOTES 7.5 PERCENT INCREASE
Largest Rent Hike Since 1989
Met Council's Tenant/Inquilino
By Steven Wishnia

Mayor Bloomberg’s 18.5 percent property-tax  increase is getting dumped 
directly on the heads of tenants. The city Rent Guidelines Board voted June 
19 to allow increases of 4.5 percent for a one-year lease renewal and 7.5 
percent for two years. While these guidelines are a percentage point lower 
than the preliminary ones the board approved in May, the total increase is 
the highest tenants have been hit with since 1989. Both the landlords and 
public members cited the property-tax increase as justification for higher 
rents. Angry tenants—about 150 in the auditorium in the basement of the US 
Customs House on Bowling Green, after going through tight metal-detector 
security — chanted “SHAME.”

“It’s so ridiculous,” said Maxine Zeifman, an Upper East Side woman whose 
$1,800 a month rent is more than half her retirement income. “I make 
$33,000 a year and pay $22,000 in rent.”

Another woman cursed at RGB public member Martin Zelnik, who endorsed the 
increases as “fair and reasonable.” “Seven and a half  percent,” she spat. 
“I want to thank you for making me leave the city.” Zelnik, who some 
tenants had hoped might be more sympathetic, smiled uncomfortably.

The vote was 5-4, with the board’s five public members in favor and both 
the tenant and landlord representatives opposed. Tenant representative 
Adriene Holder objected that it was unfair for landlords to pass all their 
cost increases directly to tenants, while landlord rep Harold Lubell voted 
“not enough.” The about 20 landlords in the crowd didn’t seem too 
displeased with the result, though, smiling and joking as they left the room.

Tenant representative David Pagan found slight solace in the fact that the 
increases were lower than the preliminary guidelines. “It was hard work to 
get them to come down,” he said. And unlike last year, there was no 
“longevity increase,” the surcharge on long-term tenants known as the 
“senior-citizen tax.” The RGB also voted increases of 3.5 percent for SRO 
hotel tenants, provided that 75 percent of the rooms in the hotel are 
occupied by permanent tenants. Loft rents will go up by 4 and 7 percent. 
The “special guideline” for vacated rent-controlled apartments will 
continue to be either or the federal “fair market rent” or 50 percent over 
the Maximum Base Rent, whichever is more. People subletting apartments will 
have to pay a 10 percent surcharge.

The Bloomberg RGB is starting to look a lot like Rudy Giuliani’s. The five 
public members vote in lockstep with minimal discussion, granting rent 
increases that fall short of the landlords’ wish list, but are more than 
enough to keep large real-estate operators well fed.

“It’s sickening,” said Dawn Sullivan of the East Side Tenants Coalition. 
“We’ve got people like Bloomberg appointing public members who don’t 
represent the city. When was the last time we had a real public member?”

The tenant representatives initially proposed limiting increases to 1 and 2 
percent, with Pagan calling rising rents “terrorism” that drives people out 
of their homes—the landlords in the audience groaned—and “a regressive form 
of taxation.” It was rejected 7-2, without further debate.

Harold Lubell’s argument for higher rents was simple and blunt: Owning 
housing is not “a charitable event.” If the tenant is poor or unemployed, 
it’s “sad,” but is the landlord supposed to be “the tooth fairy” and 
subsidize them? If owners don’t get more money, he argued, buildings will 
be abandoned and the whole sector will “go down the tubes.”

Tenants can afford rent increases, he continued. They are only paying a 
median of 28 percent of their income in rent, and if 9 percent are 
unemployed, that still means that over 90 percent are working. He got the 
angriest response when he declared that “Many tenants are wealthier than 
the landlords who are here.” He was also booed when he said that no other 
industry is forced to reduce prices because some people can’t pay—and cited 
prescription drugs as an example.

Steven Schleider, the board’s Bloomberg-appointed owner representative, 
then announced that “high double-digit increases are necessary,” but he was 
willing to settle for 9 and 12 percent. That proposal was also defeated 7-2.

Adriene Holder then suggested increases of 2 and 3 percent, saying that 
landlords are still making profits despite rising tax and fuel costs. What 
they really want, she contended, was to push apartments closer to the 
$2,000 vacancy-decontrol threshold. Decontrol in Boston (which had rent 
protections eliminated in 1998) has been a failure for everyone except 
landlords, she added, with middle and working-class people pushed out, 
record homelessness, and only luxury housing built.

“It’s not a sin to make a profit,” Lubell responded. Schleider added that 
if developers were to build affordable apartments in New York, they would 
have to cost $1,300 a month before subsidies.

Holder’s proposal was also rejected—7-2—and Markus then moved the 4.5 and 
7.5 percent guidelines. Martin Zelnik justified his vote by saying he 
wanted to help everyone survive the city’s economic crisis, and he’d seen 
rent-stabilized buildings selling for high prices, but his heart went out 
most to the beleaguered small owners who’d testified at the board’s public 
hearing two days before.

The SRO increase was also slightly lower than the preliminary guidelines, 
though much higher than last year’s, and the percentage of occupied rooms 
needed to qualify for the increase was raised from 70 to 75 percent. Markus 
tried to keep that number at 70, but when Zelnik, who’d made the proposal, 
demurred, the chair vowed to “come back like Chucky”—referring to the 
homicidal doll of ’80s horror movies.

Markus told the press afterwards that the 4.5 and 7.5 percent increases 
were “fair and balanced.” Fox News also calls itself “fair and balanced.”

=================================================================
RGB VOTA POR UN INCREMENTO DEL 7.5% EN CONTRATOS DE 2 AñOS
El aumento más alto de renta desde 1989
Por Steven Wishnia
Traducido por Lightning Translations
Tenant/Inquilino

El incremento del impuesto sobre la propiedad del 18.5% establecido por el 
alcalde Bloomberg se verterá encima de los inquilinos.

La Junta de Regulación de Rentas (RGB) votó el 19 de junio para permitir 
incrementos del 4.5% para la renovación del contrato por un año y 7.5% para 
dos años. Aunque estas pautas son un punto porcentual menor que las pautas 
preliminares que la junta había aprobado en mayo, el incremento total es el 
más alto que se ha asestado a los inquilinos desde 1989.

Tanto los caseros como los miembros públicos citaron el incremento del 
impuesto sobre la propiedad como una justificación para un mayor aumento a 
las rentas. Los enojados inquilinos, unos 150 en el auditorio del sótano de 
la Casa de la Aduana en Bowling Green después de pasar por una estricta 
seguridad para detectar metales, corearon “¡VERGÜENZA!

“Es muy ridículo,” comentó Maxine Zeifman, una mujer del Lado Este, cuya 
renta mensual es de $1,800, más de la mitad de su ingreso de pensión. “Gano 
$33,000 al año y pago $22,000 de renta.”

Otra mujer maldijo al miembro público de la junta Martin Zelnik, quien 
apoyó los incrementos como “justos y razonables.” “Siete y medio maldito 
por ciento,” escupió. “Quiero agradecerle por hacerme abandonar la ciudad.” 
Zelnik, de quien algunos inquilinos habían tenido la esperanza de que él 
pudiera comprenderlos, sonrió incómodamente.

El voto fue de 5 a 4 con los 5 miembros públicos de la junta a favor y la 
oposición tanto de los representantes de los inquilinos como de los 
caseros. La representante de los inquilinos Adriene Holder objetó que no 
era justo que los caseros pasaran todos los incrementos en sus costos a los 
inquilinos, mientras el representante de los caseros Harold Lubell votó que 
“no es suficiente.” Sin embargo, unos 20 caseros que se encontraban en la 
multitud no parecían muy descontentos con el resultado, ya que sonreían y 
bromeaban al salir de la sala.

El representante de los inquilinos David Pagan encontró un poco de consuelo 
en el hecho que los incrementos fueron menores que las pautas preliminares. 
“Fue difícil convencerlos de disminuir esa tasa,” anotó. A diferencia del 
año pasado, no se propuso un “incremento por antigüedad,” el recargo para 
los inquilinos que han vivido en sus apartamentos durante largo tiempo, 
conocido como el “senior citizen tax.”

La RGB también votó por incrementos del 3.5% para los inquilinos de hoteles 
con unidades de una sola habitación (SROs), siempre que el 75% de las 
habitaciones en los hoteles sean ocupadas por inquilinos permanentes. Las 
rentas de desvanes aumentarán en 4% y 7%. La “pauta especial” para 
apartamentos vacíos de renta controlada continuarán estando el “renta del 
mercado justa” o 50% sobre la renta base máxima, lo que sea mayor. Las 
personas que subarriendan apartamentos tendrán que pagar un 10% de recargo.

La RGB de Bloomberg comienza a parecerse bastante a la de Rudy Giuliani. 
Los cinco miembros públicos votan en bloque sin mucha discusión, otorgando 
incrementos de renta que no satisfacen completamente los deseos de los 
caseros pero son más que suficiente para mantener a los grandes operadores 
de bienes raíces bien alimentados.

“Me enferma,” comentó Dawn Sullivan, de la Coalición de Inquilinos del Lado 
Este. “Tenemos a gente como Bloomberg nombrando a miembros públicos que no 
representan a la ciudad. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que tuvimos un verdadero 
miembro público?”

Los representantes de los inquilinos propusieron inicialmente limitar los 
incrementos al 1% y 2%, mientras Pagan llamaba a las rentas altas 
“terrorismo” que obliga a la gente a abandonar sus hogares (al oír esto, 
los caseros en el público refunfuñaron) y “una forma de gravamen 
regresiva.” Dicha propuesta fue rechazada 7 a 2 sin mayor debate.

El argumento de Harold Lubell para obtener rentas más altas fue simple y 
rudo: ser propietario de vivienda no es “un evento de caridad.” Si el 
inquilino es pobre o desempleado, es “triste,” pero ¿se supone que el 
casero tiene que ser el “hada madrina” y subsidiarlos?  Si los propietarios 
no reciben más dinero, argumentó, los edificios serán abandonados y todo el 
sector “se irá a pique.”

Los inquilinos pueden pagar los incrementos de renta, continuó. Ellos sólo 
pagan de renta un promedio de 28% de sus ingresos; si 9% de ellos son 
desempleados, esto significa que más del 90% sí tienen empleo. Recibió la 
respuesta más encolerizado cuando declaró que “muchos inquilinos son más 
ricos que los caseros que se encuentran aquí.” También fue abucheado cuando 
dijo que ninguna otra industria está forzada a reducir precios porque 
algunas personas no pueden pagar, y citó como ejemplo las medicinas que 
necesitan receta médica.

Steven Schleider, el representante de los propietarios de la junta nombrado 
por Bloomberg, anunció entonces que “los altos incrementos de dos cifras 
son necesarios” pero él estaba dispuesto de conformarse con obtener el 9% y 
12%. Esa propuesta también fue derrotada 7 a 2.

Adriene Holder sugirió entonces los incrementos de 2% y 3%, diciendo que 
los caseros siguen teniendo ganancias a pesar del incremento en los 
impuestos y los costos de combustible. Lo que ellos realmente desean, 
afirmó, es llevar a los apartamentos más cerca al umbral del descontrol de 
vacancia de $2,000. El descontrol en Boston (donde las protecciones a las 
rentas fueron eliminadas en 1998) ha sido un fracaso para todos excepto los 
caseros, agregó, desalojando a las personas de clase media y a los obreros, 
causando una cifra récord de personas desamparadas y derivando en la 
construcción sólo de vivienda de lujo.

“No es pecado tener ganancias,” respondió Lubell. Schleider agregó que si 
los constructores crearan apartamentos asequibles in Nueva York, tendrían 
que costar $1,300 al mes antes de los subsidios.

La propuesta de Holder también fue rechazada 7 a 2 y Markus entonces 
propuso las pautas de 4.5% y 7.5%. Martin Zelnik justificó su voto diciendo 
que quería ayudar a todos a sobrevivir la crisis económica de la ciudad y 
que había visto que los edificios de renta estabilizada se vendían a altos 
precios, pero se sintió más conmovido por los pequeños propietarios en 
aprietos que habían testificado en la audiencia pública de la junta dos 
días antes.

El incremento SRO también fue ligeramente menor que las pautas 
preliminares, aunque mucho más alto que las del año pasado, y el porcentaje 
necesario de habitaciones ocupadas para calificar por el incremento se 
elevó de 70% a 75%. Markus trató de mantener ese número en 70%, pero cuando 
Zelnik, quien había hecho la propuesta, se rehusó, el presidente prometió 
“regresar como Chucky,” refiriéndose al muñeco homicida de las películas de 
horror de la década de los 80.

Markus comentó más tarde a la prensa que los incrementos de 4.5% y 7.5% 
eran “justos y equilibrados.” Fox News también se llama a sí misma “justa y 
equilibrada.”

=================================================================
LEAD PAINT REGULATION IS IN LIMBO
by Jay Romano
New York Times
July 12, 2003

On July 1, the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, 
struck down the New York City law that governs how property owners must 
address lead-based-paint hazards in residential buildings. And while the 
court's unanimous ruling was based largely on procedural grounds — 
officials had failed to conduct the required environmental impact 
assessment before adopting the law — the effect of the ruling was to 
immediately render the law, Local Law 38 of 1999, null and void.

That leaves officials and property owners in a bit of a quandary: with 
Local Law 38 no longer valid, the law that now governs lead paint in 
residential buildings is Local Law 1 of 1982. Since that law requires 
landlords to immediately remove or encapsulate lead-based-paint in any 
multiple dwelling where a child under 7 resides — even paint that is not 
deteriorated — and since most experts now agree that such wholesale 
remediation is costly and unnecessary and can create more problems than it 
solves, property owners are left in a limbo of sorts while they wait for 
officials to come up with a new lead paint law or enforce Local Law 1.

Confused? It gets worse.

On June 23, just a week before the Court of Appeals ruling, the City 
Council Committee on Housing and Buildings held hearings on another lead 
paint law, known as Intro 101A — a proposal co-sponsored by 37 of the 51 
council members that is intended to replace both Local Law 1 and Local Law 38.

While Intro 101A is ardently supported by tenant advocacy groups, several 
city officials (including the commissioners of the Department of Health and 
Mental Hygiene and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development) 
— as well as representatives of property owners — testified in opposition 
to the proposal.

What does this all mean?

"I think this puts Intro 101A in a very good position," said Councilman 
Bill Perkins, the driving force behind the proposed law. "I believe Intro 
101A provides a solution that would be acceptable to the courts and 
acceptable in terms of addressing the issues that Local Law 38 skirted."

Matthew Chachere, counsel to the Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, an 
advocacy group in Manhattan, said there are significant differences among 
Intro 101A, Local Law 38 and Local Law 1.

For example, Mr. Chachere said, while the requirements of Local Law 38 were 
triggered whenever there was a child under 6 in an apartment, Intro 101A 
raises the age to 7 — the same as it was under Local Law 1. And while Local 
Law 38 neither defined nor addressed hazards posed by lead dust, Intro 101A 
establishes maximum acceptable levels for lead dust on surfaces like 
floors, window sills and window wells.

"Ingesting lead dust is the way most kids get poisoned," Mr. Chachere said. 
For that reason, he said, his organization supports two other provisions in 
Intro 101A: one that defines lead-based paint as having more than 0.7 
milligrams of lead per square centimeter (Local Law 38 contained a 
less-stringent level of 1 milligram per square centimeter), and the other 
defining a lead hazard as any condition that causes exposure to lead, 
including lead-contaminated dust, soil or paint that is peeling. (Local Law 
38 defines a lead hazard only as peeling paint or paint on deteriorated 
surfaces.)

Not all experts and officials agree, however, that Intro 101A is better 
than Local Law 38. In testimony at the June 23 hearing, Dr. Thomas R. 
Frieden, commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental 
Hygiene, pointed out that some elements of Intro 101A are inconsistent with 
federal guidelines. For example, he said, using the lower threshold of 0.7 
milligrams to define lead paint is a problem because the machine that 
measures the amount of lead in a painted surface has been tested and 
validated only at the higher 1 milligram level.

In addition, he said, both the Health Department and the Centers for 
Disease Control recommend inspection of an apartment in which a child has a 
blood lead level test result of 20 micrograms per deciliter or if a child 
has had two or more test results of 15 to 19 micrograms. Intro 101A, on the 
other hand, requires action when a single blood lead test of a child 
reaches only 15 micrograms per deciliter.

Dr. Frieden also took issue with the age used in Intro 101A. "Lead 
poisoning is a problem that is highly concentrated in certain communities 
and certain at-risk groups," he said. "Extending the age to children under 
7 years of age from children under 6 years of age directs resources to an 
age group at lower risk."

Jerilyn Perine, commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and 
Development, noted during her testimony on June 23 that Local Law 38 
required owners of buildings built before 1960 — when lead-based paint was 
banned in the city — to conduct an inspection and perform remediation 
whenever a tenant notifies the owner of lead hazards and the presence in 
the apartment of a child under 6. The law also required all owners of 
pre-1960 buildings to take preventative lead-safety steps — such as fixing 
peeling paint, preventing lead dust caused by friction on windows and doors 
and making floors easier to clean — whenever an apartment in such a 
building becomes vacant.

Intro 101A, Commissioner Perine said, unnecessarily goes further. For 
example, she said, the proposed law requires that when a code inspector 
inspects a pre-1960 apartment where a child under 7 resides, the inspector 
must record the existence of even intact painted surfaces. As a result, 
Commissioner Perine said, the inspector has to catalog the condition of 
every wall and surface in every room of every apartment that has a child 
under 7, even in cases where there is no evidence of peeling paint or 
leaks. She estimated that this would double the time needed for an average 
inspection.

Dan Margulies, executive director of the Community Housing Improvement 
Program, an organization of property owners, said Intro 101A incorporates 
an "impossible standard" in its definition of a lead paint hazard as any 
condition in a dwelling unit that causes exposure to lead from 
lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil or lead-based paint. "I am 
sure it is obvious to most people that apartment building owners in New 
York have little control over airborne dust and tracked-in soil," Mr. 
Margulies said.

Councilman Perkins, the main sponsor of Intro 101A, said that his proposal 
is intended to prevent children from being exposed to lead in their home 
rather than just allow owners to react only after the child has been exposed.

"It's preventive and proactive," he said. "Just as the window guard law is 
designed to protect children before they fall out a window, this law is 
designed to protect children before they are exposed to lead."