Bloomberg And Quinn Team Up To Bailout Developers

A match made in heaven.

When Michael Bloomberg found Christine Quinn as Speaker of the City Council, there was no limit to how much love wealthy developers could see. In the building boom the city had seen during the last few years, huge developments were green-lighted and long-term residents were screwed by the lack of planning for schools and infrastructure. Now that the economy has soured, beautiful brand-new and expensive apartments are sitting empty and the developers that had them built are not seeing any returns on their investments. How could they solve this problem? Easy, have New York City bail them out under the guise of affordable housing.

Of course, this is really what it is all about:

Deputy Mayor Slush Fund Queen Christine C. Quinn and king Michael R. Bloomberg today announced a $20 million commitment to fund a pilot program that will turn unsold condominiums, market-rate rental buildings and stalled construction sites into affordable housing opportunities for moderate and middle-income families.

First, that the city will overpay for the condos, making this into a developer bailout program.

And second, that too much scarce affordable housing funding will be diverted from the low-income people who need assistance most to higher-income people who can afford the subisidized condos.

Even if the condos are rented to homelessness, the city is paying about 2,700 a month for each apartment such as in Crown Heights luxury condos. What an ineffective use of scarce resources when 2,700 dollars can house more than one family. This plan is to bail out Bloomberg's rich friends.

Ain't that nice?

Is this the type of tactic that makes people approve of Bloomberg?

I get that the people at Related, Vornado and Tishman-Speyer want to re-elect the mayor. The wealthy have a friend in Mr. Bloomberg, he is of course, one of their own. Yet for the vast majority of us who aren't millionaires, it is time for a change so that our money does not go to waste on bailouts like this.

NPO Developers Should Pay The Prevailing Wage

Apparently there is a little fight going on up in Albany over whether developers who build non-profit housing should pay their workers what they're worth. Developers argue that paying a union wage is bad for their costs, the rents of future low-income tenants and they even claim minority construction workers won't be able to do the building because unions don't like them. They also claim that there'll be less affordable housing units available. There seem to be plenty of marks against a bill mandating public works labor be at a union rate, but this is a matter of principle.

From The NY Times:

Under state law, laborers on public works projects must be paid the prevailing wage, which varies according to the trade and location. The proposed legislation would expand the definition of public works to include all government-subsidized building projects by for-profit and nonprofit developers. Most workers who build subsidized low-cost housing in New York City are not currently required to be paid the prevailing wage. Projects receiving federal subsidies are required to pay it, under federal law.[...]

The New York State Building and Construction Trades Council of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., an influential labor group that represents the state’s major construction unions, has been pushing lawmakers to expand the prevailing-wage requirements for years.

“Is the cost of construction higher? Yes it is,” said Edward J. Malloy, president of the group. “But I think we deliver a better product, on time and in budget.”

On time and in budget are just two bonuses, not to mention the fact that more construction workers will be paid a healthy hourly rate. The fact of the matter is, these jobs are propelled by government subsidies. When the Federal government is paying for it, union wages are paid. Now it is time for the state to do the same thing. The state legislature should encourage higher wages in this arena just as it does in other arenas.

Developers Cry Money In Trendy, Expensive Meatpacking District

In these tough times, people have to pull together, help one another in need. Perhaps a neighbor or a friend across town can't make rent or put food on the table. These are actual, real-life examples of living in a recession, or even a society that has a large gap between rich and poor. However in New York City, even the wealthy developers try put their hand in the cookie jar of the city's sympathies.

From The NY Times:

Then there are the hardships of city real estate developers. At a Tuesday meeting at the Board of Standards and Appeals, a lawyer, Gary R. Tarnoff, argued that his client, the Romanoff family, would face hardship if it could not get special permission to build a bigger office tower on its site next to the High Line, the long-awaited elevated park that has helped drive up real estate values in the meatpacking district.

At a meeting that ran more than two hours, Mr. Tarnoff argued that because the High Line cut through a section of the Romanoffs’ site, it was more costly to build a tower there — and, he said, lead contamination, poor soil conditions and a high water table had already added to the developer’s construction bill. So he proposed building a 12-story, 117,000-square-foot tower rather than a building at less than the 75,000 square feet that the city’s current zoning rules allow.

“We’re not saying we wish the High Line wasn’t there,” Mr. Tarnoff said. “But it makes it more expensive to build.”

Yeah I know, I can feel the tears streaming down your face. I'm ready to bawl myself. Seriously though, how ridiculous is it that the Romanoff company is even trying to argue about the costs of building on the high line. The benefits of being on an elevated park more than make up for construction costs.

With zoning laws under attack across the city, this is a case where the community must stand up and reject the Romanoff's bid to build yet another glass and steel edifice that is too big for the area it is being built in. Bloomberg and his allies have had too many victories in the last several years for their development and real estate industry friends. If Community Board 2 has any sense, they'll keep the Romanoffs in check and leave the development as is.

Who Benefits From A Bloomberg Third Term

With a fresh poll that shows a slight majority in favor of a third term for the current Mayor, I believe that we haven't been able to get the message out about what is going on here. Within a year's time, New Yorkers are going to know what Bloomberg is up to here. He claims he knows his finance and can guide the city through these rough fiscal times, but who exactly is he taking by the hand now and through 2013 if he is re-elected?

From The Real Deal:

Many in the New York real estate community are in favor of Mayor Michael Bloomberg serving a third term as mayor. Developers, landlords, investors and brokers like Bloomberg because he's been a pro-business, pro-real estate mayor, and want a businessman in charge of the city during the Wall Street crisis. Developer Alex Sapir said, "Let's keep him forever"; Howard Lorber, chairman of Prudential Douglas Elliman, said, "I can't think of anyone who's done more for New York … in my lifetime"; and Donald Trump said, "Any time I see Michael I say, please run."

These are the people that want Bloomberg to stay another term and when that term is up maybe they'll extend the law for another four years. Who really knows? This is a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. Everyone except for regular New Yorkers wins here. The Council will now be able to qualify for generous pensions if they stay more than ten years in office, the Mayor holds onto his power and the wealthiest among us get a guy who is more than willing to bend the city over and allow the Ellimans, Tishman Speyers and Trumps to recreate Manhattan and the surrounding buroughs as they see fit.

Meanwhile, those of us who have lived and worked here for years or decades slowly get pushed out by rising rents and real estate prices. Sure, the numbers are down right now for apartments around the city but that downturn won't last long, especially in Manhattan. In a year or two, when prices rebound the developers and real estate tycoons will be reaping more profits while the rest of us just try to hang onto a place in the city, though many have already folded and moved out to PA.

So if you want to be chased out of your city by rising costs, then a vote for Bloomberg and term limit extensions is one for you.

Luke Henry Speaks At Protect LES/Chinatown Rally

Candidate Luke Henry showed up at a rally to address the rezoning plan in Community District 3 that heavily favors developers over those that actually live there now. The mayor has always been on their side but we need someone to protect LES and Chinatown residents. Sheldon Silver hasn't done much of that except for throwing pork projects here and there for the district. Seeing Henry's passion today, perhaps he can make a difference that area needs in order to stand up to wealthy developers and their friend Mayor Bloomberg.

Quinn Looks Forward To Big Development Projects On West Side

From this morning Crain's New York event:

Bloomberg Has Done More (Damage) Than He's Given Credit For

Today's edition of AM New York has a mostly glowing piece on how Michael Bloomberg has transformed our city for the better despite high publicity losses such as the West Side Stadium and the congestion pricing initiative that just fell last week. The real win for Bloomberg according to AMNY was the series of rezoning laws that has spurred a tremendous amount of growth all over the city (except for the Bronx of course).

The article's major focus is that thanks to the Mayor, new neighborhoods have sprung up almost overnight, businesses are staying in Manhattan after threatening to leave the city post 9/11 and areas thought to be no-man lands are the hippest new thing.

Of course, that is all true. Yet there is only one paragraph in the middle and three at the end that show the other side of things. New York has been changing alright, but at what cost to New Yorkers? Prices have gone sky high due to all the luxury building. Many long time residents are being priced out of the city, giving their newly more expensive space in order to gentrify the city and purge it of the character it is world-famous for. The Big Apple, Gotham and the hundreds of other names were not pulled off of a Starbucks menu. Of course Bloomberg doesn't care as long as big business is making big money here in Manhattan.

I know, New York is always changing. Yet what it is changing into now is only palatable for the very rich....and not for the rest of us.

Where Art Thou Coney Island?

Ah, Coney Island. A place of fun and amusement at the end of the tracks down in Brooklyn since the 1800s that has succumbed to urban blight in the last few decades. Now developers are out to tear it all down and start anew. While the "new" Coney Island would look clean and shiny, the history of the area would be wiped clean. There is another way of course, by combining old and new, keeping the nostalgia of famous peninsula alive. Instead there is a stalemate between the developers and the current owners.

From AM New York:

The Grasshorn building, built in the early 1880s, and the Henderson building, once the home of a popular Vaudeville theater, are expected to be razed as developer Thor Equities makes way for a glitzy $1.5 billion development that will include an amusement park, water theme park, hotels, time-share units and retail shops on 10 acres between West 10th and West 15th streets.

Dick Zigun, founder of the arts organization Coney Island USA, which runs Sideshows by the Seashore and the annual Mermaid Parade, said his group reached a preliminary agreement last year with Thor chief executive Joseph Sitt to purchase the Grasshorn building using $2 million in city-awarded grant money.

Zigun hoped to move the Coney Island Museum into the building that was best known as the home of Henry Grasshorn's hardware store, which provided amusement owners with the parts they needed to keep their rides running. But Sitt broke off talks with Coney Island USA last month, saying the building was no longer for sale and that he planned to build a new structure there, Zigun said.

"In a place where so little has survived, it would be a shame to lose that building," Coney Island historian Charles Denson said.

It would be a shame, it is a shame to see so much of New York being swallowed up by greedy developers that care more about their profit margins than the history of this great city.

The Death Of The Last NYC Deli

Delis will never truly die but many fear the end of an era is at hand. Second Avenue Deli's departure stunned many, blamed on the drastic rise in the price of rent. Now there may be another victim of the times, the iconic Katz' Delicatessen on Houston Street. It isn't official yet, but the rumors are starting to get around. TimeOut New York asks the hard questions on what is behind the dying delis.

It could be those rising rents and the subsequent $14 dollar sandwiches (or more at the touristy Carnegie and Stage Delis). Not as many people pack themselves into the institutional eateries of the cities anymore. Personally I do not make it to Katz' as often as I would like, but I am a regular at Sarge's Deli which is nearby. There's a Nona that works there that could be my supplemental grandma.

Despite my eating habits, maybe the times have changed for good kosher delis (or at least resembles being parve). It seems like there's a new trendy restaurant wherever I look. As I'm typing this I can see the brand new THAINY across the street on 28th and 3rd. The place used to be occupied by Noodles on 28th (which moved a block up the street) but left the space because of skyrocketing rent.

So who's to blame? The developers, the lack of patrons, healthier and more chic eating habits? It might be a little bit of all of the above.

NYC Lets Developers Get Away With Anything

The horror story of the Atlantic Yards project consistently makes the local news and blog scene. Yet AY is one huge example of a city-wide problem where developers are consistently favored over residents. The Buildings Department is in disrepair while residents' complaints go mostly unnoticed. Fines and violations may be sent to developers who mess up, but the enforcement does nothing to curb the abuse that residents endure every year.

From The Daily News:

Typical was an e-mail from Ed Jaworski, vice president of the Madison-Marine-Homecrest Civic Association in Brooklyn.

His group "has generated a construction Dumpster's worth of correspondence [to] Community Board 15, to the Board of Standards and Appeals, even to the mayor's office," Jaworski wrote. "We've spent thousands of hours in meetings and on the phone. But building and zoning regulations are being manipulated to change the character of neighborhoods, house by house, block by block."

Ann Marie Amodeo wrote that an unscrupulous developer undermined the foundation of her mother's house on 70th St. in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, damaging the wall and ruining the backyard when he demolished a building next door.

"Calls and formal complaints to the Buildings Department had little result," she wrote. "Under threat of a lawsuit, this builder eventually purchased my mother's house, but refused to pay market price."

The Department claims that they are adding more inspectors and already vigorously inspect housing, but those statements come from spokeswoman Kate Lindquist who's only interest is PR, not actual progress. The Daily News' story was backed up by many in the building community:

Bronx-based carpenter T.J. O'Connor wrote: "If the Department of Buildings exercised their power to not only issue violations but to enforce stop-work orders until fines are paid, the revenue collected from unscrupulous developers could be put toward hiring the needed inspectors."

Several readers added to the litany of complaints about the shoddy practices of architects and engineers who falsely certify that their work complies with building regulations and zoning codes.

But master plumber Robert Mengler mentioned another disturbing wrinkle.

"Master plumbers are also allowed to self-certify their work," he wrote. "There are certain licensed plumbers that have made lots of money by renting out their licenses. . . . The chances of this work being inspected is very, very, very low."

Now that is just wrong, pure and simple. Bloomberg needs to come down hard on developers and fix the bureaucracy in the Buildings Department that allows these messes to pile up. The way the system is currently set up allows these scum to take advantage of residents that stand in the way of their profits. And that has to be turned on its head.

Brooklyn Waterfront Declared Endangered Historic Place

The National Trust for Historic Preservation declared that the industrial waterfront of Brooklyn to be one of the top 11 most endangered historic spots in the country. A local non-profit, the Municipal Art Society helped to nominate the area along with such sites as the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail that runs between Texas and New Mexico and the more famous Route 66.

This is an important development for the waterfront of Brooklyn because it shows how important this area is to the history of New York and the country itself. Instead of tearing down our history for the enrichment of developers, historians would rather see a transformation of the old industrial buildings such as what happened to SoHo and TriBeCa.

From The New York Times:

“They have value for the working waterfront and industrial retention in New York City,” Lisa Kersavage, a preservationist at the Municipal Art Society, said of the structures. “We need to raise awareness that these buildings are of national significance and that their loss is of national concern.”

The waterfront was nominated for the endangered list by the society, a nonprofit preservation organization. The society says that the city’s Department of Buildings issued 1,740 new building permits in Brooklyn in 2005. The same year the buildings department issued 1,924 permits for demolition, roughly double the number issued five years ago.

“Brooklyn lost five buildings and gained four new ones every day in 2005,” the society said in its nomination. Asked about the trust’s concerns, Daniel L. Doctoroff, deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding, pointed out that some buildings might be preserved, like the Domino Sugar refinery, a brick Romanesque Revival structure that is up for consideration by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Well of course the Domino Sugar Refinery won't be demolished, that would cause a city-wide uproar. This is more important than one famous example for the city to show a pseudo-soft side. The problem is that the city and the developers want to demolish Brooklyn bit by bit to raise real estate prices and gentrify as much of the city as they possibly can. Preserving the area isn't the most economically profitable solution for these people so Bloomberg and developers like the Atlantic Yards group fight against the community they want to sweep aside.

Taking Control Away From Developers In New York Is An Uphill Battle

It is hard to argue that money in politics as it is today is harming us here in New York and across the country. Our new Governor has vowed to fight the influence of big money, even after accepting gobs of it in his race to win the gubernatorial election last year. One of the specific problems is the amount of money given to politicians from developers. Despite limits of $5,000 from corporations and $150,000 from individuals, people like Leonard Litwin get around these limits by setting up multiple L.L.C.s, enabling Litwin to give a million dollars to both parties in last year's cycle.

Who is Leonard Litwin? Listed in Forbes 400 most wealthy Americans, this real estate developer in Manhattan has contributed to many campaigns in order to get access and get his way when it comes to greasing the wheels of the New York political system. He purposefully stays as obscure as possible, shying away from the limelight in order to keep his business dealings going at full speed.

So what do we do about the problem? The money goes everywhere. A contribution that is accepted and spent by a candidate is always subjected to scrutiny, Democrats and Republicans alike. Nevertheless, Spitzer is talking tough and the Republicans are fighting him tooth and nail.

From The New York Times:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who raised more money from L.L.C.’s last year than any other state official, swore off them after the election and is now proposing to ban them as part of an overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws. He and others have argued that L.L.C.’s have made the state’s contribution limits essentially meaningless. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other city officials have moved to restrict donations though L.L.C.’s for city candidates.

But the governor’s proposal has met stiff resistance from Senate Republicans, who have reaped big money from limited liability companies. That is in part because real estate developers are especially generous to Republicans in Albany.

Take, for instance, Mr. Litwin. Since last year, Mr. Litwin; his firm, Glenwood Management; and affiliated L.L.C.’s have given a total of $155,000 to campaign accounts maintained by the Senate Republican leadership. They also gave to 23 of the State Senate’s 33 Republicans.

Now the Republicans are stalling. Despite the bipartisan giving, it is the Republicans that get the majority of the money and consequently fight the most to keep the status quo. I'm sure there are some Democrats up in Albany that are on the side of Joe Bruno's crew. That is even more reason for us to fight for change at the ballot box next year to not only take the Senate back, but to fight for progressive candidates that can sweep out the garbage with D's next to their names as well.