Gray Wolf's Howl

2008-11-07T20:54:00.000-05:00

A Downturn Begins

By VIVIAN S. TOY
Published: November 7, 2008

EVEN though the average price for a Manhattan apartment, at $1.5 million, is higher than it was a year ago, some New York neighborhoods have already started to feel the downward tug that has wrenched the housing market elsewhere in the nation.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
DigitalGlobe, via Google Earth
Enlarge This Image
DigitalGlobe, via Google Earth

Median prices in Harlem and East Harlem were down nearly 20 percent, to $440,000 at the end of this year’s third quarter, from $549,000 at the same time last year, according to data from Miller Samuel Inc., a real estate appraisal and consulting firm.

Similarly, condominiums in Midtown East and Turtle Bay dropped 18.6 percent, to $1.197 million from $1.47 million; and condos in Midtown West and Hell’s Kitchen dropped 8 percent, to $1.01 million from $1.099 million.

“None of that surprises me because those are the fringe areas that are going through change,” said Michael Signet, the executive director of sales at Bond New York, a real estate agency. Whenever there’s a slowdown, he said, those are the first places to get hit.

Another sign that the market has slowed significantly is the marked drop in sales, decreasing 24 percent in Manhattan, to 2,654 in the three months that ended on Sept. 30, from 3,499 in the third quarter of 2007.

The credit crisis and the volatility on Wall Street will probably spur a continuation of these trends and lead to a universal drop in housing prices, Mr. Signet said.

“From everything we’re seeing out on the street, the fourth quarter report will slow prices down across the board in every neighborhood,” Mr. Signet said. “There’s a lot of nervousness out there.”

Jonathan J. Miller, the president of Miller Samuel, agreed that the weakness in the housing market is likely to continue and spread, especially because banks have made it so difficult for buyers to get mortgages.

“Until the financial markets are stabilized and mortgages are more readily available and more affordable to consumers,” he said, “you’re going to see an across-the-board impact on the market and it will affect all demographics.”

As to whether the neighborhoods that have softened first will weaken more quickly, Mr. Miller said: “Emerging neighborhoods by definition are more volatile. They have more potential to decline when the market weakens, and conversely they have more potential upside when the market returns.”

Other neighborhoods that experienced price drops include the Lower East Side and the East Village, where median prices fell 5.5 percent; and Carnegie Hill, where co-op prices decreased 7.2 percent. Median prices in Hamilton Heights and Morningside Heights dropped 30 percent, with sales decreasing to only 19 from 67 in 2007. In Washington Heights, median prices went down 6.3 percent, but the number of sales increased to 24 from 18 in 2007.

The neighborhoods that fared the best through the third quarter included Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue from 59th to 96th Streets, where median prices went up 35 percent. In Lincoln Square, an area between 57th and 72nd Streets from Central Park West to the Hudson River that is home to high-priced apartments in 15 Central Park West and the Time Warner Center, median co-op prices went up 18.6 percent and median condo prices went up 25 percent. Prices also rose in Lenox Hill, where median co-op prices went up 19 percent; and Chelsea, where median co-op and condo prices went up about 6 percent.

Other neighborhoods that experienced increases include Greenwich Village, where median prices for co-ops went up 3.9 percent; Union Square and the Gramercy area, where co-op prices went up 3.3 percent and condo prices went up 2.6 percent; and the Upper East Side, where median co-op prices went up 2.3 percent and condo prices went up 9.1 percent.

Prices were also up in Battery Park City and Inwood, two neighborhoods where sales volume was relatively low. In Battery Park City, the median price rose 6.5 percent and number of sales held steady, going from 31 to 30. In Inwood, prices increased 17.1 percent, but sales dropped to 12 from 26.

Brokers agree that in September after the collapse of several Wall Street brokerage firms and throughout October, many buyers simply opted out of the housing market.

A little more than a year ago, real estate agents worried about how to handle the dozens of people who showed up at open houses. Today, agents are pleased when a sign-in sheet logs six names, because it beats having no one show up at all.

“Things have been at a standstill in the last couple weeks,” said Janice Silver, the manager of Bellmarc Realty’s East Side office. “With the markets crashing, people have been seeing their money go away, and they’re thinking twice about buying a sweater, let alone an apartment.”
In Harlem, the median sales price for co-ops and condos dropped nearly 20 percent, and the number of sales in the third quarter dropped from 160 in 2007 to 100 this year.

“The number of transactions in Harlem is definitely down,” said Jorden Tepper, the director of sales at Century 21 NY Metro. “And in terms of what is selling, we’re specifically seeing more interest in the lower end and not in the higher-end luxury-priced units.”

The size of the average apartment sold in Harlem bears that out. It was 744 square feet in the latest quarter, down from 1,011 square feet in the third quarter of 2007.

Veronica Raehse, the sales manager for the West Side office of Bellmarc, said that while she had seen a softening of the market across the West Side, Harlem had been hit the hardest. She said that after six weeks of very little activity, things had started to pick up in the last week of October. “But it’s all low-end stuff, and at this point, anything over $500,000 is high-end already,” and not moving, she said.

She and other brokers said that they had been advising sellers to price their apartments 10 to 15 percent below the latest comparable sales. “You have to use comps as a starting point and price down from there,” she said. “It’s the only way to get more activity, because if buyers don’t think a deal is being offered, they’re just not going to bother with it.”

Donald Kemper, a vice president of Prudential Douglas Elliman, agreed that the only way to be a successful seller in the current market is to set a competitive price. “You have to establish value right away,” he said. “Because nobody wants to buy now and find that they could get it for less next year.”

Mr. Kemper specializes in Midtown West and Hell’s Kitchen, where median prices on co-ops went down 10.8 percent, to $540,000, and median prices on condos went down 8 percent, to $1.01 million.

He said that the area has changed rapidly in recent years, and that condo prices there had been driven up by the new construction along the 42nd Street corridor on the Far West Side. He said that until this year, many buyers came to the area “with a very definite desire to be in Hell’s Kitchen, because it was more affordable and because Chelsea and other neighborhoods were out of reach for them.”

But because prices are softening around the city, he said, buyers are less focused on Hell’s Kitchen, “maybe because they can find opportunity elsewhere.”

Ms. Silver said that Midtown East and Turtle Bay, an area delineated as from 42nd to 59th Street and from the Avenue of the Americas to the East River, seems to be experiencing a similar trend. While not an emerging neighborhood, it often has volatile prices, especially in the eastern stretches farthest from the subway.

“It’s one of those areas where if you live there, you realize it’s convenient and it’s a fine place to live,” Ms. Silver said, “but it’s not the kind of place where people say they’re dying to live.”

Median prices for condos in the area dropped 18.6 percent, and the number of sales decreased to 126 in the latest quarter, compared with 158 in the third quarter of 2007. But median co-op prices actually rose by 12 percent, to $690,108 from $615,000 in 2007.

Mr. Miller said that those numbers were distorted by a huge drop in activity. The number of co-op sales declined 36 percent, to 117 last quarter, from 184 in the third quarter of 2007. He said that the median price may have skewed up because the apartments that sold were higher-priced ones.

The Financial District is one emerging neighborhood where reality seems to contradict what the third-quarter numbers would suggest. Brokers agree that sales have slowed in recent weeks and that buyers can expect to get some good deals there right now, but the median price for condos actually rose by 5 percent, to $940,000, in this year’s third quarter, compared with last year’s $895,000. Co-op prices dropped 19 percent, but the neighborhood has very few co-ops; the number of sales fell to 6 from 11 in 2007.

Mr. Miller says the numbers are deceptive mainly because there has been so much construction in the area. “New construction will skew prices higher,” he said, adding that in most of the deals that closed recently, buyers probably signed the contracts 12 to 18 months ago. “The closings are delayed, so they’re more reflective of a prior period when the market was stronger.”

For people looking to buy in a new development right now, Yvonne DeNigris, an agent with Sotheby’s International Realty, said: “I think the most substantial flexibility is in the Financial District, because it’s so developed now and there’s not the strongest demand for it.”

SoHo and TriBeCa and the co-op market on the Upper West Side are areas where median prices dropped, but the volume of sales nonetheless remained strong, leading brokers to infer that the lower prices do not reflect what’s happening in these markets.

In SoHo and TriBeCa, which Miller Samuel combines and maps from Houston Street south to Vesey Street and from Broadway to the Hudson River, the median price for co-ops in the third quarter dropped 6.1 percent, to $1.925 million from $2.05 million in 2007; and the median price for condos dropped 28.5 percent, to $1.9 million from $2.65 million. But the number of sales for co-ops and condos rose to 166 from 98.

Cornelia Dobrovolsky, a senior vice president with the Corcoran Group, said that last year’s median price had probably been skewed up by the closings of very high-end condos in 2007.

Several apartments sold last year at 40 Mercer Street for $5 million to $10 million. “And those are very big numbers for SoHo because you don’t have a lot of luxury loft buildings,” she said. “I really have not seen a drop in actual values between this year and last.”

She said, though, that a shift had occurred in recent weeks, and that she had seen some price reductions. “There certainly have been fewer sales since the summer, so that’s got to have some impact for the next quarter’s numbers,” Ms. Dobrovolsky said.

On the Upper West Side, the median price for co-ops dropped 13.3 percent in the third quarter, but the median prices for condos went up 29.5 percent. The volume of sales for all Upper West Side apartments decreased 7.5 percent, to 577 from 624.

But the drop in the median price of co-ops to $650,000 from $750,000 is at least partially attributable to the fact that the average size of sold apartments also decreased, to 907 square feet from 1,142 square feet.

Jeffery Sholeen, a senior vice president of the Corcoran Group, said he found it hard to believe that co-op prices had dropped that much. “It could be that large apartments in co-ops weren’t selling or they weren’t available,” he said. “But there’s still big demand for larger units on the Upper West Side.”

Many of the new developments on the Upper West Side have successfully sold three- and four-bedroom apartments, he said, which might account for the big jump in the median sales price for condos, going to $1.425 million from $1.1 million.

But Mr. Sholeen and other agents said that activity in the fourth quarter would definitely be down from last year because many people had decided to take their properties off the market in the wake of the turmoil in the financial markets.

“A lot of people also said they wanted to wait to do anything until after the election, regardless of the outcome,” Mr. Sholeen said. “There was a lot of anxiety before it happened and people’s attention was focused on that and nothing else.”

But now that it’s over, agents say they’re hopeful that buyers and sellers will refocus their attention on real estate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/realestate/09cov.html

CB9M District Manager Says Goodbye, Heads to CB13Q

2008-10-31T23:32:00.000-04:00

CB9M District Manager Says Goodbye, Heads to CB13Q

By Christine Choi
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 31, 2008

As Community Board 9 prepares to announce its new district manager, members are looking to fill the void left by CB9 veteran Lawrence McClean.

Long considered a staple of the West Harlem community, McClean will soon bring his brand of community outreach to other boroughs. In September, McClean left his CB9 district manager post of 15 years to fill the same position for CB13 in his longtime residence of Queens. McClean was lauded by colleagues for his work in advocating for the neighborhood while working with board members.

While at CB9, McClean made the hour-long trek to Harlem every day, and his decision to leave was in part due to the commute, CB9 secretary Ted Kovaleff said. “It’s a pretty easy decision to make,” Kovaleff said.

But for a community that remembers McClean for his work facilitating dialogue between locals and city officials, letting go has not been easy.

“He was a pillar,” former CB9 chair Maritta Dunn said. “He had the personality required to deal with people.”

As district manager, McClean ensured that CB9 functioned smoothly. Responsible for the office and everyday operations, he juggled deadlines and timetables, filings, and communication with city officials and locals.

It was this last duty which distinguished him. “He had a great working relationship with the city agency and the community,” CB9 Chair Pat Jones said.

And it was just this “very affable, friendly” ease that helped the board through stormier times, such as chair selections, according to Assemblyman Danny O’Donnell, a former board member.
“There were some volatile moments, police being called, battles over who would be the chair,” O’Donnell said, “but he remained above it, didn’t get into the mix, and always brought people back together.”

“This is a thankless job, an impossible job, but it was done with class and dignity with Larry McClean,” he added.

CB9 paid tribute to McClean at its September general board meeting, a day which Jones declared “Lawrence T. McClean Appreciation Day.”

“You’re part of the fabric of my life, you’re part of the way I do things,” McClean said. “I learned how to do it from the people here, so what success I may have is basically based on Board 9.”
Several noted that McClean’s work benefited not only the West Harlem community, but the city as a whole. While chair, Kovaleff worked on a snow removal initiative that required site visits.

“Larry was the one who coordinated and scheduled those site visits, and now we have the best, most well thought snow removal program of anywhere in Manhattan,” he said.

Another time, Kovaleff recalled, he and McClean developed a plan for lead abatement during the painting of West Side Highway. “This program that we developed ... is now a citywide program,” he said.

McClean’s efforts ensured his longevity at the board. “He was the DM [district manager] through nearly five chairs,” Dunn said, “and over the years he was just always there.”Kovaleff, who was part of the nominating committee that hired McClean in 1993, spoke of McClean’s role as a part of the board’s history.

“He was appointed when CB9 and Columbia were at loggerheads over the existence of each other. Right there that shows a major change in the community,” Kovaleff said. “One of these days, without Larry and a couple others like us, nobody’s going to know about all those statements the board made.”

CB9 decided on a new district manager at a closed-door meeting Thursday night, and Jones said the board would announce its decision Friday.

McClean promised in September he would use what he learned at CB9 to reform Queens’ community boards. “Out there they don’t have the kind of meetings we have here,” he said. “It will be an experience that I’m not sure how good I’d be if I hadn’t walked through the door in 1992 for a job.”

In the meantime, McClean already seems to be making headway in his new location. “I’ve had some feedback, and he’s already raised expectations out there,” Kovaleff said. “He’s good luck for them, even if they are the number 13.”

Daniel Amzallag contributed reporting to this article.

news@columbiaspectator.com
TAGS: CB9, district manager, mcclean

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56613

CU Works Toward Phase One of Expansion

2008-10-20T15:56:00.001-04:00

CU Works Toward Phase One of Expansion
By Christine Choi
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 20, 2008

As Columbia pushes to complete the first phase of its Manhattanville expansion by 2015, University and community officials have set tentative dates for two projects.

The West Harlem Local Development Corporation hopes to submit a proposal for a community benefits agreement to Columbia by November. Meanwhile, the University plans to break ground for the first phase of development by next spring.

Joe Ienuso, Columbia’s executive vice president for facilities, said that while no definitive timetable had been set, “spring 2009 is certainly the hope.” The University will first have to clear legal hurdles, including the completion of the public review process.

Construction work will begin with the demolition of buildings that currently occupy two patches of land bounded by 130th and 125th streets to the north and south and by 12th Avenue and Broadway to the east and west.

The University plans to construct four new buildings in that space, including, as Ienuso described, “a small triangular building” within the property bordered by 125th and 129th streets, and “the science center, the new SIPA building, and a lantern-shaped building between them” on the larger property between 129th and 130th streets.

The design commission for all four buildings was awarded to Renzo Piano Building Workshop, a Paris-based firm also responsible for the New York Times’ headquarters.

In consultation with the University, the workshop has been designing through a “very dynamic process, very much informed by the occupants of the building, how a building will be put to use,” Ienuso said.

Ienuso said all the buildings were “in very different stages of the design process,” and that none of the designs had been completed.

Two contractors, Bovis Lend Lease and McKissack & McKissack—the oldest African-American contract management firm in the country—have been hired for the first phase of construction.
As part of the large underground “bathtub” portion of the new campus, construction will involve the pouring of a single foundation for the three buildings between 129th and 130th streets, as opposed to three separate foundations. The below-grade layer would be extended throughout the new campus for laboratory space, a central energy plant, and a bus depot intended to shift traffic to the lower level.

“From an urban planning perspective, we’re taking advantage of fixing the below-grade level so we can have the prime condition of the streets above,” Ienuso said of the “bathtub.”

That aspect of the University’s plan has come under sharp criticism from community members who allege it would put the area at risk of flooding. Local-business owner Nick Sprayregen, who is one of the two remaining holdouts in the expansion zone that have refused to strike a relocation deal with Columbia, filed a lawsuit against the University earlier this year over the alleged environmental dangers of the “bathtub.” His suit was dismissed in September.
Ienuso defended the “bathtub” proposal, stating that the University was adhering to environmental standards.

As the architectural plans evolve, the Local Development Corporation is working to complete a proposal for a community benefits agreement.

“We have not officially submitted our proposal, but we’ve put a deadline on ourselves for by the end of this month,” LDC officer Maritta Dunn said. “We’re meeting with the University on a regular basis to try to finish this up.”

The community benefits agreement would allocate $150 million from the University to the neighborhood for a variety of purposes, including affordable housing in the expansion zone.
Dunn said the LDC has been meeting every week for the last two years to discuss the community benefits agreement.

Dunn expressed hope that the LDC proposal would be approved quickly. The delay in its release “has been a roadblock to them [the University], so we would hope and I don’t expect them to take very long in responding,” she said.

Along with the community benefits agreement proposal, the LDC, which operates on a volunteer basis, has requested advance cash funding for a permanent staff.

news@columbiaspectator.com

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56330

Locals Concerned About Economy at Harlem Town Hall

2008-10-17T23:14:00.000-04:00

Locals Concerned About Economy at Harlem Town Hall
By Christine Choi
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 17, 2008

At a town hall meeting Wednesday night, West Harlem residents expressed concern that evictions and rent hikes would continue to worsen in the face of economic downturn and Columbia’s expansion into Manhattanville.

About 100 locals packed into the Harlem School of the Arts to address a panel that included Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Councilman Robert Jackson, and CB9 chair Pat Jones. Questions ranged from traffic flow to after-school programs, but tenant issues, gentrification, and the economy dominated the conversation, occasionally making for tense exchanges between residents and officials.

Locals criticized the bailout plan and government as failing to hold Wall Street accountable and instead punishing locals.

“How will we benefit from Mike Bloomberg dealing with affordable housing that’s now trapped by predatory lending and mortgage fraud?” local resident Delois Blakely asked.Still more residents cited development of the area, including Columbia’s construction of its Manhattanville campus, as the key factor in rent hikes and evictions. Nellie Hester Bailey, co-founder of the Harlem Tenants Council, detailed the recent eviction of 22 tenants from an apartment complex due to rent increases as one of many similar experiences sweeping the neighborhood.

“Columbia University admitted over 5,000 tenants would be evicted as a result of their expansion,” she said, combined with other evictions that “are private investor driven. How are you looking at this shift that is going to bring in thousands of high-rise, high-rent tenants? How are you looking at it in terms of the economic meltdown?”

While Stringer reminded residents that he did not vote for the 125th Street rezoning project, which will bring in commercial development and which many fear will raise area rent prices, he defended Columbia’s expansion. Development of the area “would have happened anyway,” he said, but the project includes “millions of dollars in givebacks,” including more than $20 million in affordable housing that could be “leveraged for a lot more money.”

Furthermore, he said after the meeting, his office was attempting to further address the issue of rent hikes “by taking big landlords to court,” including Pinnacle Group International, many of whom now operate on a “business model based on the number of evictions that would result in increase in rent.”

But Jackson said, it is “up to tenants to organize in a building that has been threatened with MCI rent increases and strategize and identify an attorney that can represent your interests.”
For many residents, the conversation was not enough. Tom DeMott, CC ’80 and active member of Voices of the Everyday People, asked, “When you gut the 197-a plan, what kind of hope do we have that a back and forth like this has any value?” Another West Harlem resident, who identified herself as Cookie, said after the meeting that officials “haven’t been reflective of the community. Their allegiance is somewhere else.”

Andrew Lyubarsky, CC ’09 and member of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification, said that the panel “left a lot of questions unanswered,” including specifications on a community benefits agreement.

news@columbiaspectator.com
TAGS: Stringer, Town Hall, West Harlem

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56267

CB9 Debates Bylaws, Historical Preservation

2008-10-17T22:38:00.000-04:00

CB9 Debates Bylaws, Historical Preservation
By Daniel Amzallag
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 17, 2008

Community Board 9 discussed bylaws and approved resolutions concerning historical preservation at its monthly general board meeting Thursday night.

The board, whose district stretches from West 110th to 155th streets, had created a committee to propose revisions and amendments to its bylaws. Board member Tamara Gayer presented the committee’s suggestions Thursday, which were discussed for approximately two hours. CB9 will vote on the bylaw amendments at next month’s general board meeting.

Among changes to absence policy and officer elections, the bylaw amendments allow an attendee to be removed from a meeting for “using profanity, threats, and/or engaging in physical confrontation with another member.”

The board also discussed historical preservation in Morningside Heights. It approved a resolution to University President Lee Bollinger expressing admonishment for Columbia’s alleged plans to demolish several brownstones on West 115th and 116th streets.

“Columbia has not been forthcoming at all. They have not provided any information,” said Irene Cheng, who represented a committee of residents of 115th and 116th streets.

Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Manhattanville and Central Harlem) spoke of Urban American Management Corporation, the new owner of 3333 Broadway, a 1,190-unit development on West 133rd Street. The building was originally under the Mitchell-Lama program, a state affordable-housing program, until it opted out in May 2005. Since then, the building has seen hundreds of evictions.

Wright charged the complex’s new owner, Urban American, with “trying to knock people out, harass them out to bring in market-rate tenants.”

Urban America—as well as its previous owners—purchased 3333 Broadway for “entirely too much money,” and now need to evict tenants with fixed rents in order to meet costs, he claimed.
The board also approved several letters of support. One letter will be sent to the New York City Department of Transportation expressing conditional support for the “concept of the design” for an expansion of Montefiore Park between West 136th and 138th streets. The letter of support allows Harlem Heritage and Housing to go forward in completing a design, but insists on additional green space and on a replacement of parking spaces that will be eliminated.

daniel.amzallag@columbiaspectator.com
TAGS: bylaws, CB9, historical preservation

After Dispute, Floridita Owner Resumes Negotiations

2008-10-15T12:25:00.000-04:00

After Dispute, Floridita Owner Resumes Negotiations
By Maggie Astor
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 15, 2008

After months of tumultuous back-and-forth between the owner of Floridita Restaurant and Tapas Bar and Columbia real estate officials, negotiations resumed on Monday regarding the business’ relocation to an area outside the Manhattanville expansion zone.

The reopening of negotiations marks the end of a dispute between Ramon Diaz and the University, which culminated last April when discussion was suspended after Columbia, the building’s owner, alleged that Diaz owed outstanding payments on rent, real estate tax, and water charges.

Spanning three storefronts along Broadway between 125th and 129th streets, Floridita is located in the heart of the expansion zone in which Columbia plans to build its Manhattanville campus.
According to Diaz, Columbia officials acknowledged at the Monday meeting that he had been billed incorrectly for thousands of dollars. Diaz had contested the validity of the charges on the grounds that the water meter in his building was providing inconsistent measurements.

University spokeswoman Victoria Benitez said that the University does not comment on ongoing negotiations.

Last spring, the University insisted that Diaz was missing tens of thousands of dollars in rent. In response, Diaz sent Phil Silverman, Columbia’s vice president of real estate, copies of cancelled checks for each rent and real estate tax payment he had made since assuming ownership of Floridita in 2006. At the time, Silverman and University spokeswoman La-Verna Fountain maintained that all the checks Diaz provided had been accounted for, and that Diaz still owed the initial balance. The University subsequently cut off negotiations, Diaz reported.

At the conference Monday, the officials “didn’t admit the water meters were defective, but they did acquiesce to the discount that I thought was appropriate based on what I thought the meters were misreading,” Diaz said. “We negotiated the open amount to a figure that they were comfortable with and I was comfortable with, and the water is now current.”

The University had first said that Diaz owed $32,000 in water charges. After Monday’s discussion, the final amount was set at $20,000, which Diaz said he paid at the meeting.
“We needed to get those issues off the table, and therefore they made concessions to get them off the table,” Diaz said.

The future of the tapas bar was a major point of conflict this year between Diaz and University officials. Floridita, whose tapas bar is separate from the restaurant, works on two leases. While the lease on the restaurant is good until 2015, Diaz has to renew his tapas bar lease annually. Fearing that the University would terminate the latter, Diaz went so far as to prepare a lawsuit with his attorney.

But after Monday’s meeting, Diaz said, a new lease has been signed and “the lawsuit—even the potential for the lawsuit—is off the table.”

If everything goes according to plan, Floridita will move to another location within the expansion zone, an agreement to be reached mutually by Diaz and Columbia real estate officials. According to Diaz, Phil Silverman said no space was currently available. In all likelihood, Diaz will eventually relocate to a building that still has not been constructed.

In the meantime, he will remain in his current location. Silverman also promised to work to resolve the problem of reduced business, Diaz said, which came about due to construction outside the eatery.

“They have agreed to begin negotiations to start working with me insofar as how the construction is affecting my business,” Diaz said. “He [Silverman] did mention that if the construction ... starts hurting you, we will help you in any way, shape, or form we can to offset losses and business being affected in a negative way.”

Diaz has recently complained to Columbia and to city officials about the setup of barriers and the closing of a lane on Broadway, which resulted in eight traffic accidents outside Floridita in a month. In reaction to Diaz’s reports, the barriers were taken down and new traffic signals installed. He said that no more accidents have occurred since those modifications were made.

maggie.astor@columbiaspectator.com
TAGS: Floridita, Manhattanville, Ramon Diaz

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56239

Latino Heritage: Our Stories

2008-10-10T12:34:00.000-04:00

Latino Heritage: Our Stories
By Ivette Sanchez
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 10, 2008

In 1947, seven years before Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Orange County affirmed the decision of Mendez v. Westminster School District, which stated that the segregation of Mexican and Mexican-American students into separate “Mexican schools” was unconstitutional. The case had arisen two years earlier in Los Angeles when five Mexican-American fathers—Thomas Estrada, William Guzman, Gonzalo Mendez, Frank Palomino, and Lorenzo Ramirez—with the help of civil rights organizations, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 5,000 Mexican-American families, challenging the practice of school segregation in the Orange County district of California. The plaintiffs claimed that children of Mexican ancestry, because of their national origin, were being discriminated against by being forced to attend separate “Mexican” schools in Orange County.

As discussed on the WGBH Educational Foundation Web site, Mexican Americans living in the Western territory of the United States had been engaging in a century-long struggle for equality far before Mendez. Educational codes in California had directly, and indirectly, worked to deny students not only of Mexican, but African-American, Asian-American, and Native American decent, the right to equal education. Conditions in Mexican-American schools were vastly inferior to those in white schools, often as a result of little state funding.

The senior district judge in Los Angeles ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 1946, finding segregated schools to be a denial of the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment pertaining to access to education. As the first successful challenge to the “separate but equal” doctrine, Mendez v. Westminster set an important precedent for the arguments upheld in the Brown decision. Furthermore, Governor Earl Warren of California, who would later preside over Brown v. Board of Education as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, signed legislation repealing the remaining segregationist provisions in the California state educational statutes.

One can see how this case served as an important turning point not only for the status of the Latino community in California, but for people of all ancestries and skin colors across the nation.

The stories of individuals, such as Thomas Estrada and William Guzman impacting groups like those 5,000 Mexican families, are the kind of stories upon which Latino heritage and history are built. Latino history is unique in that it is the story of people who are linked very immediately to two cultures, two lands, and two narratives. More often than not, however, this dual identity allows us, as Latinos, to fall between the cracks of the historical narratives told by both cultures, leaving us with a truly minority voice. Latino stories, built out of elements from many sources, but not wholly belonging to one country, are often left untold, absent, and invisible.

On Oct. 1, 2008, in her keynote address at the opening ceremony for Latino Heritage Month, award-winning journalist and author Maria Hinojosa addressed this absence, speaking of her desire, even as an undergraduate at Barnard College, to “tell the stories of invisible people, stories that need to be told.” Indeed, throughout her accomplished career, Hinojosa has sought to tell the social and personal stories of the Latino community that are too often ignored and left untold by even modern media outlets. These stories range from the sociological issues of the prison system and gang culture to developing a Latino identity as a family and as a child.

Hinojosa received the Robert F. Kennedy award in 1995 for “Manhood Behind Bars,” a story for NPR, which documented how jail has become a rite of passage for some men of all races. In 2000, she published her second book, Raising Raul: Adventures Raising Myself and My Son, a motherhood memoir about raising a Latino child in a multicultural society. Hinojosa’s significance is in her devoted efforts to raise awareness of the voices and stories of the Latino community.

As Meylin Mota, BC ’09 and co-chair of the Latino Heritage Month committee, noted at the opening reception, this month-long celebration of Latino heritage aims to promote an awareness of Latino issues, struggles, and triumphs, bringing together individual and collective histories in order to form a deeper understanding of who we are today. The Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, once wrote, “Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar,” which translates, “Traveler, there is no path, you make it as you are walking.” The Latino identity by its very definition is one of a traveler, making paths across culture, time, and geography that are not easily recorded by traditional sources. It is essential that we trace these innumerable paths, if only to discover how it is we got to where we are today.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore. She is an associate editorial page editor.

TAGS: Latino Heritage, Mendez v. Westminister

View Comments ( 1)Post a Comment

Here go again! The perpetuation of the myth of a Latino identity.

The fact is that that there are many historic differences between the Mexican Experience and of the non-White people from Spanish America in the Western USA and in the Eastern USA.
While in fact Mexicans of native heritage were obstracized and segregated in the West. that was not the experience of the Spanish settlers of Florida and Louisiana who in fact were part of the power structure and have always been part of the Southestern US civil society.

The largest number of new Spanish speaking arrivals were the Cubans in several weaves starting in the 1820's, then the 1850's and again in the 1880-90's as exiles, the children of European Spaniards and other European natiionals, Cuba a Spanish colony and at times province, suffered the oppression of the Spanish Colonial system. Many exiles returned to Cuba but many more remained and assimilated into the American Melting Pot. The latest weave in the late 1950's and early 1960's and in 1980's again has been very successful and many have assimilated into American society.

The same being true for many other arrivals from Central and South America that have settled in Florida and New York.

Puerto Ricans became part of the US after the Spanish American War and many have successfully assimilated but those from the lower socio-economic levels have had difficulties and and have been obstracized, descriminated and even gehttoized to a great degree but seem to begin to prosper and move on.

Non-Whites such as the Dominicans and from other countries, particular those of African ancestry, are still struggling to make a place for themselves but being inventive and hard working they are also beginning to make their mark in NYC.

So the Myth of a Latino Heritage is just that a MYTH.

Each country in Spanish America have its own history, folklore, music, culture although all speak more or less the same Spanish language sometimes they need to translate their ideas to each other.

The Real Heritage is those of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Venezula, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Chile, Peru, etc. Each one is a beautiful and glorious and at times sad Heritage but each is an individual Spanish American National Heritage - somewhat similar but not the same.

It is a shame that Spanish American peoples are being brain washed, pasteurized and homogenized by the ignorance of the general US tendency to create an artificial "Third Race" between the White and Black, basically to attempt to diminish the African American ambitions and just desiires for total equality.

Perpetuation of the Latino Myth does a tremendous diservice to the Spanish American peoples as well as to the US in genral general population.

If Europeans are whatever national origins they are, even if speaking the same language, why is it alright to homogenze Spanish American countries of origin? After all Germans are Germans, Austirans are Austrians, Swiss ae Swiss etc. and they all speak a form of German.

It is time to stop the stupidity of the homogenization of Spansih Americans.

Posted by: anonymous (not verified) October 11th, 2008 @ 12:32pm

Testimony of Walter South at the Public Hearing before the

2008-09-17T21:31:00.001-04:00

Testimony of Walter South at the Public Hearing before the
Committee of Corporations, Authorities & Commissions on
the use of eminent domain by the State and City of New
York, convened by ranking member Senator Bill Perkins.

My name is Walter South. I am pleased to testify today as Bill Perkins is one politician in our community who has had the integrity not only to say what needs to be said, but also to do what is right. I am sorry to say I cannot make this statement about many other of our local politicians.

I am a member of CB#9, but speak here as an individual. I have Graduate Degrees in Sociology, Urban Planning, and Historic Preservation. I only mention this background to indicate that I do bring to the table a certain amount of academic understanding of urban issues and, in particular, an understanding of the dangers in the abuse of Eminent Domain.

First, I would like to make clear the premise of my remarks. And that is this: If you have good political connections and if you have money, you can actually rent the State of New York.

Now some people may think that this is a joke, but all you have to do is to walk from here to Broadway and 125th. There you can see where Columbia University has rented from the State the right to use eminent domain. It is here that the University is planning a new office park for business. Columbia is in the process of acquiring eighteen acres of prime Manhattan real estate on the cheap for a new office park for biotech research. This is not academic expansion. There will not be a single classroom in these buildings. This is pure and simple a for-profit venture. Columbia wants to eat at the table with the big boys (Harvard and Yale) but cannot pick up the tab and needs the State of New York to help.

If you want to rent the powers of the State, as Columbia has, the process is actually quite simple. It requires only ten easy steps.

(1) Study the census tracts in your community to find where poor people live. Poor people are usually people of color and are least likely to have the power or the money to protest effectively. Of course, it is a bonus if this area has waterfront exposure. In addition, in an area of the poor your opposition can either be bought-off or rolled-over. For example, right down the street one of the local clergy came out against the Columbia expansion plan. I was quite surprised and discussed this good news with a local wag. His reply was that the clergyman in question was only negotiating. I was told later that Columbia staff talked to him. That convinced him to be in favor of the expansion. The only serious question was the cost to Columbia. Later in public meetings he testified for Columbia. And, the local politicians can be rolled over by contributions for re-election. The fee here is higher. It is around $2,500.

(2) Fantasize about what you could do if you owned their property. At this point you only need nothing more than a fanciful notion. You do not have to have any real plans or even any real money to do the development; you only have to have a dream, and only to claim you need their property to fulfill your dream. You do not even have to prove a need. Again look at Columbia. They only claim they need more space. This claim has never been substantiated. In addition, they even today have no real plans and they do not have the funding to build.

(3) Hire a big name or famous architect to create a drawing of your fantasy. For this purpose color is important. Even a good Powerpoint presentation can help. Someone like Rizzo Piano will dazzle Amanda Burden at City Planning, and help bat a home run on zoning issues. I might add that Rizzo may need to associate with a City firm like SOM to get the support of the local boys.

(4) Next, talk to the Mayor and Governor to get them on Board. Promise them an increase in taxable income. Of course this is difficult when you are actually planning to take the property off the tax rolls as Columbia plans to do with it’s for profit business venture. But above all, promise jobs. A round number is best because you have to remember what you said and a figure like 5,672 is difficult. So 6,000 is a better choice. The only problem with Columbia, with 13,000 employees at present, is that 6,000 new employees represents an increase of about 46-47% employees. This is a stretch. But, not to worry. Very few will remember, and afterall a promise is not a contract. It is a sort of MOU which Columbia prefers to any contract. For example, look at the Poletown Case in Michigan. Big job promises and GM closed the new factory.

(5) Once the key politicians are comfortable, you have to pay the rent. You go to the Empire State Development Corporation and bear the freight. In the case of Columbia the down payment was around $327,000. It is necessary to understand that ESDC is a fee driven agency. Pay the fee and they do your bidding. Put it another way; it is a kind of Livery Service for the well connected rich. You pay what’s on the meter and they will drive you home. Don’t expect them to put up front money for your fantasy life.

(6) Next hire a “Planning” Firm to do an Environment Impact Statement. Firms like AKRF can be had. AFRK probably has never had an EIS that was not favorable to the applicant. These new “Planning” firms in the field of American Literature have replaced Herman Melville. AKRF can now develop the greatest fish story ever told. In their offices they have reams of mimeographed sections of an EIS which have passed muster with the Agencies, and they can put together a new one which will be approved for any new applicant. I must warn you, this is pricey. It could run over a million dollars. But you have to understand the amount of work that is required to collate and staple multiple copies of a new application. In addition they have to fill the blanks with the new applicants name and the location of the new development.

(7) The EIS is filed next with the local Planning Agency who as the Lead Agency graciously agrees to review it. Any objections to the EIS will be drafted by the applicant’s employee, in this case AKRF. In the case of Columbia we raised any number of objections to the EIS with City Planning. The changes in the text that came back were straight out of the mouth of Columbia’s PR department. I asked in a meeting with City Planning who exactly had drafted these changes. We were told that the applicant actually has the EIS prepared and is responsible for any changes at their expense, and furthermore this was standard procedure with City Planning. You must understand that the Lead Agency’s job is to get the EIS approved, not to protect the public. This may be shocking, but the Lead Agency is not writing the EIS with public money. The applicant is paying for the drafting of the EIS and as such what is in the EIS is at the bidding of the employer and not the Lead Agency. If you question this process ask Ray Gastil or Robert Dobruskin at New York City Planning. What was supposed to be a public protection has morphed into a justification for the applicant’s development which the Government can use to hide behind if they are criticized by the community.

(8) In the meantime the developer begins to buy land in the target area. He always promises to only use Eminent Domain as a last resort. Actually by using this promise the developer is actually using Eminent Domain. What this actually means that if you do not voluntarily “sell”, your property will be condemned by ESDC and it will be given to Columbia. After getting a “sale’ you bind the “seller” with a gag order in the purchase agreement. This gag clause prohibits the “seller” from discussing the terms of the sale, or even criticizing the buyer. In some cases it even requires the “seller” to give public support as to the good intentions of the buyer. Not only have you “sold” your property but you have also agreed to become a slave of the buyer. This reinforces the image of the free market aspect of Eminent Domain. This does not mean anything will actually be built on your site by the developer. For example, in New London, on the site of the Kelo Case, to date the New London has spent $78 million and there has not been any new construction. In a case on the East Side near the UN, a site taken by Con Edison was in fact resold by Con Edison at a profit for new condos and a hotel! Columbia claims that their plan is for the next thirty years and they are asking for the right to use Eminent Domain anytime for their buildout. With no real plans and no financing what this expansion really means in the final analysis is merely a land grab.

(9) The purpose of buying land in the target area is to create blight. This is done by first doing research on the property to determine if there are any violations on the property you want or own. In the case of Reality House, Columbia found that the building had no C of O and was operating illegally. Columbia forced the State Agency, Oasis which had for years been knowingly funding the program, to terminate the funding and to facilitate a sale to the University. In the case of the auto mechanics building on Broadway they found all kinds of Building violations and forced the occupants to close shop and move. In the case of the old bookie joint next to Anne Whitman they gave someone permission to store junk cars there so a picture could be taken with junk in the foreground. They left up “For Rent” signs for years. But when you called the number you were told the building had actually just been rented. The only problem was no one ever moved in. They left up the stripped Fried Chicken canopy on 125th Street and Broadway to show how abandoned that site was. Even stranger just before the Blight Study began in both cases (both the first and second study) new graffiti suddenly appeared in the area, for example among other cases, on the Hudson Storage Building on Broadway. The purpose for the Blight is to be rewarded for your own neglect.

(10) With the approval of City Planning and with the roll over of City Council, Columbia now returns to the Empire State Development Corporation for the payoff. This is why they paid the rent money in the first place. The ESDC now finds Blight and proceeds to condemn not only the few remaining “holdouts”, but even the property of the City and Columbia. Understand that Columbia wants the land under all of the streets and sidewalks to be given to them for free. (This is in most urban sites about 40% of the land mass.) This will facilitate the creation of a gated business park. If you question this go up to their campus at 116th Street and explain why 116th Street, a public street, is gated. And, by condemning their own property Columbia can cancel any pesky leaseholds still in existence in property they have already purchased. They now own what was once yours and are basically free to do anything they want. There is nothing which cannot be changed in the future in their plans or their promises. They own.

What is to be done about this abuse of State power which is for rent?

Should the definition of Blight be changed?
At present the word Blight and means anything and everything and a word which means anything actually means nothing. This is not a solution.

Should the word just compensation be changed to mean something more than mere?
No, this too is not a solution. The problem is the taking of private property and giving it to another more powerful private party. The money is only a part of the scandal.

Should the hearing process be reformed?
No, the hearing process is a sham. When during this process only a Hearing Officer makes a record and no Commissioners actually sit, as was done in the case of the Blight hearing by ESDC on the Columbia designation, it is obvious that this is only to create a façade to fulfill the word of the law. This is not a dialog.

Should the bureaucracy be reformed?
No, why should some petty bureaucrat be able to decide to take your property.

The answer is simple. The taking of private property by the State and the conveyance of this property to another private entity is immoral, unethical, and contrary to the principals on which this country was founded. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are being compromised. And the abuse of the power of the State is being seriously corrupted by this rental scheme.

In short, this practice must be abolished. The answer is Abolished.

And, in the case where Eminent Domain is being used for a real public purpose this too needs modification and needs be limited. This practice also has been subject to abuse. Just look at our surplus schools, highways, and urban renewal sites. These takings need be subject to a more comprehensive community review process. And the “sellers” of these sites should be rewarded for their giving something to the public. The law should be changed so that these sellers would be paid 200% of the appraised future value of the takings. This step would quickly put an end to the rash takings for the public use. Furthermore, an economic analysis should be required of the real cost and the real benefits to the community in any takings. Columbia is removing 18 acres from the tax rolls. Columbia will add to the cost of public transit, police, and fire protection. What are the true infrastructure costs? What will be the expense of nontaxable bond financing by the State Dormitory Authority for all of their new buildings? When all of these costs are summed they will exceed the benefits. This is but another example of State supporting the rich private interests with public funds.

When the State Government believes what I am saying, then the public will see change. When the State Government restores the rights which this country was founded on in the 1700’s and begins once again to protect private property, only then will we have a State Government that has integrity. Only then can the public respect its elected officials. Afterall to date 43 other states have passed either constitutional amendments or legislation that gives greater protection for property owners facing Eminent Domain abuse. Why hasn’t New York State done anything? New York State has the most abusive procedures of any state in this country and has done nothing. This is, in short, a scandal and to our shame.

Walter South
17 Sept 08

Some in Area Concerned About Avalon Diversity

2008-09-11T18:12:00.002-04:00

Some in Area Concerned About Avalon Diversity
By Lydia Wileden
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

Stretching up into the sky, its glass walls reflecting the sun, Avalon Morningside Park is hard to miss.

Despite sitting like a shining beacon at the corner of 110th Street and Morningside Drive, the newly finished apartment complex has long been shrouded in controversy. When the project first broke ground in early 2007, over 1,300 signatures were gathered from local residents opposing the development. Today, the building’s neighbors wonder what place the ritzy building, which stands in stark contrast to nearby aging buildings, has in a neighborhood struggling to retain its economic diversity.

Avalon Morningside’s 296 rental units sit on the property of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. According to the St. John’s Web site, the property was obtained through a 99-year lease between St. John’s and AvalonBay Communities, Inc., a real estate investment trust. The lease, signed in 2006, permits Avalon to build and manage a 20-story residential rental property filled with a mix of studio, one-, two-, and three- bedroom apartments.

Carolyn Kent, chair of Community Board 9’s Parks and Landmarks Committee, led the charge against the building originally, and vowed in 2007 to “work against the construction of such an inappropriate building.” Kent said that Avalon is inappropriate for the neighborhood both because of the proportion of “luxury housing, and in its architectural design.”

Kent’s concerns about the building being unaffordable for local residents only increased as the building was completed. St. John’s stipulated that Avalon must include some affordable housing units in their lease contract.

What has become particularly contentious is how Avalon will meet the criteria of the New York City Housing Development Corporation 80/20 Program. The program, as described in an HDC term sheet, issues loans “for projects where at least 20% of the units are affordable to low and moderate-income households.” The remaining 80 percent of units may be set at market levels and rented to households of any income.

In keeping with the 80/20 guidelines, Avalon has set aside 59 apartments to exist as affordable housing. Yet who these apartments are available to is unclear. While the program stipulates maximum rent levels and minimum square footage, it does not mandate how many people may live in each space.

Management at Avalon Morningside Park did not respond to requests for comment.According to information on the building from St. John’s, preference for the 59 units “will be given to working individuals and families in the surrounding neighborhood.”

According to an HDC press release, the building will receive “$100 million in tax-exempt bonds.” The affordable housing units will also be supported by the church’s Housing Mission Fund that will contribute $200,000 annually.

According to the agreement with St. John’s, AvalonBay will give back to the community in other ways, playing an important role in helping rebuild some crumbling features of the church.

lydia.wileden@columbiaspectator.com

View Comments ( 2) Post a Comment

As the Chairman of Community Board 9 Manhattan from 2004 to December 31, 2007 I feel compelled to clarify that Ms. Carolyn Kents activities regarding the Cathedral were carried out strictly in her private capacity and as part of the Morningside Historic Preservation organization and NEVER as Chair of the CB9M Landmarks Committee.

The Cathedral's project was an "as of right" project and CB9M had nothing to say about it.
I have met on several occasions with the Dean James Kowalski who explained the financial situation of the Church Cathedral and the need to develop their properties.

I also met with opponents in the Community and asked how many were members of the Church Cathedral - no one was.

As my suggestion that if the opposers wanted to help the Church Catedral not to develop their property they should do fund-raisers for the Church Cathedral I received a mute "you must be crazy" look and not further communtications ensued.

As a cradle Episcopalian I privately and personally have supported the plans moved ahead by Dean Kowalski.

I believe the community will benefit by the mixed income population.

Now as far as the allocation of the affordable units half will go the CB9M residents and the other half to residents of CB7M adjacent directly south. All this information was made available at the CB9M July 08 Housing Committee Meeting which I now Chair.

My personal and private comments for your benefit.

J. Reyes-Montblanc11 Sept 2008

Posted by: anonymous (not verified) September 11th, 2008 @ 6:07pm
reply

If critics are truly interested in "economic diversity" -- as they claim to and should be -- then the Avalon building is actually a great thing for the neighborhood. If the ideal is having a diverse range of incomes, then higher-income people are needed in the area to balance out a disproportionately high population of low-income and working-class individuals.

Personally, I would never pay that much in rent (even if I could), but obviously some do. I think it's a good thing that they will be contributing to the local economy, and an especially good thing that this development will provide an income stream to support the renovation and expansion of the Cathedral of St. John Divine, which is just on the other side of the park from where I live in Harlem.

If they're saying that the 59 "low income" units weren't allocated using a proper lottery system, then that is a valid criticism. If it is handled in accordance with HPD standards, however, here again I fail to see the issue.

As for aesthetics, I, for one, find the building to be rather striking in appearance. Perhaps I'm more architecturally open-minded than your average community naysayer...

Racism Is Charged of Opponents of Voting Rights for Noncitizens

2008-09-09T15:58:00.006-04:00

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Richard Nuñez-Lawrence wrote:

From: Richard Nuñez-Lawrence
Subject: Racism Is Charged of Opponents of Voting Rights for Noncitizens
To: r_nunez_lawrence
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 8:08 AM

Racism Is Charged of Opponents of Voting Rights for Noncitizens
By GRACE RAUH, Staff Reporter of the Sun September 8, 2008

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/racism-is-charged-of-opponents-of-voting-rights/85345/

In advance of the 2009 citywide elections, a coalition of immigrant and advocacy organizations is reigniting a fight to give noncitizens the right to vote in municipal elections, drawing the ire of opponents who argue that voting is a right for American citizens only.

At a rally outside City Hall yesterday organized by the New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights, supporters of a City Council bill that would extend voting rights to 1.3 million noncitizen New Yorkers said it's unfair that immigrant residents pay more than $18 billion in state income taxes when they can't vote for their representatives. The group is planning to pressure elected officials to back the legislation, which has been on file for more than two years but hasn't moved forward.

A supporter of the bill, Council Member Robert Jackson of Harlem, said in his district alone there are about 40,000 people who are paying taxes and don't have the right to vote. He said the coalition needed to publicize the position of every council member on the proposal and the reasons for their stances.

He suggested that those opposed to giving noncitizens the right to vote might be motivated by racism, and noted that in the early years of American history noncitizens were allowed to vote. That ended after World War I.

"This was the law in the United States of America for many, many years and why don't they support it now? Is it what somebody said earlier — because if you look at the skin complexion of the immigrants now they are mainly people of color versus 100 years ago, when they mainly were white," he said. "These are questions that people have to start asking."

The question of whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote has surfaced in the city within the past few years, but has never gained sufficient momentum among the city's elected officials. Supporters of the plan said yesterday that they aim to capitalize on the attention that will be paid to the 2009 municipal elections, when every citywide office will be up for grabs, as well as 36 council seats.

Noncitizens in New York with children in public school had been allowed to vote in school board elections until the boards were abolished in 2002.
Any campaign to extend voting rights to noncitizens would be expected to face fierce opposition from the mayor and other council members who have held back their support from the bill.

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stuart Loeser, wrote in an e-mail message yesterday that the mayor "is superlatively pro-immigration and vehemently disagrees with those who demonize immigrants to score cheap points, but he believes just as strongly that the right to vote is a privilege and a responsibility for citizens only."

The Republican leader of the council, James Oddo of Staten Island, said it's a ridiculous idea to allow noncitizens to vote, and that supporters of the council bill should be using their energy to help noncitizens become citizens.
"Citizenship is a privilege that gives birth to certain rights and included in that is the ability to vote in these elections," he said. Mr. Oddo said he'd rather focus on "aggressively weeding out" the noncitizens who have registered to vote.

"To me, that's unacceptable," he said.

=============================================
=============================================

Commentary by J. Reyes-Montblanc

I find it alarming and offensive that serious people are so confused as to what constitute civil rights and even more so about what is racism.

As a foreign-born American I am offended and feel dishonored by the attempts to give non-citizens the vote.

I came to United States with a permanent resident visa, I served honorably in the US Marine Corps and obtained my citizenship in one of the proudest moments of my life.

The efforts to equate legal resident and illegal aliens to be the same kind of immigrants is in and by itself obsene and un-american. The efforts to grant voting rights to non-citizens is an outrage.

The day that "citizenship" becomes irrelevant is the the day when Americans will cease to be Americans. Beign an American is a state of mind: learn our national language English; learn the history of our country and make it part of your experiences; say in your heart and mind "I am American and the American people are my people" It does not take anything away on the contrary it adds to your personality and being without losing your basic identity.

Most of all the legal residents who are non-citizens qualify for US citizenship but do not accept it as they do not really intend to become one of the many but want their cake and eat it too. Illegal aliens should not be consider in any way as equal to legal immigrants for a basic concept of "common law" is that an illegal cannot result in a legal benefit, something that the "progressives" promoting these ideas do not recognize.

No one who is not a citizen of the United States has the right to vote regardless of how much taxes they suppossedly pay to the municipality, the state or Federal governments.

Instead of this travesty of giving the vote to non-citizens efforts should go into encouraging and facilitating their becoming US Citizens the same as untold millions of other, me included, have done through the years.

I beesech those elected officials, many of them personal friends of mine to cease and desist and rethink the objective which is to encourage those qualified to become US Citizens.

When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder

2008-09-07T17:09:00.003-04:00

From Today's Times

Sunday, September 7, 2008 12:12 PM

From:

This sender is DomainKeys verified

"Ruth Eisenberg"

View contact details

To:

"Jordi Reyes-Montblanc" , "Kent, Edward "

Message contains attachments

07unbox.xxlarge1.jpg (44KB), article-sponsor.gif (444b),choke_88x31.gif (3KB)

UNBOXED

When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder

James Yang

By JANET RAE-DUPREE

Published: September 6, 2008

“It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development” and “to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities.”

— The Bayh-Dole Act, a k a the University Small Business Patent Procedures Act

THE law of unintended consequences is perhaps less a “law” than a simple statement of fact: We cannot accurately predict all the results of our actions. We may do something with the best of intentions, and sometimes even accomplish the good toward which we aim. Yet, at the same time, we are all too often surprised by results that didn’t occur to us beforehand.

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 started out with the best of intentions. By clearing away the thicket of conflicting rules and regulations at various federal agencies, it set out to encourage universities to patent and license results of federally financed research. For the first time, academicians were able to profit personally from the market transfer of their work. For the first time, academia could be powered as much by a profit motive as by the psychic reward of new discovery.

University “tech transfer” offices have boomed from a couple dozen before the law’s passage to nearly 300 today. University patents have leapt a hundredfold. Professors are stepping away from the lab and lecture hall to navigate the thicket of venture capital, business regulations and commercial competition.

None of these are necessarily negative outcomes. But more than a quarter-century after President Jimmy Carter signed it into law, the Bayh-Dole Act, sponsored by the former Senators Birch Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, and Robert Dole, Republican of Kansas, is under increasing scrutiny by swelling ranks of critics. The primary concern is that its original intent — to infuse the American marketplace with the fruits of academic innovation — has also distorted the fundamental mission of universities.

In the past, discovery for its own sake provided academic motivation, but today’s universities function more like corporate research laboratories. Rather than freely sharing techniques and results, researchers increasingly keep new findings under wraps to maintain a competitive edge. What used to be peer-reviewed is now proprietary. “Share and share alike” has devolved into “every laboratory for itself.”

In trying to power the innovation economy, we have turned America’s universities into cutthroat business competitors, zealously guarding the very innovations we so desperately want behind a hopelessly tangled web of patents and royalty licenses.

Of course, there is precedent for scientific secrecy, notes Daniel S. Greenberg , author of “Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism” (University of Chicago Press, 2007). When James Watson and Francis Crick were homing in on DNA’s double-helix structure in the 1950s, they zealously guarded their work from prying eyes until they could publish their findings, to be certain that they would get the credit for making the discovery.

“They didn’t try to patent it,” Mr. Greenberg notes, “but somebody doing the same work today would certainly take a crack at patenting the double helix.”

In fact, it was the life sciences — in particular, biotechnology — that started universities down the slippery commercial slope in the first place. Even before the Bayh-Dole Act, pharmaceutical companies were eagerly trolling campuses, looking for projects to finance. After the law was passed, they stepped up their efforts, but now with renewed zeal for keeping potential trade secrets from competitors.

While patients have benefited from the growing supply of new medications, the universities have obtained patents not only for the actual substances but also for the processes and methods used to make them, potentially hampering discovery of even more beneficial treatments.

“Bayh-Dole tore down the taboos that existed against universities engaging in overtly commercial activity. Universities really thought that they were going to make it rich,” said Jennifer Washburn, author of “University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education” (Basic Books, 2005). “Each school was convinced that if they came up with that one blockbuster invention, they could solve all their financial problems.”

Ms. Washburn says that was “extremely wrong-headed.” Initially reacting to the law by slapping patents on every possible innovation, universities quickly discovered that patents were an expensive proposition. The fees and legal costs involved in obtaining a single patent can run upward of $15,000, and that doesn’t count the salaries of administrative staff members. Instead of bringing home the bacon, university tech transfer offices were throwing money into the void with little hope of returns.

To date, Ms. Washburn says, data gathered by the Association of University Technology Managers, a trade group, show that fewer than half of the 300 research universities actively seeking patents have managed to break even from technology transfer efforts. Instead, two-thirds of the revenue tracked by the association has gone to only 13 institutions.

Part of the problem has been a lingering misunderstanding about where the value lies in innovation. Patenting a new basic science technique, or platform technology, puts it out of the reach of graduate students who might have made tremendous progress using it.

Similarly, exclusive licensing of a discovery to a single company thwarts that innovation’s use in any number of other fields. R. Stanley Williams, a nanotechnologist from Hewlett-Packard, testified to Congress in 2002 that much of the academic research to which H.P. has had difficulty gaining access could be licensed to several companies without eroding its intellectual property value.

“Severe disagreements have arisen over conflicting interpretations of the Bayh-Dole Act,” he said. “Large U.S.-based corporations have become so disheartened and disgusted with the situation, they are now working with foreign universities, especially the elite institutions in France, Russia and China.”

THE issue is further clouded by “reach through” licenses, complex arrangements used by many tech transfer offices. A reach-through lets the patent holder claim a share of any profits that result from using, say, an enabling technology, even if those profits come several steps down the market transfer line. Several universities are already embroiled in messy lawsuits trying to sort out who is entitled to what.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of campus commercialization is that research decisions are now being based on possible profits, not on the inherent value of knowledge. “Blue sky” research — the kind of basic experimentation that leads to a greater understanding of how the world works — has largely been set aside in favor of projects considered to have more immediate market potential.

In academia’s continuing pursuit of profit, the wonder of simple serendipitous discovery has been left on the curb.

Janet Rae-Dupree writes about science and emerging technology in Silicon Valley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html

CB9M PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE on theProposed Columbia University Educational Mixed Use Development Project (Manhattanville Expansion) and on the Neighbor

2008-09-05T20:03:00.003-04:00

To: Board Members/Community Residents
From: Hon. Patricia Jones, Chair
Date: September 5, 2008
Re: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

MEMO

Manhattan Community Board No. 9 will be holding a Public Hearing on theProposed Columbia University Educational Mixed Use Development Project (Manhattanville Expansion) and on the Neighborhood Conditions Studies commissioned by ESDC...

Please find the following documents attached for your review.

1]. Public Hearing Notice;
2]. Community Board 9 Residents and Stakeholders Notice;
3]. Chair's Remarks to ESDC's Public Hearing;

All Community Board Members and Residents are encouraged to attend. Also written and oral testimony will be accepted.

Thank you,

Patricia Jones, Chair

To: Community Board 9 Residents and Stakeholders:

As you may be aware, the Columbia University proposed expansion plan is currently under review by New York State - specifically the Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”). ESDC conducted public hearings on September 2, 2008 and September 4, 2008.

Community Board No. 9 testified at these hearings. In addition, CB9 will be submitting written comments, which are due on October 10, 2008. In order to ensure that the Board’s written response reflects the breadth of CB9 residents and stakeholders, we are conducting a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 beginning at 6:30 P.M. The transcript of this hearing will be included with CB9’s written comments.

THE FOLLOWING BACKGROUND HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE ESDC COLUMBIA-MANHATTANVILLE GENERAL PROJECT PLAN.

What area is encompassed by the project?

The proposed Project is located in the Manhattanville neighborhood of West Harlem in northern Manhattan, on an approximately 17-acre site, the principal portion of which is bounded by West 125th Street on the south, West 133rd Street on the north, Broadway on the east and Twelfth Avenue on the west, as well as certain areas located beneath City streets within this area and beneath other City streets in the Project Site. The remaining portion of the Project Site consists of an area which is bounded by Broadway on the west, West 133rd and West 134th Streets on the south and north, respectively, and a line between West 133rd and West 134th Streets approximately 200 feet east of Broadway, along with an irregularly-shaped block enclosed by and including Broadway on the west, Old Broadway on the east, West 131st Street on the south and West 133rd Street on the north.

What is being proposed?

The Project consists of the development of an expanded campus for Columbia University. The new campus would comprise a total of approximately 6.8 million gross square feet of new, state-of-the-art facilities housed in up to 16 new buildings and in an adaptively reused existing building that would be used primarily for teaching facilities, academic research, Columbia housing, and recreational and open active ground floor uses. Approximately 2 million gross square feet of the Project total would be developed as a continuous, multi-level, below-grade facility of up to approximately 80 feet in depth which would be used for activities that support the academic, academic research, housing, recreation and teaching programs of Columbia and other occupants of the Project Site. The Below-Grade Facility would extend in part below City owned streets, and would connect most of the buildings on the principal portion of the Project Site. In addition, approximately two acres (94,000 square feet) of publicly accessible, grade-level, open space and a market zone along Twelfth Avenue would be created, and sidewalks would be widened. Build out of the Project is anticipated to occur in two phases over an approximately 25-year period.

What benefits will this bring to the area?

The Project would: (i) maintain and improve the status of the City and State of New York as centers for higher education and scientific research, (ii) eliminate an underutilized urban landscape in order to accommodate new educational facilities with open areas accessible to the local community, (iii) create new, permanent jobs in the community and thereby help preserve Columbia’s position as the seventh largest private employer in the City, (iv) further scientific research into neurological ailments and other diseases, (v) expand the number of affordable housing units in proximity to the Project Site; (vi) provide tangible community benefits in terms of new publicly accessible, park-like open spaces, recreational opportunities and other civic amenities; and (vii) improve connection from 125th Street to the West Harlem Piers Park.

What properties are subject to acquisition?

The General Project Plan contemplates that ESDC would assist Columbia in assembling the Project Site through exercise of its statutory powers under the UDC Act, including the power of eminent domain. If authorized by the Directors after this public hearing and their consideration of the comments on the General Project Plan and the proposed acquisitions, any acquisitions by ESDC would be considered in stages as necessary or appropriate in ESDC’s discretion to carry out the development of the Project. Initially, ESDC would acquire certain properties and property interests needed for the first ten-year phase of the Project’s development, including, subsurface interests underlying and adjacent to City streets within the Project Site which are needed for tie backs and supports and for the construction, maintenance and development of the Below-Grade Facility beneath West 130th, West 131st, and West 132nd Streets. Later, to facilitate the Project’s second phase of development, ESDC would consider the exercise of its power of eminent domain to acquire any remaining property interests on or in the Project Site as may be necessary.

Will residential properties be subject to acquisition?

ESDC would not use its eminent domain power to acquire the seven residential properties on the Project Site while they remain occupied by residential tenants.

The General Project Plan states “ESDC would not use its eminent domain power to acquire possession of any legal residential unit prior to 2018.”

Copies of the General Project Plan and the Neighborhood Conditions Studies are available at the ESDC web site at http://www.nylovesbiz.com/Columbia. A copy of the General Project Plan can also be read at the offices of Community Board No. 9 located at 16-18 Old Broadway (between 125th and 126th Streets).

J. Reyes-Montblanc Before the Empire State Development Corporation Public Hearing on Columbia University Expansion and Eminent Domain 4Sep08

2008-09-04T14:46:00.004-04:00

The HDFC Council
601 West 136th Street, Suite 1, New York, NY 10031-8101
Tel: (212) 922-6425 Fax: 212-926-1765
E-mail: Reysmont@HDFCCentral.org
Forum: http://forums.prospero.com/HDFCCentral/start
Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, President

J. Reyes-Montblanc

Before

The Empire State Development Corporation
Public Hearing
Columbia Expansion, Blight Studies and Eminent Domain

September 4th, 2008

Good afternoon, my name is Jordi Reyes-Montblanc and I am the President of the HDFC Council a City-wide association of Housing Development Fund Cooperatives for persons of low and middle income. Within Community District 9 there are not less that 140 HDFC Cooperatives and over 30 Tenant Interim Lease buildings that will become HDFC Cooperatives in the next several years. The HDFCs represent the largest number of home owners, property tax payers and whose financial impact in the District’s exceeds $15 million a year.

As the major stakeholders in the whole area of West Harlem, from West 110th Street to West 155th Street and from a line that includes, Manhattan Ave., Morningside Ave., St. Nicholas Ave., Bradhurst Ave., the west at 145th Street follows Edgecombe Ave., to West 155th Street then West to the Hudson River, we want to express our position regarding these proceedings.

The General Project Plan is flawed as already testify by many locals including the Chairwoman of Community Board 9, and many others so I will not bore myself or you by repeating what has already been said so loquaciously by others.

Regarding the Neighborhood Conditions Studies upon which the ESDC has declared the West Manhattanville area as “Blighted” we believe it to be a total fabrication, purposely done to satisfy the University of Columbia’s ambitions and not for the good of the Community, or the City.

The invocation of Eminent Domain for the benefit of a private, well endowed institution is obscene in and by itself. Applying Eminent Domain to privately owned property of any kind seems to go against everything this Country stands for and most definitely against the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers who considered private property as sacrosanct.

The use of Eminent Domain on residential buildings two of which are Tenant Interim Lease buildings that will become HDFC Cooperatives, is a particular odious action bordering on the criminal not to mention immoral.

Where is the much vaulted institutional integrity and honor when it proceeds in this fashion?
Sincerely,

[Signed]
J. Reyes-Montblanc
President

Columbia University Has No Right to My Land

2008-09-03T16:01:00.002-04:00

Columbia University Has No Right to My Land
By NICK SPRAYREGENSeptember 3, 2008; Page A21

In the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government is permitted to take private property only for "public use."

This clause was once limited to true public projects such as the construction of highways, fire houses and public libraries. But over the last 50 years it has been bastardized by the powerful (in collusion with compliant politicians and the acquiescence of the courts) into a weapon used routinely to forcibly take other people's property for nonpublic uses. What is occurring in West Harlem today is a prime example of this abuse.

Columbia University , a private institution, officially announced its desire for a new campus five years ago. The university zeroed in on the Manhattanville area of Harlem -- between 125th and 134th Streets, and between Broadway and the Hudson River . Since that time, while wielding the sledgehammer of the possible use of eminent domain, Columbia has purchased roughly 80% of Manhattanville.

My family has owned for almost 30 years four commercial Manhattanville properties. We run a self-storage business, plus we lease to various large retailers such as a discount store and a supermarket. For over four years we have been fighting the state and Columbia in their joint attempts to condemn my properties for the school's expansion.

This week, the board of directors of the state agency threatening the condemnation -- the Empire State Development Corporation -- will hold two legally required public hearings, ostensibly to give the public a chance to be "heard." I believe that this is merely perfunctory.

Under New York state law, in order to condemn property the state first has to undertake a "neighborhood conditions study" and declare the area in question "blighted." Earlier this summer the state released its study, which concluded that Manhattanville is indeed "blighted."

This gives the state the legal green light to condemn my four buildings and hand them over to the university.

The study's conclusion was unsurprising. Since the commencement of acquisitions in Manhattanville by Columbia , the school has made a solid effort to create the appearance of "blight." Once active buildings became vacant as Columbia either refused to renew leases, pressured small businesses to vacate, or made unreasonable demands that resulted in the businesses moving elsewhere. Columbia also let their holdings decay and left code violations unaddressed.

Only a few years ago, this area was undergoing a resurgence. Virtually all property was occupied, many by long-standing family operations such as my own. Now most of those businesses are gone -- forced out by the university. Still, Columbia has not been able to freeze all positive change in the neighborhood. Just in the past few years, three upscale restaurants have opened here. They seem to be thriving.

There is also a conflict of interest in the condemnation process. The firm the state hired to perform the "impartial" blight study -- the planning, engineering and environmental consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) -- had been retained by Columbia two years earlier to advocate for governmental approval of the university's expansion, including the possible use of eminent domain.

When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York , and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia 's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years.

Another problem is that in New York , the precise definition of what is blighted is nowhere to be found. It is virtually impossible to defend oneself from something that is not properly defined.

I am still denied access to documents with facts surrounding the Columbia expansion plan, asked for through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. I filed 12 different FOIL requests and have gone to court four times. The courts have now twice ruled that it was improper for the state to refuse to hand over all communication between it and AKRF.

Still, I look forward to my day in court. I am cautiously optimistic that it will expose as unconstitutional what Columbia and the state are attempting to do.

Mr. Sprayregen is the president of Tuck-It-Away, a West Harlem based self-storage company.

REMARKS OF PATRICIA A. JONES, CHAIRPERSON CB9M Before Empire State Development Corporation Public Hearing on Eminent Domain

2008-09-02T20:46:00.001-04:00

EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
COLUMBIA MANHATTANVILLE EXPANSION
PUBLIC HEARING
REMARKS OF PATRICIA A. JONES, CHAIRPERSON
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD NO. 9
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2008

Good evening. My name is Patricia Jones and I am the Chair of Manhattan Community Board 9.

On August 20, 2007, Community Board 9 voted to oppose Columbia University’s proposed expansion into Manhattanville unless certain changes to proposal were made. Among other important items, changes required were the withdrawal of the proposed use of Eminent Domain along with a binding commitment that Columbia build only on property owned by the University and obtained through negotiations with owners without coercion and without the threat of Eminent Domain AND the withdrawal of the proposed below grade structure.

Today, September 2, 2008 – almost one year later – on behalf of Manhattan Community Board 9, I have no choice but to continue to oppose Columbia University’s project plan.

The use of Eminent Domain or even it threat cannot be tolerated. We support any owner of properties that refuses to sell and stand with them against Eminent Domain for the benefit of any private entity.

Ratification of the General Project Plan in its current form eliminates any credible expectation of fair and balanced negotiations between property owners and the University.

Further, we object to the language in the General Project Plan regarding the use of ESDC’s Eminent Domain power as it relates to the seven residential properties described in Section H2 – specifically, “ESDC would not use its Eminent Domain power to acquire possession of any legal residential unit prior to 2018.” The commitment that ESDC will not use its Eminent Domain power to acquire such resident units at any time must be unequivocal and subject to no deadline.

It is stated that ESDC’s Directors would not take final action on the GPP unless and until ESDC has made findings in accordance with SEQRA and other applicable laws. CB9 continues to take the position that a key flaw in the CU plan is the proposal to create what is called the Below Grade Service Area – or the Bathtub – a key driver of the need to invoke the State’s use of Eminent Domain. The resolution of engineering issues associated with flooding and earthquake risks must not be “theoretical” in nature where our Community may be at risk. Requests that questions of how the Bathtub would be engineered, the cost of the Bathtub, even whether it is even economically feasible, whether the Bathtub would be engineered in a manner that would adequately protect it and the surrounding neighborhood from earthquakes and storm surges have yet to be answered. Narrow legal interpretations provide no protection to our Community.

Clearly the time allotted does not provide us with the opportunity to explore the host of concerns we continue to express.

Therefore, the Community Board will be submitting more detailed written comments on these and other elements of the General Project Plan, as well as the Neighborhood Conditions Studies.

We expect that these elements will include, but not be limited to: 1) environmental issues; 2) displacement of long-time residents; AND the preferred benefits of implementation of a CU expansion consistent with CB9’s 197-a Plan.

Additionally, we will provide comments on the various benefit initiatives outlined in the GPP. It will likely never be possible to quantify a satisfactory value of benefits that will justify the claim of “public good.” Further, the expiration of the majority of these benefits is 2033 – the expected completion of Phase II. It is a clear indication that the University is not looking to forge a true partnership with the Community for the duration of its existence in Manhattanville. We will accept that Columbia’s faculty, students and employees are “extraordinary people” as earlier stated,

PROVIDED the University cedes that the existing residents and property owners in Manhattanville, as well as West Harlem as a whole, are as well “extraordinary” and their value, contributions and desires must similarly be respected.

The Community Board will be conducting a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 16th at 6:30 PM at the Fortune Society located at 140th Street and Riverside Drive to ensure that the Board’s comments are as comprehensive and inclusive of our Board members’ and Community District 9 residents’ views and concerns.

Thank-you.

Montefiori Park CCNY proposed Plaza

2008-08-19T12:39:00.008-04:00

Montefiori Park CCNY proposed Plaza

By J. Reyes-Montblanc

My Notes on the Meeting of the Montefiori Park Neighborhood Association Quarterly Meeting 19 August 2008 8:00 PM at Dorothy Day Housing. (Revised 21Aug08)

Last night at 8:00 PM over 30 locals and 30 Precinct Commander Dep. Insp. Scott Shanley and staff with Manhattan North Chief Raymond Diaz were hosted by Mrs. Alida Palma the President & Founder of the Montefiori Park Neighborhood Association that for the last 14 years has cared for the park and the whole of Hamilton Square Broadway Malls from West 135th Street to West 138th Street. I attended representing the HDFC Council and also addressed some question about CB9M.

In attendance were also representatives from City College Architectural Center and Tom Lunke from HCEDC who is guiding and coordinating the current and future players in a Project to convert the Park into a Plaza based on grant from the NYC Dept. of Transportation for creating open spaces in communities that lack enough open areas. Community District 9 Manhattan that covers from West 110th St. to West 155th Street from the Hudson River to a rough line from Edgecombe/Bradhurst/St. Nicholas/Morningside/Manhattan Avenues includes the most parkland than any other Community District in Manhattan except for CD12M that extends north from West 155th Street.

The project concept presented has been presented at CB9M Executive Committee last month and although interest in improvement to the Park are certainly welcome the conceptual closing of Hamilton Place and elimination of nearly 40 parking spaces has been strongly objected at Both CB9 and at last night's meeting although similarly the expression for the need to improve the Park particularly the lights and night security were strongly expressed

Tom Lunke explained that this is only a concept and that community planning as promoted by CB9M will be followed giving the community plenty of opportunity to comment and participate in the design however as there was a deadline of August 18th CCNY in partnership with Heritage Health & Housing, a well known and highly respected community based not-for-profit will certainly go a long way to reduce the community's mistrust of CCNY as an institution that has not been very community friendly and only in the last year of so has made so efforts to open dialogue with CB9M and the community.

In general those present were enthusiastic about something being done although the concept presented was found to be flawed and unacceptable in its present configuration but with the understanding that CB9M and the local community will have a say in the project's design, the project may yet fly if DofT selects the proposal. However NYC Parks that owns and manages Montefiori Park has not been contacted by the principals of the project something they promise to take care sooner rather than later, particularly contact will be made with Manhattan Parks Commissioner Bill Castro.

The 30th Precinct provided the crimes statistics for the District that show an over all drop of 11%. Concerns were expressed by residents of various quality of life persistent problems, uncollected dog poop by the dog-owners seems to be increasing; deliverymen on bicycles running on the sidewalk endangering pedestrians; un-leased dogs particularly pit bulls continue to be a problem; noise after 11:00PM continues to be problem as it is the congregation of youths in front of buildings until the wee hours, making noise, eating and dropping the scraps and plates for the buildings to clean up or get fined by Sanitation.

Local residents of West 135th and Riverside Dr complained about the cars transiting on Riverside at high speed and turning at West 135th at high speed the 30th Precinct agreed to observe the location.

Mention was made of the parked cars vandalism on Riverside Dr Dept Inspector Shanley advises that there has been a reduction on this sort of vandalism that seems to peak out every so often, no arrest have been possible yet but the 30th is keeping an eye on the area.

Strong concerns by residents of West 136th Street near Amsterdam about the noise emanating from Jacob Schiff Park night games that sometimes extend past midnight and the use of loudspeakers at maximum volume assaults residents in their home. Commander Shanley will speak to Parks about the permits issued for night games as most permits run out by 9 PM.

Another similar strong concern was expressed by residents along Broadway on Hamilton Square (West 136th Street to West 138th Street) is the taking over of the Montefiori Park by preachers with extreme loudspeaker arrays the sound physically invading the apartments up to two blocks away, depriving the residents of the quiet enjoyment of their residences as the NYC Laws guarantee. Apparently Sundays afternoon seems to be particularly objectionable however the same thing happens sporadically during week days.

The residents asked to 30th Precinct to pay particular attention to these quality of life offenses.

Several people were referred to CB9M Uniform Services & Transportation Committee that meets the first Thursday of every month except July and August, at 6:30 PM at the CB9M offices at 18 Old Broadway.

Great concerns were expressed about working women walking home being followed by unknown men without any reason - warnings were given to be very much aware of the surrounding areas before opening the doors to a building and if threatened to take evasive action looking for neighbors, friends for immediate assistance and to call 911.

--Posted By Gray Wolf-6 to Gray Wolf's Howl at 8/19/2008 12:39:00 PM

At Harlem’s Heart, an Enigmatic Neighborhood

2008-08-15T14:11:00.000-04:00

Real Estate

Living In Manhattanville
At Harlem’s Heart, an Enigmatic Neighborhood

Andrew Henderson/The New York Times
WITH PARKING Fairway, tucked under the viaduct at 131st Street, is one attraction of Manhattanville.

By DEBORAH BALDWIN
Published: August 15, 2008

These days, some residents are disquieted by Columbia University’s plans to absorb a chunk of the area into its campus. More Photos >

STEP off the elevated subway at the center of Manhattanville and you may wonder if there’s really a there there. The view from the station above 125th Street and Broadway can be disorienting: no little shops and bodegas to say, “This is it.” What you see instead are warehouses, bus depots and factories, as well as unmarked towers and a crosshatch of diagonal streets more reminiscent of the West Village. Yet there’s something slightly magical about the way hills rise up around the area. A recent group exhibition of photographs dedicated to Manhattanville characterized its haunting mix of low-lying back streets, vaulted overpasses, vintage churches and riverfront as “strange, unresolved or unsettling.”

Skip to next paragraph
Community Profile More Living In Columns
Multimedia
Slide Show
Living in Manhattanville, New York

On the Market
Map

No wonder few people agree on its future — or even, for that matter, whether it exists in the first place. “I’ve considered the whole area Harlem,” said Sarah Martin, who has lived in the Grant Houses complex in Manhattanville since 1957, voicing the dismissive sentiment of some longtime residents.

Others say you hear the name these days mainly because it’s attached to the controversial plan by Columbia University to transform 17 acres of Manhattanville into an extended campus.
But there is a there there, insists Eric K. Washington, the author of “Manhattanville: Old Heart of West Harlem.”

“It’s not a neighborhood that you walk through and all of a sudden you’ve stepped into a Jane Austen novel,” Mr. Washington said. “But it does have a quality of intrigue. It seems to whisper to you, ‘Boy, have I got stories.’ ”

He described how it was incorporated as a village in 1806, straddling two thoroughfares now known as Broadway and 125th, its streets laid out old-style, pregrid. Some east-west streets still hold onto names like Tiemann Place — “a real cabbie-stumper,” said Mr. Washington, who lived on it for 20 years.

The 2000 census counted roughly 39,000 residents, 51 percent Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 32 percent non-Hispanic black and 10 percent white.

Many more people simply pass through, to shop at the sprawling Fairway supermarket on West 131st, line up with the crowds at Dinosaur-Bar-B-Que on 12th Avenue, and rubberneck at the film crews that set up under the arches of the Riverside Drive overpass.

With more warehouses than town houses, it’s an area that real estate agents like to redraw as part of higher-profile neighborhoods, as if tugging on the corners of a Google map. Though upscale condominiums occasionally come onto the market, the pickings are slim, according to Sidney Whelan, a sales associate at Halstead Property.

You can hardly blame people for trying to live there, though. West Harlem Piers Park opened this summer near Fairway; there’s a bike path along the river and a strip of hot new watering holes just up 12th Avenue; and the Henry Hudson Parkway is right there, offering a quick route upstate. And where else would a doll factory face an auto-body shop, or a renovated commercial space called the Mink Building — rich people’s furs used to summer there — sit opposite a live poultry shop?

WHAT YOU’LL FIND

For an area so small — 122nd to 135th Streets, from the Hudson River to St. Nicholas and Manhattan Avenues — Manhattanville covers a lot of psychogeographical ground. West 125th, home to the Cotton Club, feels like Harlem, while the southwest corner is oriented toward Riverside Park, where “you can stand at the top of the hill and see the George Washington Bridge,” said Linda Mahoney, who lives on Tiemann Place.

Farther north, on Broadway, you pick up a Dominican flavor. “It’s always been polyglot, unlike Harlem,” Mr. Washington said. “It forces you to rethink where you’re visiting — it’s a bit more complex.”

Today’s multiethnic mosaic includes Latinos who don’t speak Spanish and Middle Easterners who do, said Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, a member of the local community board who has lived on West 136th since 1964. Holding it together, he says, is not only tolerance but also the residual glue that brought the community together in the 1990s to fight a common enemy: the drug lords who ruled northern Manhattanville’s streets.

By 2005, the dealers retreated indoors, he said. He credits not only a police crackdown but also newcomers determined to make the area their home. One of them was Judith Matloff, who lives a few blocks north of Manhattanville and has written a pungent memoir, “Home Girl,” about her family’s 2000 purchase of a dilapidated house on a block then ruled by Dominican dealers.

Ms. Matloff paused during a recent walk around the area to stare at movers unloading a mattress — a once-popular way to transfer cocaine, she noted. Then she rallied, heading toward Broadway and its signs of a gradual upswing. “Ray’s Wines and Liquors is having wine tastings,” she said wryly. “Gallo tastings — behind bulletproof glass.”

Critics of Columbia’s plans say these signs of revitalization seem natural and organic, in contrast to the university’s buy-and-hold approach. “Even before a shovel has been dropped in the ground, the expansion has caused disruption and a sense of impending loss,” said Tom DeMott of the Coalition to Preserve Community.

Robert Kasdin, Columbia’s senior executive vice president, argued that rather than disrupt the area, redevelopment would improve its infrastructure. He said the university had taken steps to help preserve and develop housing.

There isn’t a vast stock right now; apart from plentiful student and public housing, inventory is negligible. But for those who qualify, the public housing comes in the form of “H.D.F.C. co-ops,” referring to the Housing Development Fund Corporation — some in stately prewar buildings. Created after the landlord flight of the 1970s, when tenants bought their buildings from the city, these co-ops have buyer income restrictions and caps on sale prices.

Christa Myers, who lives in an H.D.F.C. building near Convent Avenue and 129th Street and is buying a two-bedroom apartment there, said she was drawn to the building because it was on a quiet block in “a neighborhood that is getting nicer and nicer.”

“I will say, having been raised in Harlem and seeing gentrification, I have mixed feelings,” Ms. Myers said. “I’m an alumna of Columbia, and I love my alma mater,” but the growth will take place “at the expense of some people.”

WHAT YOU’LL PAY

A condo in a former warehouse on St. Nicholas Avenue near West 123rd recently sold for more than $1 million. Such properties are relatively rare.

The going price for co-ops is about $700 a square foot, said Patty LaRocco, a Prudential Douglas Elliman senior vice president.

Bellmarc Realty is offering a 1,000-square-foot two-bedroom at 501 West 122nd at $750,000, and Willie Kathryn Suggs, the well-known Harlem broker, valued an apartment she will be listing on Riverside Drive, overlooking the Hudson, at $800 a square foot.

For those who qualify and do not mind purchase and sales curbs, H.D.F.C. co-ops often go for less than $100,000. (See nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/developers/til.shtml.)

Renters should expect to pay up to $2,500 a month for a two-bedroom two-bath apartment, and $1,900 to $2,100 for a one-bedroom, Mr. Whelan said.

THE SCHOOLS

At the Mott Hall School, serving Grades 4 through 8, 93.9 percent of eighth graders showed proficiency in English and 98 percent in math, versus 43 percent and 60 percent citywide. At Kipp Infinity Charter School, serving Grades 5 through 7, 98.5 percent of the seventh graders showed proficiency in English, and 100 percent in math. At the Kipp Star College Prep School, serving Grades 5 through 8, 54 percent of the eighth graders showed proficiency in English, 95.3 percent in math.

The High School for Mathematics, Science and Engineering at City College, which admits by test only, reported 2007 SAT averages of 576 in reading, 627 in math and 551 in writing, versus 441, 462 and 433 citywide.

WHAT TO DO

West Harlem Piers Park extends from West 125th to 132nd Street.

Fairway opened on West 131st Street in 1995. When asked why there, the owner, Howard Glickberg, said, “There aren’t many places in Manhattan where you can have 40,000 square feet of selling area and a parking lot also.” How true. Don’t miss the meat section, which fills an entire refrigerated room.

Just north on 12th Avenue are the Hudson River Cafe at West 133rd Street and a restaurant row at West 135th.

THE COMMUTE

Midtown is a quick subway ride from the 1, 2 and 3 stop at 125th and Broadway. Switch to the express at 96th; you’ll get there in 15 minutes.

THE HISTORY

In the early 1800s, Manhattanville was a port village with a crooked main drag called Bloomingdale Road. In the early 1900s, Riverside Drive Viaduct went up, along with a subway line held aloft by Eiffel Tower-like arches, and the village became part of the city. The New York Times bemoaned the changes. “Quaint Landmarks in Manhattanville Passing Away for Modern Improvements,” read a headline in 1912.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/realestate/17livi.html

A version of this article appeared in print on August 17, 2008, on page RE8 of the New York edition.

A Debt Repaid, Marine Serves With Pride

2008-08-13T16:48:00.000-04:00

A Debt Repaid, Marine Serves With Pride
August 13, 2008

Marine Corps Newsby Cpl. Timothy T. Parish

-->
ABOARD USS PELELIU (LHA-5) — For some, the ticket to freedom is granted through

citizenship in the United States. The guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a birth-right passed from one generation to the next, a free admission into the land of the free and the home of the brave.

For others, like Lance Cpl. Eric Hirwa, freedom is the gift for an indomitable spirit. The desire to earn what is, for most other Americans, freely given. This is Hirwa’s story.

“I was born in Central Africa, in Rwanda. That’s where I was raised until I was fourteen-years-old. My childhood was very regular, raised in a happy family,” said Hirwa, an aircraft mechanic with Medium Marine Helicopter Squadron-165, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. “It was a simple life. I had everything I needed.”

Then, in the early 1990s, Rwanda began to disintegrate. The civil-war which ignited between separate Rwandan ethnic groups displaced hundreds of thousands and took nearly a million lives. This is the backdrop of Hirwa’s early life.

“That was a terrible time. I was a little boy. My family was a target because of what was happening at that time. It was a civil war, with two ethnic groups fighting each other,” said Hirwa.

According to Hirwa, in 1994 at the height of the mayhem in Rwanda, family connections with the American Embassy helped spare the lives of Hirwa and his family and many of his neighbors. This was Hirwa’s first interaction with the Few and the Proud.

“My family was in a bad situation, we were about to lose our lives, every one of us. American Marines who were on guard at the embassy came to my house and helped my family to escape,” Hirwa explained.

The rescuers were just on time, according to Hirwa. Facing constant threat and nearly starved, countless Rwandans found refuge in neighboring countries with help from Marine Corps Embassy Guards in Rwanda, Hirwa said.

“I don’t remember the Marine who picked me up, I didn’t understand any English then, but I knew when I saw them that I was saved,” said Hirwa. “At the time I was heading for three months with no food and no water. I was hungry and dirty, and he put me in a car in the Red Cross convoy and they said they were American Marines, and I knew they were my saviors.”
After being saved from Rwanda, Hirwa lost track of his family who had been evacuated on a separate Red Cross convoy. It would be years before they were reunited. This was Hirwa’s challenge.

As a young man in the Congo and then in Kenya, Hirwa joined the throngs of Rwandans displaced during the genocide living in refugee camps, according to Hirwa.

“My family, they kept going. They didn’t know if I was alive or dead. They kept going and went to another country,” said Hirwa.

Hirwa’s family, through connections with U.S. representatives, tried in vain to locate Hirwa. Unable to do so, they uprooted and left for the United States.

“They came to the U.S. before they knew where I was. By that time I was about to finish high school in Kenya and I used the Red Cross to track my family,” said Hirwa. “[In 2001] I came to be with my family in the U.S.”

A new immigrant, Hirwa dreamed of becoming an engineer. Learning English during a three-month course at a local school, Hirwa began studies at Wright State University in Ohio. He earned his degree in mechanical engineering and in 2006 decided to repay his adopted country through military service. This was Hirwa’s debt to pay.

“Not only did [the Marines] save me and my family, they also saved other people. As I grew up, I tried to know more about the Marines,” said Hirwa. “I kept doing my own thing, but I didn’t forget about what those people called Marines did for me.”

In Hirwa’s opinion, the Marine Corps offered the greatest chance to serve, given the tip of the spear nature of the Marines. With that, he began his quest to join the ranks of America’s 9-1-1 force in readiness.

“I said ‘I’m going to be a Marine.’ No one tried to recruit me, I just walked into the office and they said ‘Why do you want to be a Marine,’ and I said I have a reason. I have to pay back what they did for me,” said Hirwa. He began his service in October 2006 as a recruit at Parris Island, S.C.

After facing the challenges of surviving in Rwanda and as a displaced refugee, Hirwa is grateful for the chance to give back. For Hirwa, with his wife Pacifique at home in Dayton, Ohio, the road ahead is marked with self-set goals and challenges to succeed as a Marine. After his current deployment with the 15th MEU, Hirwa hopes to earn his commission and become a Marine officer. This is Hirwa’s dream.

No matter what obstacles come his way, Hirwa knows he can handle them both personally and professionally. His core beliefs, which drew him to the Marine Corps, have only strengthened because of his experiences. For Hirwa, the way to a better world lies in the spirit of young people who, like him, are willing give back in the name of freedom.

“Cherish liberty, freedom, happiness. It is a noble cause to fight for something you cherish, some things very important like freedom, democracy, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and many people will risk their lives for those things,” said Hirwa. “America is a country that promotes those values and we need young people who are tough, who have enough courage and the will to do that. We can help spread those values to the entire world.”

The Camp Pendleton, Calif. based 15th MEU is comprised of approximately 2,200 Marines and Sailors and is a forward deployed force in readiness capable of conducting numerous operations, such as Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations, Humanitarian Assistance Operations and a wide range of amphibious missions. The 15th MEU is currently deployed aboard the USS Peleliu (LHA-5), USS Dubuque (LPD-8) and USS Pearl Harbor (LSD-52).

http://www.military.com/news/article/marine-corps-news/a-debt-repaid-marine-serves-with-pride.html?ESRC=marine.nl

Housing Bill Has Something for Nearly Everyone

2008-07-25T11:11:00.003-04:00

Business

Your Money

Housing Bill Has Something for Nearly Everyone
By RON LIEBER
Published: July 25, 2008

If you are ignoring the housing bailout bill because you think it benefits only troubled homeowners, you may miss out on a windfall.
Skip to next paragraph

Related
Times Topics: Housing

The bill, expected to be passed by the Senate in the next few days and then signed by President Bush, does offer incentives to certain overextended borrowers and their mortgage lenders.
But it also includes many handouts to first-time homebuyers, longtime homeowners, returning veterans and senior citizens seeking to tap their home equity without getting hit with big fees. Millions of people have the potential to benefit in some way.

Huge numbers of people buying homes for the first time, for instance, will be eligible for what amounts to an interest-free loan from the government. Meanwhile, older Americans will now be able to borrow more and possibly pay less for reverse mortgages that allow them tap the equity in their homes.

Whether larding up the bill with all these benefits is good for taxpayers is a debate for another part of the newspaper. But there is no shame in taking advantage of what is offered. In fact, you would be foolish not to.

Here are some of the new benefits:

RENEGOTIATING MORTGAGES Part of the bill is devoted to the creation of a program that may allow some people to cancel their old mortgage loans and replace them with new fixed-rate loans lasting at least 30 years. The amount of the new loans would be no more than 90 percent of what their property is actually worth now.

So who is eligible? You need to have originated your troubled loan or loans on or before Jan. 1, 2008. The loans in question must be on your primary residence. Vacation homes and investment properties are ineligible. You will also need to verify your income, which many borrowers did not have to do in recent years.

Also, as of March 1, 2008, your monthly housing payment (including the principal on all your various mortgage payments, interest, taxes and insurance) has to have been at least 31 percent of your monthly household income. So if you were earning $5,000 a month and had housing payments of $3,000, you are eligible. But if you had payments of just $1,400, you would not be, presumably because that loan is affordable given the size of your income.

Lenders, however, are not required to give you a better deal under the new law, even if you do meet the qualifications. They may not be willing to negotiate unless they think you are truly on the cusp of foreclosure.

If you manage to get a new loan, you cannot take out a home equity loan for at least five years after you get the new mortgage. You will also have to pay a 1.5 percent fee each year on the remaining balance. Finally, you have to hand over no less than 50 percent of any appreciation on the home to the government once you sell. Sell the house in less than five years, and you will have to turn over as much as all of the gain.

This program ends on Sept. 30, 2011. While it does not officially take effect until Oct. 1, lenders may be willing to start their negotiations with borrowers now.

BREAK FOR FIRST-TIME BUYERS If you are buying a home for the first time, and it is your primary residence, you are eligible for a federal tax credit of $7,500 or 10 percent of the purchase price, whichever is smaller. With a tax credit, you subtract the credit amount from the total you would otherwise pay to the Internal Revenue Service. So if you owe $1,500 and you qualify for the credit, you would end up getting a $6,000 refund.

There are two big catches, though. If you earn a modified adjusted gross income of more than $75,000, or $150,000 if you are married and filing your tax return jointly, the credit starts to phase out. For single people, it phases out completely at $95,000 of annual income, while for married people filing jointly, it phases out at $170,000.

But you have to pay back the credit over the next 15 years, in equal amounts each year when you pay your federal taxes. That makes this more like an interest-free loan than a true credit. According to the National Association of Realtors, there were about 2.5 million first-time home buyers in 2007. A large proportion of them would have qualified for this credit, but whether it is enough to push would-be buyers over the edge this year remains to be seen.

The tax credit is retroactive to home purchases on April 9, 2008, and expires on July 1, 2009. If you purchase a home from Jan. 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, you can claim the tax credit on your 2008 tax return.

ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION If you are a homeowner who takes the standard deduction on your federal income taxes and does not itemize, this one is for you. You can now take an additional federal tax deduction of $500, or $1,000 if you are married and filing your tax returns jointly. Again, this one is gravy; you get it in addition to the standard deduction.

Since itemizers are often people who pay a lot of mortgage interest, this deduction will generally benefit people who pay little or none, like those who have paid off their mortgages entirely or close to it. There is one hitch here: you will need to report the property taxes you paid on your tax form. If they are less than $500 (or $1,000 if you are married and filing a joint return), your deduction will be limited to the amount of the property tax you paid.

REVERSE MORTGAGE CHANGES Reverse mortgages allow older Americans, generally 62 and older, to get a lump sum or a monthly check that comes out of their home equity. They do not have to pay the money back until they stop living there permanently or their heirs sell the house.

The problem with these loans, however, is that they often come with high fees. Moreover, some salespeople pressure borrowers who are applying for the loan to purchase annuities, long-term care insurance or other financial products that are not necessarily in the borrower’s best interest.

The bill tries to address both issues. First, it limits origination fees on reverse mortgages at 2 percent of any loan up to $200,000 and 1 percent beyond that, up to a maximum of $6,000.

The bill also states explicitly that borrowers cannot be forced to purchase an annuity or other financial or insurance product as a condition of qualifying for a reverse mortgage.

Finally, the bill raises the maximum amount that people can borrow. Before, the limits were set on a county by county basis, according to AARP’s legislative policy director, David Certner. The biggest allowable mortgage available anywhere was just over $400,000. Now, there is a nationwide cap of $625,500.

REDEFINITION OF JUMBO LOANS Often, if you want the mortgage loan with the lowest possible interest rate, it has to be small enough to be purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac from whatever bank or other institution originated it.

Under the new bill, Fannie and Freddie have permanent authority to buy bigger loans in areas with high housing costs. (Temporary measures allow them to buy bigger loans, but those expire on Dec. 31.) They can buy loans up to 115 percent of the local median home price, though they cannot buy any loans larger than $625,500. Any larger loan will generally be a jumbo loan, which will cost more in interest.

A BREAK FOR VETERANS Lenders will have to wait nine months, instead of 90 days, before beginning foreclosure proceedings on homes owned by someone returning from the military. Lenders must also wait a year before raising interest rates on a mortgage held by someone returning from military service.

These provisions expire on Dec. 31, 2010.

Is your lender negotiating? Tell all to rlieber@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/25money.html

ON Languages

2008-07-25T00:03:00.011-04:00

J. Reyes-Montblanc
25 July 2008

On Languages

The United States occupies territories formerly part of the Spanish, French and British Empires.

Florida and Louisiana changed hands between Spain France and England several times.
Colonist from each of the Metropolises colonized their sections of North America.

In 1764 at the end of the Seven Years War, (The French & Indian War) (considered by many as the First World War), The French lost their North American colonies in Canada and as a result of War Compensation ceded Louisiana back to Spain having lost New France (Quebec and Acadia) to British North America (the Thirteen Colonies and Canada).

The City of New Orleans was actually rebuilt by the Spanish who repopulated the territory with Spanish colonials from the Canary Islands and Cuba. Politically and religiously Louisiana fell under the Captain General and the Archdiocese of Cuba. In 1803 Napoleon who had conquered Spain, illegally sold Louisiana to the newly established United States of America and the Spanish and French people became US Citizens with all their rights properties and privileges including languages protected by treaty.

In 1819 Spain sold Florida to the US receiving an additional sum in compensation for the illegal purchase of Louisiana. The Spanish settlers of Florida also were similarly protected by treaty guaranteeing their rights, properties and privileges including the Spanish language, The first Florida elected Representative and the first Army General of Spanish origins was Joseph Marion (José Maria) Hernandez.

In 1848 the US entered into a War with Mexico over the former Mexican Province of Texas that had declared its independence in 1836 had asked to be annexed to the USA. At the end of the Mexican War the US had acquired all of the Mexican provinces north of the Rio Grande that became Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Utah, etc. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo guaranteed the rights, properties and privileges including the Spanish language of the former Spanish settlers, Mexican citizens only for about 20 years, and now US Citizens.

English, Spanish and French languages are therefore legacy languages of the United States and NOT foreign languages as some people, in their fear of losing opportunity feel limitated and threatened due to their being English mono-lingual wrongfully believe.

Most Spanish and French speaking Americans have almost no connection, except in some sentimental level with the countries of origins of their American ancestors; they have served in every War since before the Revolutionary War of Independence, pay their taxes and generally are good, productive, loyal citizens.

Immigration and high birth rates through the centuries has increased the number of Spanish speakers to the point of making them one of the largest ethnic groups in the country. Many do not speak Spanish at all for several generations.

In the 1970’s the US government created a classification for census purposes called “Hispanic”. But keep in mind that in Spanish the word means of Spain and the peoples of Spain and their children born in the American, African and Asian Spanish colonies. Historically in the Americas the European children of the Spanish, French and Portuguese colonial settlers are called Criollos, Creoles and Criolos.

In the US, "Hispanic" is not at all a racial term but an artificial
"ethnicity" as under the Census and US laws Hispanics are described as being of any race or combination of race or races and from various countries of origin. More than Half of US Hispanics are Euro-Hispanics, others are Native American-Hispanics, Afro-Hispanics, Asian-Hispanics and others are of all sort of interesting combinations and re-combinations of all of the above, that is why correctly the question about being Hispanic is usually separated from the race question in government forms.

In the last 20 years of so “illegal” immigration has become an increasing problem which is perceived by many to be a tremendously heavy burden on our society. The defenders of the “illegal’s” refer to them as “undocumented" and have worked diligently to try to erase any differences between Legal Immigrants which our country still welcomes in large numbers and the “illegal’s” who brake our laws to jump the border, thus referring as "anti-immigrant" those who oppose the "illegals" and refuse to grant another amnesty or a plan to "legalize" them that would affect the Legal flow of immigrants. There is fundamental principle in English Common Law that says that an illegal cannot result in a legal benefit, somehow this fundamental fact is being ignored by the pro "illegal" immigration faction.

A large number of these “illegals” are classified as Hispanics although many have no traces of Spanish blood and some speak no Spanish at all although coming from Spanish-speaking countries and carrying Spanish names and surnames.

We must never confuse "Legal Immigrants" with the "Illegal Aliens" or consider that opposition to one means opposition to the other.

The richness of our country is in fact found in diversity of our people and the number of other languages they speak, and that they must never give up, but English is the one and only national language and immigrants do well in learning it and the prevailing American customs and practices which eventually they will afffect as other immigrants before have done to create our American Way. When in Rome do as the Romans do is an old saying that was true then and still true today, when in the US, LEARN ENGLISH!!!

50th Anniversary Thoughts!

2008-07-25T00:01:00.005-04:00

J. Reyes-Montblanc
25 July 2008
50th Anniversary Thoughts

As a young lad, the land where I was born found itself embroiled in a civil war, things deteriorated and it turned into a bloody revolution the effects of which are still being felt in that unhappy island of the Antilles - Cuba.

Because my mother and father were exiles in the US, my sister and I lived with our grandmother and great aunt in a beautiful city then referred as the City of Gardens and today its name is quickly identified as a terrorist prison – Guantánamo.

As things deteriorated in Guantánamo City my mother was able to obtain a safe-conduct pass to pick up my sister and me and bring us to the US on July 25th 1958, six months before the triumph of the Castro Revolution. This means that today I have been in the US for 50 years.

On this 50th Anniversary, coincidental with my 43rd year as an American Citizen, I like to share with you, my fellow Americans what it has meant and means to me to be an American, a Teddy Roosevelt kind of American. I learned English and declared myself an American without any other allegiances, one with the many and the only hyphen is in my surname.

I proudly served our country in the US Marine Corps during our darkest moments in history. I enjoyed the Freedoms to Express myself and Pursuit my Happiness without any obstacles or limitations. I married an American girl and fathered an American son who in turn married an American girl and they provided me with two American grand-children.

I have seen our country change from the segregated South where I finish growing up with benefit of White Privilege, to a country that over all has legally but unfortunately not socially, eliminated Institutional Segregation but where self-segregation seems to be growing illness. I met the first American Negro, as Blacks were then called, while serving in the Marine Corps.

I have seen our country suffer the convulsions of the Civil Rights movement, and as a Marine, the Vietnam War and the Anti-War movement, I have enjoyed and participated in the Sexual Revolution and witnessed women's rights struggle and the “bra burnings” and seen the Gay, Lesbians, Bisexual etc coming out and taking their rightful place in our society. I have witnessed, and hopefully was a contributor to the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Evil Empire. And have been a member of Community Board 9 Manhattan for almost 15 years serving as Chairman 4 consecutive challenging terms between 2004 and 2007.

CB9M is a unique place with unique and diverse people, through the years I have witnessed disturbing behaviors, impolite and rude comments and outrageous conduct. But in the end after all the fuss and feathers we have ALWAYS looked after each other, suffered each others pains and quietly and many times anonymously helped each others cases or causes.

This Board, not for the faint hearted, assimilates those persons, who want to be part of our efforts, who have the patience and guts to get to know each other without judgment, without jumping to conclusions and have heart enough to ignore perceived small slights and to take no offense at truths presented in the raw or in rude way. I love each of our historic neighborhoods: Hamilton Heights where I live, Manhattanville where CB9M is located and Mornigside Heights and yes even Columbia; I am happy and proud of sharing CB9M membership with all of you.

I am proud to be an American, yet I've never lost my Cuban and Spanish fundamental spirit,
essence, and language, but have grown into an American without giving up on who I am. I believe Teddy Roosevelt meant it that way and would have approved.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907

2008-07-24T23:26:00.000-04:00

Roosevelt - 1907 : On Being An American

The year is 1907, one hundredand one years ago......
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...

and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!

Love at First Sight

2008-07-24T22:33:00.005-04:00

More High School Life in Central Pa.
Love at first sight

Posted by jessscv, July 24, 2008 11:41AM

I journeyed to New York City Tuesday to visit Columbia University, the school I used to dream about attending, mainly because it's in New York (and I heart NY) and it was the birthplace of the Beat Generation literary movement. Located in Morningside Heights, the quaintest part of New York I have ever seen (and not in Harlem, as my parents brilliantly deduced), Columbia's campus is beautiful, a gated, tree-lined piece of collegiate heaven far from the chaos of Times Square. However, I decided about ten seconds into the information session that Columbia is not the school of my dreams, and I absolutely do not have the brain capacity required to matriculate (or maybe its because I'm a middle class white girl that earns better-than-decent grades and participates in a few activities--much too ordinary for the Ivy League). It took me about ten seconds to realize that Columbia is not for me (i.e. an acceptance letter is a pure pipe dream), and it took me about five to figure out that the real school of dreams sits (literally) right across the street. Ah, Barnard College, a small, reasonably selective liberal arts college for woman located a skip and a jump across Broadway from Columbia. Barnard is smaller and solely focused on undergraduates, but it is also affiliated with Columbia, so Barnard students can take classes there without dealing with Columbia's madness (swimming tests, core curriculum, getting accepted). Basically, anything a Columbia student can do, a Barnard student can do. Well, they're all women, so there's a few things...

Yes, it was love at first sight. As soon as I stepped onto Barnard's campus, I knew that I wanted to spend four years there. Until Tuesday, I was convinced that I couldn't walk onto a campus and say, "Yep, this is the place," but I did. Crazy right? The only downside was I had to sit through an hour of facts and propaganda about Columbia, and then I had to take a sleep-inducing tour of the sidewalks. Sure it was a waste of time, but it led me to Barnard, the love of my collegiate life; wasting time often does that.

--> Permalink (Learn More)Share: Reddit Digg del.icio.us Google Yahoo What is this?
More High School Life in Central Pa.

COMMENTS (1)Post a comment

Posted by reysmont on 07/24/08 at 10:27PM

Do not be discourage for what I am about to reveal to you.

Morningside Heights is an integral part of WestSide (West) Harlem.

West Harlem is constituted of 3 historical neighborhoods which streches from West 110th Street north to West 155th Street and from a line that meanders on the east from Manahttan Avenue, Mornignside Avenue, St. Nicholas, Bradhurst Avenue then at West 145th Street one block west to Edgcombe Avenue, western boundary is the Hudson River.

Morningside Heights covers from W 110th to W 122nd.
Manhattanville from W 122nd to West 135th
Hamilton Heights from W 135th to W 155th

West Harlem is not only one of the most diverse population, is is linguistically diverse as well with Spanish, (all 25 kinds) and French (from Cajun, Canadian, to Haitian Kreyole and West African) and of course most people speak all sort of English (from the different British, to various American to Ebonics and Pidgin).

It is also one of the safest places in New York City that makes it one of the safest in the country.

Black Harlem is Central Harlem and it goes from the eastern border of WH to 5th Avenue.
East Harlem aka Spanish Harlem goes from 5th Avenue to the East River.

Like most out-of-towners you hear the word "Harlem" and immediately either think of the Black spiritual capital - Central Harlem aka Harlem or think of a decaying slum populated by druggies, crackheads and unwashed bipeds. WRONG on all counts.

Barnard and Columbia as well as many other fine institutions of higher learning are located in West Harlem mostly in Morningside Heights but soon Columbia will begin working on developing their West Manhattanville Campus from West 125th to West 134th from Broadway to 12th Avenue.

The West Harlem Piers located on the Hudson end of 125th are almost ready to be opened and 12th Avenue is becoming a destination for good restaurants and dancing.

As far as the propaganda of Columbia, believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear from them.

Welcome to our neighborhoods

Jord Reyes-Montblanc

http://blog.pennlive.com/high-school-life/2008/07/love_at_first_sight.html

Love at first sight PennLive.com - Harrisburg,PA,USALocated in Morningside Heights, the quaintest part of New York I have ever seen (and not in Harlem, as my parents brilliantly deduced), Columbia's campus is ...

See all stories on this topic

My Homage to Stan Michels July 24th 2008

2008-07-24T19:30:00.004-04:00

My Homage to Stan Michels

At 4:00PM today at Ft. Tyron Park the main promenade was named after former long time New York City Councilman Stanley E. Michels (1978-2001).

I first met the Councilman in 1993, at the time my housing cooperative had just bought the building from the City of New York and converted to an HDFC cooperative when one of the merchants occupying s commercial space on the Broadway side of the Building had refused to accept the authority of the co-op’s Board of Directors and had proceeded to sue the Board, the City and every Board member. The merchant was a Dominican, and although the building was in Stanley’s District, he went to newly elected Councilman Guillermo Linares to use political clout on the Board.

When a representative of Councilman Linares called me to interfere in the case I let him know in no uncertain terms where to get off.

Councilman Linares then asked Stanley to intervene and try to mediate. That is when I first met Martin Smith who at the time was Stanley’s Housing Coordinator.

Any way I arranged for a meeting with the Board and Councilmen Michels and Linares at which meeting it became clear that the merchant had misconstructed the facts and both Stanley and Guillermo decided to step out and let the case follow is course through the courts, eventually we won the case and evicted the merchant after recovering all the legal costs and back rents.

But in the meantime, Stanley approached me to see if I would be interested in serving in Community Board 9 which at the time was in a rather state of turmoil; Stanley’s idea was that a 6 footer, 275 Lbs former Marine would make an ideal “Sergeant at Arms” for CB9M.

I had had some contact with CB9M as the merchant had also approached them through a Latino member and a letter of support was being prepared which in my contacts with the Chairman at the time, Ted Kovaleff, resulted in the Support letter for the Merchant being denied. My Co-op Board urged me to accept the appointment to keep an "eye" on CB9M.

Stanley recommend to Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger my appointment to CB9M and I was appointed and have a member since except for one year that I my duties did not permit me time to participate but continued active as a Public Member and later Ruth reappointed me again on Stanley’s recommendation.

In April 1994 the “Dirty 30th” scandal made the news. Stanley called me for a meeting with the late Dr. Albert Bloomberg, Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, then at the Intercession Church and Rev. John Scott, pastor of St. John's Baptist. The idea was to establish a Community Coalition on Police (CCOP) the agenda was simple but, at the time “mission impossible” that is rally the community, reopen the civic dialogue between the police and the community and reestablish the trust needed between the police and the local residents.

Those were the darkest days for Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights, it was the height day of the Whole Sale of Cocaine, from West 135th Street to West 180th Street the NYPD estimate more than 5000 drug trafficker plus their, employees, relatives and supporters.

Our first meeting was with Police Commissioner William Bratton and his deputies and over 200 community residents.

One result of our meetings with Commissioner Bratton and Stanley’s frontal and behind the scenes efforts was the re-establishment of the Beat Officers and then many, many Beat residents meetings with the Beat Officers

There were many such meetings with Bratton and after he left with his successor Commissioner Howard Safir. At one meeting Safir promised to go to Washingto to General Murphy the Drug Tsar for assistance, he did and got $10 Million to start the Upper Manhattan Initiative a joint operation including not just the NYP but also the DEA, FBI, IRS and other Federal and State Agencies the rest is - well history.

These efforts and leadership by Stanley are probably forgotten or ignored by most of the area residents today. Hamilton Heights and West Harlem’s debt to Stan Michels is enormous

But Stanley had many other interests that benefited many people not only in West Harlem and Washington Heights but throughout the whole City.

For the HDFC cooperative community Stanley was “Our Man in City Hall”. As president of the HDFC Council the City-wide association of Housing Development Fund Cooperatives I had many extraordinary and private conversations with Stanley, He was always there for us.

Stanley pushed for a piece of legislation that benefits all HDFCs to be able to apply for J-51 Tax Abatement benefits when master metering the electricity and sub metering and got with Speaker Vallone to look into the legislation with became law when Mayor Giluliani signed in 1998. This results in large savings to the cooperative's total electric bill.

The last thing Stanley did before he vacated his seat in City Council in 2001 was to have Steve Simon, long time Chief of Staff, fax me a copy of the letter he wrote to the Commissioner of HPD in regards to the need to eliminate the 60/40 Security provisions from those HDFCs that had them, Stanley’s recommendation was not only realistically simple but elegant and easy for HPD to do; that is to issue an “Assignment of Proceeds” to each HDFC cooperative whereby HPD would assign the 40% of profits on resale from the City to the HDFC cooperative. Unfortunately we are still waiting for a positive way of removing the 60/40 from our deed other than waiting 25 years for the HPD restriction to expire by now most co-ops are near the 25 year expiration anyway so we will wait a few more years. Stanley's successor in City Council, Robert Jackson did present an Intro to accomplish that and other things but it has never been able to be acted upon at City Council.

The honor being bestow on Stan can never equal the magnitude of his many and great
accomplishments for the community nor equal the love that all of us who have known him all these years have for “Stan The Man”.

[signed]
J. Reyes-Montblanc
A Friend of Stan
July 24th 2008

http://www.harlemonestop.com/

http://www.harlemonestop.com/feature.php?id=4

ESDC Deems M'Ville Blighted, Adopts Expansion Plan

2008-07-24T18:42:00.003-04:00

From: RoMartell
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:24:16 EDT
Subject: ESDC Deems M'Ville Blighted, Adopts Expansion Plan
To: reysmont@yahoo.com

JRM/RM Hey Spike,didn't see this article in your blog, the comment at the top is mine don't know why it came as anonymous as did sign it.

SemperFi

ESDC Deems M'Ville Blighted, Adopts Expansion Plan

By Daniel Amzallag
PUBLISHED JULY 19, 2008

The Empire State Development Corporation announced Thursday its finding that the Manhattanville area where Columbia plans to build a new campus is “blighted,” signaling authority for the state to invoke eminent domain there.

The board of directors of the ESDC voted in favor of adopting the University’s General Project Plan, which details the expansion proposal, requests of eminent domain, and committed community benefits. Public hearings were authorized for September to allow for further commentary on the plan, after which the board will vote either to affirm the original plan or to include new modifications.

“This exciting project will keep one of the world’s premier universities at the forefront of higher education and academic research for decades to come. In addition, Columbia’s expansion will bring thousands of new jobs to the city and revitalize an area that has been plagued by under investment,” ESDC Downstate President Avi Schick said in a statement.

The Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, pastor of St. Mary’s Church on W. 126th Street, called eminent domain for a private institution “theft” and a “violation of the eighth commandment.” “The General Project Plan is a plan that really enables Columbia to do 100 percent what it wants to do, and I’m afraid that that’s really going to keep the neighborhood marginalized,” he said in testimony to board members Thursday.

ESDC directors announced at the meeting that a second firm, Earth Tech, had been employed in the blight finding, following controversy with Allee King Rosen & Fleming, the firm the state originally employed. On Tuesday, a state appellate court ruled in a Freedom of Information case—brought by Manhattanville property owner Nick Sprayregen against ESDC—that AKRF held an “inseparable conflict” due to its simultaneous employment by both Columbia and ESDC.

The announcement that Earth Tech had been hired by ESDC “to replicate the study of neighborhood conditions” sparked a heated exchange between New York State Senator Bill Perkins, D-West and Central Harlem, and the ESDC board. “It’s outrageous to me that you would have done such a study that I and my colleagues have never seen…and that concerns my neighborhood,” Perkins said.

“It’s always good to have more eyes looking at it than fewer eyes looking at it,” Schick told reporters after the meeting. “As the timeline lengthened…we said why not go back and look again and see if we get the same results with somebody else, and we did.”

Columbia has repeatedly promised it would not seek eminent domain for residential properties within the expansion site, but the General Project Plan states ESDC would “use its eminent domain power to acquire possession of any legal residential unit” after 2018.

The Plan relies on Columbia’s relocating the 298 tenants to alternative housing “before the property housing those residents is needed for Project development.” The University reaffirmed its commitment in a statement following the meeting, saying it will not ask for eminent domain over residential buildings, though narrowing its promise to residences “while they are occupied,” as is also stated in the General Project Plan.

The adoption of the General Project Plan also allows for the transfer of underground space below the expansion site—from W. 125th Street to W. 133rd Street, bordered by Broadway and 12th Avenue—from the city to the University through eminent domain. The eight-story underground area would include a bus depot, energy center, and parking and loading facilities.
With Thursday’s vote, Columbia committed to community benefits additional to the $150 million in benefits signed in December. The University will provide several improvements to civic facilities and allow community access to new Manhattanville facilities. The General Project Plan also commits to a scholarship fund for local students, funded courses for community residents, and job training programs.
Sprayregen, owner of four commercial properties in the expansion site, protested the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville. “I’m angry that I have to wake up each day to fight to keep what is lawfully ours. I’m angry that I have to fight the attempt of Columbia taking what does not belong to them,” he said.
Sprayregen is one of two owners of private property in the expansion footprint who have not sold to the University, though he and Columbia officials have engaged in negotiations.
Norman Siegel, a civil rights lawyer who represents Sprayregen, objected to the classification of Manhattanville as a blighted area, saying blight is defined as “a threat to public health and safety” that has “a detrimental blighting effect on surrounding areas.”

Siegel and Sprayregen vowed to continue fighting Columbia in court, specifically to challenge the blight finding on grounds of its methodology. “If the second consultant [Earth Tech] used same methodology as AKRF, then that study is tainted as well,” Siegel said. “You can’t change the cover of the book and think that the book has been done differently.”

The General Project Plan states, “The high percentage of lots with deteriorating, insanitary and/or underutilized property conditions indicates that the Project Site has been suffering from long-term poor maintenance and disinvestment,” which prevents “the integration of the Project Site into the surrounding community.”

news@columbiaspectator.com

TAGS: blight study, Eminent Domain, ESDC, Manhattanville

View Comments ( 3)
Post a Comment

new

There was never any doubt as to the outcome of this charade and minstrel show that Columbia has been orchestrating for so many years.
But hope, as the saying goes springs eternal.

An industrial area is not pretty by anyone aesthetics, the buildings were erected for function and not for architectural beauty.

The heavy industrial age left the area behind as it either moved out of town and eventually out of the country or was phase out by new technologies not suitable for the old industrial buildings.

Columbia started to buy buildings many years ago but only since the arrival of the current administration has gone all out to purchase whatever was available and in the meantime vacated the buildings, thus creating a semblance of under utilization. However many small industries thrived in the area with over 2500 good paying industrial jobs which began to disappear as businesses leases either expired and not renewed or if renewal offered it was prices that the small companies could not afford.

And so it went until only about 1500 jobs remained 3 years ago and now will completely gone when Columbia finishes their GPP.

The building owners that refuse to sell will now be under bigger stress than before and the residential units now know they have only 10 to 16 years before the eminent domain catches up to them although Columbia announced a few months ago that they would not invoke eminent domain on the residential buildings, another example of their practice in Orwellian double-speak.
Incredible even those businesses that Columbia told repeatedly to the community that would be protected as they have long term leases are now also in danger Columbia having backed down from providing suitable relocation space such is the case of the expanded El Floridita and Floridita Tapas.

The credibility index keep going down for Columbia. Columbia's integrity and ethics are questionable at best and non-existing at worst.

The Central Harlem political establishment has once again shown their disdain for the Westside and accepted a cheap and discounted community benefits agreement instead of the $700 millions sought by the community the politicos settled for a pittance settlement more smoke and mirrors than substance and the City's vaunted $150 Million for affordable housing was already in the pipe line under Mayor Bloomberg's housing initiative, not new and additional funds and if the City's budget fails to cover those funds it will never materialize.

This process has been a sham and a shame. A sham by Columbia and the politicos. A shame for the honest community leaders that worked so hard for 4 years believing in the integrity of the process and other the institutions, political and academic, to their eternal chagrin.

Posted by: RoMartell not Anonymous July 25th, 2008 @ 6:37pm
Further Comments:

"The General Project Plan states, “The high percentage of lots with deteriorating, insanitary and/or underutilized property conditions indicates that the Project Site has been suffering from long-term poor maintenance and disinvestment,” which prevents “the integration of the Project Site into the surrounding community.”

The GPP is absolutely correct; what it fails to indicate is that All of such properties are Columbia University properties and any poor maintenance and disinvestment is strictly on Columbia's part.

Now Columbia will be using eminent domain to obtain not only properties owned by others but also to eliimate any restrictions or covenants or easements attached to the buildings that have been accumulating duirng the last 25 or 30 years by including them also in the eminent domained assault.

It is totally incredible to me and most community residents that such travesty could be committed with the complicity of the Harlem elected officials at all levels of government from the Governor down to the dog-catcher.

How can such a prestigious 250 years old instituion, have sunk so low and demonstrated such lack of integrity, honor and moral terpitude?
Posted by: RoMartell (not verified) July 28th, 2008 @ 10:55pm
reply

new
The study looked at conditions prior to Columbia ownership. Try getting the facts before you make ignorant allegations.
Posted by: anonymous (not verified) July 24th, 2008 @ 8:42pm
reply

new
This should be instructive to all those who think that government is in the business of providing equal protection to all. Columbia has been a major property owner in this neighborhood for many years. Indeed, much of the "blight" is actually Columbia property. It seems that the way to riches is to buy property, let it get run-down by not maintaining it according to any standards, and run screaming to the "government" that it needs to be torn down!

With government completely co-opted by money and power, I find it funny when people claim that we live in a democracy. Yes, but one that is private property.

Posted by: anonymous (not verified) July 24th, 2008 @ 9:13am
reply

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55239

Zero Hour in West Harlem

2008-07-22T15:18:00.003-04:00

Zero Hour in West Harlem
Last big landowner in Columbia’s way braces for Supreme Court fight as state dangles eminent domain
by Eliot Brown July 22, 2008

This article was published in the July 28, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.

James Hamilton
Nick Sprayregen in his habitat.

For more than three years, Nicholas Sprayregen has kept his word to Columbia University.

The largest private landowner in the footprint of the university’s planned 17-acre West Harlem expansion, he has vowed time and again to fight the university’s attempts to oust him, so long as the school threatens the use of eminent domain.

Now, as the bulk of the area’s politicians have endorsed the expansion, community opposition has gone from a boil to a simmer and all but one other private-property owner has agreed to sell to the university, the fight’s final chapter is poised to be strictly a legal one between two parties: the university and Mr. Sprayregen.

Last Thursday, New York’s Empire State Development Corporation declared as blighted the area northwest of Columbia’s main campus, starting the process to acquire Mr. Sprayregen’s four properties through eminent domain. The action sets the stage for a lengthy legal battle with the institution, as the owner of Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage vows to keep the challenge going.
Still, speaking from his West Harlem office on Friday, the energetic 45-year-old seemed to have adopted, at least temporarily, a more somber outlook than he usually conveys.

“I’m pessimistic that we will be successful,” he said, surrounded by piles of documents related to the expansion. “I have a feeling that if we’re going to get anything, the only way it’s going to happen is that we’re first going to have to lose in the New York courts and then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and hopefully have them take on the case, and then win.
“That’s obviously a long shot.”

SINCE THE UNIVERSITY first announced its intention to expand in the area in 2002, and especially in the past year, as the proposal made its way through the city’s rezoning process, Mr. Sprayregen has watched the landscape around him shift dramatically, with a constant stream of victories for the university.

Three years ago, he was joined by five other business owners in a group that opposed the expansion and vowed to fight property takings. But as of mid-June, he is now the only member left, and just one other private landowner—the Singh family, which owns two gas stations—remains without a deal with Columbia.

Mr. Sprayregen met community opposition last year in an attempt to rezone his properties himself, and he has all but given up hope on a land-swap proposal he made to Columbia, saying university officials in a recent meeting seemed unwilling to part with the property he was eyeing.
The bulk of the political process surrounding the project has also come and gone as well. The local community board opposed the plan, but after a concession package, the City Council voted for the university’s requested rezoning, clearing the way for the school to proceed.

It was through this seven-month rezoning approval process that Mr. Sprayregen sought to gain enough momentum to leverage a deal with Columbia in which it would drop eminent domain from its plan. Local elected officials, particularly members of the City Council, are highly influential in this process, and at least in Mr. Sprayregen’s thinking, could have pushed Columbia to reach a deal he considered fair.

But Columbia proved successful in swaying the Harlem politicians to its side, perhaps the most significant element of its success with the expansion to date.

Enlisting the help of lobbyist Bill Lynch, a former aide to Mayor David Dinkins, the university emphasized the effect the expansion would have on creating jobs and providing housing. Just before the passage of the rezoning in December, it reached an agreement with the elected officials and members of the community to provide tens of millions in commitments to below-market-rate housing, open space, hiring practices and other concessions.

The plan won an easy approval in the City Council, and when the state released the blight study and a general project plan last week, it came with statements of support from, among others, U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, Assemblyman Keith Wright and Governor David Paterson, who once represented the area and who previously called for a statewide moratorium on eminent domain.

Not on that list is State Senator Bill Perkins, the former councilman who took Mr. Paterson’s seat in 2006. Since the rezoning passed, Mr. Perkins has been the lone elected official in the area still critical of the expansion, saying there is a “hue and cry” in the community against the plan, and preparations for the use of eminent domain seem like a “cooked process.”

“The community does not feel as if their needs have been taken into consideration, and they do not feel that, in the end, they will be in the picture,” he said. “I think [Columbia officials] have done a poor job addressing some of the concerns that they have, and I’ve tried to help them recognize it, but I guess they felt they had what they needed in terms of so-called political support and decided to move on.”

In contrast to the rezoning, the use of eminent domain does not require approval from elected officials, and now that the state has declared the area blighted, condemnations could begin in coming months, after a public comment period.

At that point, Mr. Sprayregen expects to begin litigation, and his attorney, Norman Siegel, said he expects to challenge the finding of “blight,” a requisite for condemnation.

“Over the past seven years, Columbia has purchased many of these lots and then they had a practice of vacating and undermaintaining the property,” Mr. Siegel said. “They benefit from the conditions that they either created or allowed to continue.”

Columbia has previously denied any intentional neglect of the properties in the footprint, and David Stone, a university spokesman, said via e-mail, “We also continue to be hopeful that we can reach mutually beneficial, negotiated agreements with the two remaining commercial property owners.”

As for the effect litigation would have on the start of the expansion, Mr. Stone declined to speculate, but part of the area where Columbia wants to build its first buildings contains one of Mr. Sprayregen’s properties and the two gas stations belonging to the Singh family. (The Singhs did not respond to requests for comment.)

NEW YORK'S LAWS on eminent domain are viewed as rather favorable to the state when compared with other laws nationwide, making the climb for Mr. Sprayregen a distinctly uphill one.

Landowners in other eminent domain cases often hope that a prolonged legal battle will derail a project through a changing political landscape or economic climate. But Columbia’s plan seems prone to more stability than a typical private developer’s. The university has a multibillion dollar endowment; already owns the bulk of the land in the footprint; and has always said the expansion is a long-term proposition, and thus a two-year fight through the court system—landowners in Brooklyn have been challenging eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards project for more than a year and a half—does not seem likely to spoil the university’s plans.

Such a fight can be expensive for both sides. For Atlantic Yards, an Empire State Development Corporation spokesman said the state has spent more than $8 million on legal fees, which apply to litigation and other expenses (the state’s fees are reimbursed by developer Forest City Ratner, and Columbia University will reimburse the state for fees related to eminent domain).

Mr. Sprayregen, who estimated he has spent about $1 million so far in legal expenses and other fees, said he was prepared to commit a substantial sum to continue the fight.

“I think if we’re able to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, it will cost another $2 million,” he said. “Obviously, we now have a real legal fight on our hands.”

ebrown@observer.com

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/zero-hour-west-harlem

New York State Agency ‘Adopts’ Columbia University’s $6.3B Mixed-Use Expansion

2008-07-21T18:37:00.000-04:00

New York State Agency ‘Adopts’ Columbia University’s $6.3B Mixed-Use Expansion
[July 21, 2008]

By Alex Philippidis

Opponents of Columbia University’s planned $6.3 billion mixed-use project — set to bring nearly 2.6 million square feet of new research lab space to Manhattan’s West Harlem — last week lost one battle against the state’s economic-development agency, but won another in their effort to stop the development.

At a July 17 meeting in New York, the board of the Empire State Development Corp. “adopted” the general project plan for Columbia’s expansion a half-mile northwest of its main campus in Manhattan’s Morningside Heights section, into a 17-acre section of West Harlem that retains its 19th century name of Manhattanville.

ESDC’s action allows a future public hearing on the general project plan. The agency will schedule at least two hearings starting in September — the dates and times had not been announced at deadline — at the request of elected officials representing West Harlem. After those hearings, ESDC’s board will either approve the original plan or request changes reflecting comments made at the hearing.

Avi Schick, ESDC’s president and chief operating officer, defended the agency’s review of Columbia’s mega-project, as well as the state’s refusal to rule out using its power of eminent domain to condemn properties whose owners have refused to sell to the university.

“Eminent domain is an important and necessary economic-development tool that must be used carefully and sparingly. We understand the passions it raises, and we understand the concern that people articulate,” Schick said at a Q&A session with reporters held after the board met at ESDC’s midtown Manhattan offices. “It’s our job to walk that fine line so we can do what’s appropriate.”

The board adopted the project by a voice vote that drew no objections from directors. The vote took place about an hour after several residents, neighborhood groups, one elected official, and a business owner who has sued Columbia to stop the project urged all ESDC to hold off on an approval.

“I had been hopeful that either the state or Columbia would do the right thing and remove the ugly threat of condemnation from the Columbia expansion project. With [last week’s vote] by the state, the reality has pretty much set in that this will not happen,” said Nicholas Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away, a regional chain of self-storage sites. “As a result, I am more determined than ever to fight this abuse through the courts of this state, and of the country.”

Tuck-It-Away operates four self-storage sites in West Harlem, as well as eight others elsewhere in New York City and one across the Hudson River in Newark, NJ.

ESDC’s new chairman Robert Wilmers, who took office last week, told reporters after the vote that he supported the state having the eminent domain option in the Columbia project, but added that did not weigh in on the agency’s review of the university project.

“Being in the job for four days, I don’t think it’s my role to try and re-think what many people have spent a lot of time and effort on,” said Wilmers, the chairman and CEO of Buffalo-based M&T Bank, one of the nation’s 20 largest commercial lenders with $66 billion in assets.

Wilmers was named to his ESDC last month by Gov. David Paterson to oversee a restructuring of the agency, which has suffered from turf battles and growing inefficiency in the 18 months since it was divided into separate upstate and downstate fiefdoms by Paterson’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer. [See Around the Regions, this issue].

In their voice vote, three members of ESDC’s board of directors sided with Columbia’s arguments that the project offered the best prospects for the university to address what it has said are shortages of laboratory and classroom space within its 36-acre Morningside Heights campus at a time when several of its programs are growing.

“[The project] would maintain the status of the city and state of New York as centers for higher education, for new graduate programs and scientific research, [and] allow Columbia to maintain its position as one of the foremost educational and cultural institutions in the world,” ESDC concluded in a findings statement.

Columbia was approved late last year to build a total 6.8 million square feet of space, including nearly 2.6 million square feet of new research lab space and 296,201 square feet of support space. Columbia has said it needs the new space to compete better with other top-tier research universities for researchers, and to accommodate several growing programs unable to expand within its existing 36-acre Morningside Heights campus.

“I’m angry that I have to wake up each day fighting on behalf of my family to keep what is lawfully ours. I’m angry that I have to fight the attempt, in broad daylight, of Columbia taking what does not belong to them.”

Those programs include the Jerome L. Greene Science Center for Columbia’s Mind, Brain and Behavior initiative, which would find a permanent home within part of the 351,310 square feet of lab space slated to be built in the project’s first phase, slated to wrap up in 2015.

In its General Project Plan, available here, Columbia said its project would generate 14,000 construction jobs between 2008 and 2033, when “approximately” 6,000 permanent university jobs are expected, not counting an unspecified number of retail and neighborhood services employees to be based on the ground floors of the project’s 17 planned buildings.

The permanent jobs “and other project-related employment” would generate “in excess of” $2 billion in personal income, $168 million in state taxes, and $74 million in state taxes between 2008 and 2033, the GPP concluded.

Columbia’s figures vary from those furnished to New York City officials just last fall. While the university attributes the differences to the use of different economic models in reports it submitted to the state and city, the parameters of both reports also vary, complicating a comparison of the two.

The university’s final environmental impact statement submitted to the city planning commission does not measure jobs and taxes on a cumulative 2008-2033 basis. Instead, the FEIS concluded the mega-project would generate:

The equivalent of 1,200 construction jobs each year for 22 years between 2008 and 2030, or 26,732 jobs;
6,399 permanent jobs within Columbia's mixed-use project, plus another 687 just outside but still within the expanse rezoned by the city last December, with the project in mind;
Another 3,960 permanent jobs within New York City, a parameter not in the state study; and
$2 billion in economic activity, another measure not included in the state study.

The total project cost has also been revised down to $6.28 billion, exclusive of financing costs, from an earlier $7 billion estimate — even as the construction cost has been kicked up to $6.2 billion, from $5.8 billion in the city FEIS [BRN , Dec. 17 2007].

The prospect of thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars in new taxes, plus Columbia’s status as New York City’s seventh-largest private employer with 14,000 employees, has helped the project win key political support, including US Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who sent ESDC a letter backing the project.

“The project promises considerable long-term economic, educational, and civic benefits to the state and city of New York,” Bloomberg wrote.

The City Council late last year rezoned 35 acres, including the 17 acres Columbia would redevelop, by a 35-5 margin with five abstentions [BRN , Dec. 31, 2007].

Columbia is also touting agreements it reached with some West Harlem civic leaders and elected officials to spend millions of dollars on community projects recommended by groups that negotiated with the university.

Schick said ESDC had persuaded Columbia to spend another $20 million on projects to be decided by the Harlem Community Development Corp., a state redevelopment agency; and $1 million toward health sciences and medical technician training by the City University of New York.

Columbia also promised ESDC that it would fulfill a goal that 40 percent of the project’s construction work force consist of women and minorities, as well as spend millions of additional dollars on a variety of other community projects that include a shuttle bus linking the neighborhood and Columbia’s main campus, for senior citizens and people with disabilities; a mobile dental center for pre-schoolers; new space for programs serving seniors; a new disease education center for children; as well as “40 to 50” annual scholarships for youths and seniors, including tenants of nearby housing projects, for programs ranging from summer camps to evening classes.

Asked by BRN to quantify the cost, Schick replied: “Over time, it’s certainly an eight-figure sum. It’s a very substantial number.”

“We spoke to those in the community, the electeds and others, and asked, ‘What would make sense? What would work? What would help knit together this project into the fabric of the community,” Schick said. “This is really one neighborhood and one community; it’s not the campus, and then the residents. We wanted to integrate them as one.”

Those community benefits projects would be in addition to other Columbia commitments that include:

A $20 million fund to finance below-market “affordable” housing for West Harlem residents, $11.25 million toward upkeep of a new waterfront park for 25 years, and $4 million toward legal aid for tenants facing eviction or harassment by their landlords. Columbia promised to fund all three following talks with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; and
Another $76 million in neighborhood projects, under a deal brokered in December between the university the public-private West Harlem Local Development Corp., and several elected officials by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Democrat and potential candidate in next year’s mayoral election.

The LDC’s decision to negotiate with Columbia without insisting on the university accepting an alternative land-use plan supported by critics of the Columbia project prompted Sprayregen and four other members of the development corporation board to resign in protest.

The critics insist Columbia should conform to a land-use guideline developed by Community Board 9 Manhattan, which serves West Harlem, under 197-a of the New York City Charter. The 197-a plan would have barred eminent domain and limited new academic research to a center for clean manufacturing or “Zero Waste Studies.” Columbia has opposed the 197-a plan, saying it would allow the university to build only 662,000 square feet of facilities, but no lab space.

Condemning Condemnation

Columbia’s general project plan would allow the state to condemn five properties whose owners have refused to sell to the university — a sore point with critics of Columbia’s project, who vowed last week to stop the state from using eminent domain in their neighborhood. To date, the university has reached agreements with property owners to acquire some 80 percent of the 17 acres it has slated for redevelopment.

La-Verna Fountain, a Columbia spokeswoman, told reporters after the meeting that the university continues to pursue talks for the properties not under its control, while its consultants develop drawings for the planned new buildings. She said the university would make additional comments in a forthcoming statement that had not been released at deadline.

Four of the five parcels not controlled by Columbia are owned by Sprayregen; the other parcel is a service station on West 125 St.

Sprayregen’s Tuck-It-Away Associates LP earlier this year sued the university, the city, and three of its boards, with the goal of stopping the project on environmental review grounds [BRN , March 31].

On July 21, state Supreme Court Justice Jane Solomon was due to decide whether to request additional oral arguments at a later date, in addition to the written reply to Columbia’s response to the original suit, said a lawyer representing Tuck-It-Away in the environmental-review lawsuit, Steven Silverberg of the White Plains, NY, law firm Silverberg & Zalantis. The case is known as Tuck-It-Away Associates LP, et. al, vs. City of New York, et. al (Index No. 104415/08).

It will be the latest skirmish in Sprayregen’s four-year fight against the Columbia plan.

“I’m angry. I’m angry that I have to wake up each day fighting on behalf of my family to keep what is lawfully ours. I’m angry that I have to fight the attempt, in broad daylight, of Columbia taking what does not belong to them,” Sprayregen said.

‘Layers of Conflict’

Tuck-It-Away this week prevailed in a separate court battle related to Columbia’s project — a two-year-old lawsuit against ESDC seeking access to communications between the agency and the consultant it hired to prepare the first of two studies concluding the West Harlem site Columbia wishes to redevelop was blighted, thus warranting state use of its eminent domain power.

That consultant, planning firm AKRF, is also a consultant to Columbia — a situation Tuck-It-Away and another plaintiff, the West Harlem Business Group, contend poses a conflict of interest that taints the original blight study. In it, AKRF concluded that the project site consists mainly of “aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated condition.”

Two days before the ESDC adopted Columbia’s project plan, the New York State Supreme Court-Appellate Division, First Department, upheld a key portion of a year-old lower court decision ordering the release of e-mail correspondence between the state agency and Columbia’s planning consultant for the West Harlem project.

The appellate court upheld the state Supreme Court’s finding that ESDC must make public its correspondence with AKRF, agreeing with the lower court. ESDC had cited an exemption in state law it said allowed it to withhold the correspondence because it would impair present or imminent contract awards, or collective bargaining negotiations — one of several categories of intra- and inter-agency correspondence exchanged for discussion purposes that is exempt from disclosure.

Both courts disagreed with the state agency.

“The gargantuan size of the project, the layers of conflict between Columbia and ESDC, and the difficulty of offering perfectly objective advice while serving two masters elevates this FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] appeal beyond the average agency-consultant relationship that the FOIL exemptions are designed to foster and protect,” the appellate court ruled in Matter of Tuck-It-Away Associates L.P. v. Empire State Development Corp. (2008 NY Slip Op 06279), available here.

“We agree with [the] Supreme Court and hold that such a relationship creates an inseparable conflict for purposes of FOIL, and therefore for the purposes of invoking the agency exemption,” the appellate court concluded.

However, AKRF and ESDC prevailed over Tuck-It-Away and another plaintiff, the West Harlem Business Group, when the appellate court exempted from disclosure two categories of ESDC correspondence the lower court had ordered released in its original decision in May 2007.

Remaining exempt are intra-agency communications concerning how ESDC should respond to an inquiry from a member of the public about its role in the proposed project, and e-mail messages discussing the scheduling of meetings involving the project.

In its majority decision, a four-judge panel of the appellate court justified keeping those categories exempt by citing a recent decision from New York’s highest court, the state Court of Appeals.

“Opinions and recommendations that would, if prepared by agency employees, be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) as intra-agency materials do not lose their exempt status simply because they are prepared for the agency, at its request, by an outside consultant,” the Court of Appeals stated.

Norman Siegel, a lawyer for Tuck-It-Away, told BRN last week the appellate decision set a precedent extending the reach of the state Freedom of Information Act by increasing access to government records for development applications.

“It also raises the specter of whether or not the ESDC process up to date is tainted,” Siegel said.

An example of that taint, Siegel said, would be AKRF’s criteria for determining blight, which included underuse of properties. A one-story building on a parcel allowing two-story buildings could have been defined as underused: “By definition, any one-story building, even if it’s structurally sound, would be blighted under their methodology.”

Siegel said the appellate decision could help Sprayregen and Tuck-It-Away beyond the government-records case — if, as he expects, ESDC ultimately approves the project plan later this year. New York state law directs appeals from eminent domain decisions be filed with the appellate division.

“We’ll be on the eminent domain track by the end of the year. And the eminent domain track could go all the way to, and include, the [US] Supreme Court,” Siegel told BRN after the ESDC vote.

Second Study

At the board meeting, Schick said ESDC had complied with the decision — and disclosed for the first time that the AKRF study wasn’t the only basis for finding Columbia’s project site to be blighted. He said ESDC earlier this year commissioned a second blight study — technically an audit of the AKRF report — by a consultant with no apparent tie to Columbia, Earth Tech, a study that came to the same finding as AKRF’s.

That disclosure touched off a heated five-minute exchange during the board meeting between Schick and a state Senator who represents the project site and several nearby neighborhoods.

State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem) angrily asked Schick why he failed to disclose the Earth Tech study during any of a dozen phone conversations the two men had stretching back weeks. The day of the board meeting, Perkins was quoted in the New York Sun newspaper as saying a second study should be undertaken.

“If I had known before I was interviewed that a second study had already been done, I would have hoped that I had seen it before this particular hearing. Why was not I told that such a study was in the works?” Perkins asked.

“Senator, with all respect,” Schick began.

“With all respect? You’re now starting to pay respect?” Perkins shouted.

Schick replied by acknowledging the topic had not been raised during their conversations, without elaborating why. Schick remained mum on the question when asked by BRN during the press Q&A why Perkins wasn’t told about the Earth Tech report.

Perkins — the ranking minority party member on the state Senate Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions — told BRN after the meeting his panel was organizing a task force to examine the state’s use of eminent domain, with an eye to possible reform proposals.

“You have to restore faith in this type of process if we’re going to keep it. You cannot run roughshod over communities and get bonding opportunities, and have the community not feel as if their interests are being met,” Perkins said.

However, several bills that would limit the use of condemnation have stalled in the state Legislature since the US Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London decision, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), which allowed the general benefits a community enjoys from economic growth as a permissible "public use" that warrants the taking by governments of private land for use by another private owner.

Answering other BRN questions, Schick said ESDC commissioned the Earth Tech report because two years had passed since the AKRF report, and the agency wanted to ensure its blight finding reflected more recent conditions.

“As the timelines lengthened, we said, ‘Why not go back and look again and see if we get the same results with somebody else?’ And we did. I think that’s a positive development. Some of the [elected] officials said we should do a second study, and we have,” Schick said. “It’s always good to have more eyes looking at it than fewer eyes looking at it.”

Schick denied the second study reflected concerns by ESDC about the AKRF study stemming from the litigation by Tuck-It-Away and the business group.

That litigation ended July 15 with the appellate court’s 14-page decision, issued by a majority of the four-judge panel led by presiding judge was Richard Andrias. Concurring fully with Andrias were appellate court judges James Catterson and Eugene Nardelli. The fourth judge, John Buckley, offered a two-and-a-half-page dissent that disagreed less with the majority’s decision than the reasoning behind it.

Buckley argued the majority interpreted the freedom of information law too broadly, so that someday FOIL applicants could force disclosure of agency-consultant correspondence just by alleging bias. The court should instead weigh whether the consultants in question “were the most qualified, lacked an actual conflict or bias, or gave the best possible advice.

“The result would be to deter agencies from eliciting recommendations from consultants and to inhibit good-faith consultants from rendering frank advice; that in turn, would negatively impact on the quality of agency decisions,” Buckley wrote. “I believe that the majority’s ruling will ultimately harm the quality of agency decisions.”

In This Week's Issue
Calif. State Senator Vows to Push Life-Sci Bill Without More Stem-Cell Amendments New York State Agency ‘Adopts’ Columbia University’s $6.3B Mixed-Use Expansion
St. Louis Eyes Cleveland Consultancy to Assist in Rejuvenating ‘BioBelt’ Cluster
Minnesota Biomedical Research Program, University of Minnesota Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, Empire State Development Corp., Pall, South Carolina Research Authority, Medical University of South Carolina, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development Innovation and Export Trade, Genopole D’Evry, Medicago, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Biotechnology Center at Elk Run, Ohio Tax Credit Authority, GammaStar Medical Devices
Empire State Development Corp., Fishers Economic and Community Development Commission, Hillsborough County Commission, ICON Central Laboratories, New Jersey Stem Cell Research Assistance Program, Kansas Bioscience Authority
Sandra Lawrence, Bill Sanford, Ed McKechnie, Sergio Garcia, Lisa Goldsborough, John Robson

http://www.bioregionnews.com/issues/2_29/features/148314-1.html

Nave At St. John The Divine Reopens Years After Fire

2008-07-21T15:20:00.000-04:00

Top Stories

Nave At St. John The Divine Reopens Years After Fire

http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real4/0024CECE_080721_191702hi.rm
July 21, 2008

Nearly eight years after a devastating fire, sections of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Morningside Heights were once again opened to the public Monday.

The nave – the aisle leading from the cathedral's entrance – was almost destroyed by a five-alarm fire on December 18, 2001. The blaze ravaged the cathedral book store and spread smoke and soot through most of the church. Even when the fire was finally extinguished, the damage continued.

"Those contaminants go into the stone and eat away at it, so you have to clean it or you would, after the fire, continue the deterioration of the Cathedral," said the Very Reverend Dr. James Kowalski of St. John the Divine.

But it wasn't until April 2006 that a massive $16.5 million cleaning and restoration project got underway. Workers carefully cleaned the stained glass, including the Great Rose window and they peeled away layers of grime from the fire and from years of regular church use.

During that time, visitors had to use a tunnel-like walkway built along the center aisle.

"I came in here about a month ago and noticed there was a wall instead of the whole middle path and I was wondering when I was going to be able to see the whole thing," said one visitor.

Workers dismantled the construction scaffolding Monday to reveal the newly-restored nave for the first time. Visitors, tourists and native New Yorkers said it was worth the wait.

"Of course it's nice to see it this way," said one visitor.

"It's much brighter. It's absolutely a totally different feeling," added another.

"It's really monumental," said one visitor. "It's very moving to be able to come in again, I have to say, since the last time I was here, it was filled with smoke and water all over the floor."

"It's a very impressive cathedral," said another, who was visiting from Australia.

The public will now also be able to see the interior view of the Tiffany rose window.

Now that the work on the nave is complete, the restoration will continue on the eastern half of the cathedral, where the organ will be reassembled.

"Everything has to be done by hand – making all the pneumatics, cleaning all the parts, cleaning the pipes - there are almost 8,500 speaking pipes in this organ ranging from seven-eighths of an inch to 32 feet long and that pipe weighs a ton," said organ curator Douglas Hunt.

It's expected to take several months to reassemble the organ, slated to finish just before November 30th, the 67th anniversary's of the nave's first dedication. That's when the entire cathedral will be rededicated.

The cathedral welcomes about 250,000 visitors every year.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=84004

Manhattan's Hidden Treasures: Morningside Park Provides 30 Unexpected Acres Of Green

2008-07-19T12:27:00.008-04:00

Jul 19, 2008
On NY1 Now: News All Day

Manhattan's Hidden Treasures: Morningside Park Provides 30 Unexpected Acres Of Green

http://real.ny1.com:8080/ramgen/real4/0024BEAA_080717_180437hi.rm

As NY1’s week-long celebration of Manhattan’s best-kept secrets draws to a close, Borough Reporter Rebecca Spitz filed the following report on Morningside Park, a green oasis in Harlem.

In the shadow of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine lies the divine Morningside Park, 30 unexpected acres of green that were designated a historical landmark just this week.

"With the designation as a scenic landmark, this park will remain intact and all of its essential features basically as long as one can imagine -- that is to say, forever," said Landmarks Commissioner Robert Tierney.

Designed by renowned Central Park architects Fredrick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux, Morningside Park lies between 110th and 123rd Streets, between Morningside Drive and Manhattan and Morningside Avenues. It is lush land and winding walkways as far as the eye can see.

"The topography gives one the opportunity to get a view of Manhattan and a view of the entire city, in fact, from all kinds of perspectives," said Tierney.

From a perch on the top of the park, there are unparalleled views of Morningside Heights and Harlem.

Descending the majestic staircases into the park, visitors can find a world that couldn't be further from the city's hustle and bustle. "You pretty much lose yourself in the park, which makes you feel like you're not in New York, which is a good thing," said a park visitor.

The park’s waterfall is a natural draw, as are the park's softball fields, playgrounds and picnic tables.

"Look at it, it's beautiful,” said another visitor. “You've got the pond, you've got the waterfall, everything is beautiful, you can plant flowers and everything. I love it."

New Yorkers know a thing or two about people-watching, but in Morningside Park, they can practice turtle-watching.

"There's like at least five or six of them, and they sunbathe sometimes out on the rocks. It's nice," said another visitor.

But if reptiles aren't your passion, there are plenty of other things to see and to do: "I come out to practice, maybe basketball or football, whatever the case may be,” said a local. “But it's great place to be."

- Rebecca Spitz

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=83898

Harlem Area Is Blighted, State Agency Declares

2008-07-18T13:27:00.004-04:00

From: Erikeith@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:02:35 EDT
Subject: Manhattanville Blighted, State Agency Declares (NYT article)
To: reysmont
#message2176515497846549395198086208523728921222901472

FYI: NYT article: "Harlem Area Is Blighted, State Agency Declares":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/nyregion/18columbia.html
======================================
Eric K. Washington
Author"Manhattanville: Old Heart of West Harlem" (Arcadia)
http://www.erickwashington.com/

The New York Times
N.Y. / Region

Harlem Area Is Blighted, State Agency Declares

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: July 18, 2008

The Empire State Development Corporation declared a 17-acre area of Harlem blighted on Thursday, a step toward forcing property owners to sell their land as part of eminent domain proceedings to make way for the expansion of Columbia University.

The long-awaited finding — that a slice of the west part of Harlem known as Manhattanville is full of deteriorating buildings — was part of the state development agency’s preliminary approval of the university’s $6.28 billion expansion plan.

The plan, which the agency is expected to formally approve in the fall, has been opposed by some Harlem residents, who fear being displaced by the university.

The expansion, which is to take place over 25 years, will transform a section of Upper Manhattan dominated by warehouses and auto-body shops into a campus with high-rise classrooms and laboratories, tree-lined streets and student housing.

All but a handful of the expansion zone’s existing buildings will be torn down to make room for the new campus, which Columbia officials have said will eventually include many of the university’s science and research facilities.

Columbia says it is short of space. On Thursday, Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president, lauded the agency’s move.

“We are gratified by the Empire State Development Corporation’s adoption of a general project plan as the next step for a civic project that has moved forward with widespread support from local officials, elected representatives and a wide coalition of public interest groups committed to sustainable growth and vibrant urban neighborhoods,” President Bollinger said in a statement.

Much of the opposition to the expansion plan has been centered on Columbia’s refusal to pledge that it would not seek to have the state take over the privately owned land that the university has been unable to purchase.

Mr. Bollinger has promised not to ask the state to invoke eminent domain for the area’s residential buildings, which are home to about 300 people, but he has refused to make similar promises regarding the few commercial properties that have not been purchased by the university.

On Thursday, Columbia released its most direct statement to date about its intention to pursue eminent domain: “The university has requested that the E.S.D.C. consider exercising its eminent domain authority in order to ensure that commercial development in this old industrial area does not prevent the city and state from achieving the public interest goals in the proposed academic expansion, with all of the long-term economic, educational and civic benefits it will bring to the local economy and all New Yorkers.”

The university has said it owns about 90 percent of the private property in the area bounded roughly by Broadway on the east, Riverside Drive on the west, 133rd Street on the north and 129th Street on the south.

Two commercial property owners, however, have refused to sell. One of them is Nicholas Sprayregen, who owns four buildings in the expansion zone as part of his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage moving and storage business.

Mr. Sprayregen has been vocal in his opposition to eminent domain and has vowed to fight the university to the Supreme Court if necessary. For months, his buildings have displayed giant banners that read “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!”

On Thursday, Mr. Sprayregen, 44, vowed to continue fighting.

“It is clear that the voices of the community have been unsuccessful in dissuading Columbia University or the state from voluntarily backing off the threat of eminent domain,” he said. “We will go full steam ahead in preparing our defense.”

But on Thursday, many city and state lawmakers were aligned against Mr. Sprayregen.

Along with the press release announcing the development agency’s approval of the expansion plan were statements of approval from Gov. David A. Paterson, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and state Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright.

The project has been approved by the City Council and is supported by the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer.

On Thursday, the state development agency said that two separate studies had determined that the part of Harlem under consideration was “mainly characterized by aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings, with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated conditions.”

Opponents of the expansion, however, have said for months that the study’s findings were a foregone conclusion because the consulting firm that performed the blight analysis on behalf of the state — Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc. — had previously conducted Columbia University’s environmental impact study for the expansion.

On Thursday, the state agency said that the consulting firm’s analysis had been audited by a second firm, Earth Tech Inc.

This week, a state appellate court upheld a decision ordering the development corporation to release documents regarding the expansion of Columbia University to Mr. Sprayregen because of the conflict of interest.

A public hearing on the project will probably be held in September, said Warner Johnston, an agency spokesman. A final vote will come after the hearing.

After that, businesses facing the possibility of eminent domain would have 30 days to present their arguments, officials said.

Columbia said on Thursday that it was willing to restart negotiations with the holdout businesses before eminent domain proceedings began.

“The university remains committed to reaching mutually beneficial agreements with the two remaining commercial property owners on these blocks,” Columbia said in a statement.

It's On! State Starts Eminent Domain For Columbia

2008-07-17T22:52:00.003-04:00

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:42:14 -0400
To: reysmont
From: "Tenant"
Subject: It's On! State Starts Eminent Domain For Columbia

It's On! State Starts Eminent Domain For Columbia

by Eliot Brown

Rendering of new Columbia campus at 131st and Broadway.

The state's main development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, kicked off the public process for eminent domain for Columbia University's 17-acre West Harlem expansion today, starting a final chapter in the approvals for the contentious $7 billion initiative.

In announcing the process, ESDC President Avi Schick unveiled two unexpected nuggets of news surrounding the plan: yet another concession package from Columbia and a second blight study.

The concessions, which come on top of two multi-million dollar concession packages negotiated last year with Borough President Scott Stringer and then with the other local elected officials and members of the community, included $20 million for community development initiatives, $1 million for CUNY, a mobile dental center, and undergraduate scholarships.

Mr. Schick told reporters the rationale behind the new agreement with Columbia was to better integrate the campus with the surrounding area, saying, "We really wanted to make sure this was one neighborhood, one community." With respect to the second blight study, the ESDC lost an appellate court ruling earlier this week that was critical of the state's choice of contractor for the blight study.

The contractor, AKRF, also was retained to do an environmental study for Columbia for a rezoning of the area, and the court saw a conflict. Surprise! The ESDC tells us today that it did a second blight study, by contractor Earth Tech Inc.. So everything's copacetic, right? State Senator Bill Perkins, the main elected official critical of the expansion, was not too pleased that he wasn't informed about the second study (he told the Sun today that the state should do a second study).

In his comments at the board meeting, he had a rather contentious back and forth with Mr. Schick, seemingly trying to push his buttons (at least in private, many in government say Mr. Schick has something of a short fuse), though the ESDC president kept his cool. A sampling of the exchange:

Mr. Perkins: "Why was I not told that such a study was in the works?"

"Senator, I don't know, there are numerous"
...

Mr. Perkins: "Do we have staff here that can go get the information that I am requesting so that before I leave I can know for sure what I'm talking about?"

"Senator before you leave today, we will endeavor to get the answer

"Endeavor? That sounds like it's something that's difficult to do. It is either yes you will get it, or no you won't."

"SenatorSenator, with all respect, in the dozen meetings and conversations you and I have had"

"With all respect? You're now starting to pay respect?"

Mr. Schick: "No, I paid respect

Mr. Perkins: "You did not, because otherwise you would have respected me to get that information to me before today."

And on it went.

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/esdc-starts-eminent-domain-process-columbia-expansion

Statement of Walter South: Empire State Development Corporation 17Jul08

2008-07-17T22:20:00.003-04:00

Statement of Walter South:

For the hearing before the Empire State Development Corporation on 17 Jul 08.
On the proposed approval of a GPP of Columbia University for Manhattanville

My name is Walter South,

The key to understand this application is an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal last October. The article reported that Yale had a profit in their last fiscal year of 4.5 billion dollars on their endowment Funds. Yale’s profit on their endowment last year almost exceeded Columbia’s total endowment. This is the bottom line rationale for this application.

Columbia was rated this year by the U.S. News and World Report as 9th among the best schools in the Nation. They rated behind Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and even Duke. But, Columbia wants to “belly up to the table with the big boy’s”. There is only one little problem. Columbia cannot even pick up their own tab

So their President has called for a “Hail Mary” play. Let the Government pick up the tab, so they can score on an end run. A kind of Socialism for the well-connected. Let the City rezone 17 acres for their exclusive use. Let the City pick up the infrastructure expenses. Let the State grab the site by Eminent Domain, and then fund the buildings by the Dormitory Authority, and get Federal Research Bio-Tech Grants to pay off the State tax exempt bonds.

And call the project “Academic Expansion” or a “New Campus” to befuddle the City with a smokescreen.

What’s in this for Columbia? They get 17 acres, on the cheap, plus all the land under all the streets and sidewalks for free, and furthermore they get to keep all income from any future Patents for their endowment fund.

What’s in this for New York City? Columbia will pay no property taxes, no expenses for police, fire, or sewage usage.

Columbia has made several claims about possible future jobs for the City as a benefit. Sometimes it is claimed that 6,000, sometimes 9,000. But, is this in writing? Is there a guarantee? No: bottom-line, its puffery.

Are these jobs for the auto mechanics and warehouse employees that are being displaced?

At present Columbia has about 14,000 employees. If they create 6,000 jobs this means an increase of 43% on payroll. If the number of students is not increasing how is this increase to going to be paid for? It is going to be paid for from Government funds and/or the private business sector: hence their Business Park.

At present over 27% of Columbia students are foreign students. This is one of the largest percentages of foreign students of any college in this country. Columbia’s mission is to educate the elite of the world-not our kids. Would this same amount of money going to City College, make our City better?

Lastly, how does Columbia justify their need to develop this exclusive office park? By claiming that they need to build a seven story deep, 17 acre bathtub, in a known geological fault.

Of course, this bathtub is a complete fantasy. When the bill for this tub comes in, and the logistics for moving probably 100,000 trucks of this dirty dirt out of the City is clarified -it will never be built. In the meantime, the State and City have been snookered!

And of course to guarantee the success of this land grab, the University, asks for the right to use Eminent Domain. They want to steal someone’s private property for their own exclusive use.

This proposal for Eminent Domain is unjust, immoral, unethical, and contrary to the rights as set forth in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Our Community welcomes Columbia to expand. If they want to go into business, we have no problem. But, let it be a level playing field. Let them buy land on the open market.

Let the market decide if their business venture warrants their investment. After all Harvard is expanding with no Eminent Domain. University of Penn has expanded without Eminent Domain. NYU has expanded without Eminent Domain.

ESDC should require Columbia adopt the 197-a plan of CB#9 which allows the applicant to expand while respecting and preserving a richly diverse community. The ESDC must eject any forced evictions and the use of Eminent Domain. The ESDC should embrace the significance of historic preservation of Old Manhattanville. The ESDC must require the applicant to integrate within the community, not bulldoze it. We want Columbia to be a part of the Community, not apart from the Community.

Bottom line: until these changes are agreed to ESDC should reject this application.

Lower East Side rezone plan another Mike Bloomberg boondoggle

2008-07-16T09:58:00.006-04:00

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:43:06 -0400
To: reysmont
From: "Tenant" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Lower East Side rezone plan another Mike Bloomberg boondoggle

Lower East Side rezone plan another Mike Bloomberg boondoggle

Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 1:06 AM
Juan Gonzalez
NY Daily News

Wah Lee, a slight, middle-aged factory worker, stood in front of the Municipal Building Tuesday vowing a long fight to save her Chinatown neighborhood. All around her were dozens of Chinese and Hispanic residents of the lower East Side.

They held up placards with words like: "Stop Racist Rezoning" and "Chinatown/Lower East Side Are Not For Sale."

They brought a box of petitions with the signatures of some 10,000 of their neighbors - all opposed to the City Planning Commission's new rezoning proposal.

Theirs is a story that has become all-too familiar during the Bloomberg era: another stable neighborhood turned upside down by a massive rezoning.

The sheer number of these rezonings - from Columbia University to Hudson Yards to Greenpoint - Williamsburg to Willets Point, boggles the mind. City officials routinely claim it's for the good of the neighborhoods, but in the end a handful of well-connected developers and Big Box stores end up the big winners.

Small businesses and low-income New Yorkers keep getting pushed out. The latest rezoning, opponents say, is targeted at the largely white and upscale areas of the lower East Side below 14th St. and above Houston St.

It deliberately excludes Chinatown and the largely Hispanic areas east of Avenue D and below Delancey St. "Why are they leaving out the Asian and Hispanic areas when we represent 60% of the community board's population?" asked Josephine Lee, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Chinatown/LES.

The city's plan would permit new luxury condos all along Avenue D, Chrystie St. and Allen St. - at the edge of the rezoned area, while establishing height protections for buildings inside it.

That kind of zoning, said Stan Marks of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, is sure to create a wall of luxury buildings separating the white areas of the neighborhood from the low-income Hispanics and Chinese who have lived in the neighborhood for decades.

At the same time, "the city is allowing a Wild West construction climate to prevail below Houston," Marks said. "Hotels and condos are springing up and creating massive displacement without any controls," Marks said.

"We want a different plan, one that is more comprehensive and includes the whole community."

Rachaele Raynoff, a spokeswoman for the City Planning Commission, said no one is being excluded. The city, Raynoff said, "has worked collaboratively for three years with Community Board 3 on a rezoning plan to protect 111 blocks in the lower East Side and East Village from out of scale development and create new and affordable housing."

Those who oppose this plan don't speak for all of Chinatown, Raynoff added. "There has not been apparent consensus on priorities for [Chinatown's] future but we will continue to meet with diverse stakeholders."

The opponents delivered their petitions Tuesday to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Under the city's land-use review process, Stringer must first approve the plan before it goes to the City Council for a vote.

"All the body language we're getting from Stringer's aides is he supports this plan," Marks said.

"That's a big mistake." Carmen Boon, a spokeswoman for Stringer, said the borough president has an open mind. "Our office has met with representatives of this coalition to discuss their issues and concerns," Boon said.

"The borough president will be conducting his usual process of community consultation and review."

No matter what Stringer decides, Wah Lee and her neighbors say they'll keep fighting to save their Chinatown from this tsunami from the city planners.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/15/2008-07-15_lower_east_side_rezone_plan_another_mike.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
TenantNet(tm): http://tenant.net/
email: tenant@tenant.net
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant activists and is not considered legal advice.

Coming Thursday To West Harlem: Columbia’s Eminent Domain Fight

2008-07-15T22:37:00.001-04:00

Coming Thursday To West Harlem: Columbia’s Eminent Domain Fight
by Eliot Brown July 15, 2008

Tags:
Real Estate
Columbia University
eminent domain
Empire State Development Corporation

Just when news started to slow for the summer on the development front, New York's Empire State Development Corporation dropped this bombshell in the agenda for its monthly meeting [PDF]: Columbia University "Land Use Improvement Project and Civic Project Findings."

Translation: the state will unveil the blight study, the first step in the use of eminent domain for Columbia's 17-acre West Harlem site.

The one major holdout left in the footprint is Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage, which has numerous properties in the area. Mr. Sprayregen has bankrolled much of the opposition to the project, particularly on the legal front, and has previously vowed to challenge the use of eminent domain.

"Columbia had numerous opportunities to amicably resolve this, but they chose not to, and the battle lines are drawn," said Norman Siegel, Mr. Sprayregen's attorney. "This controversy has been brewing for at least five years."

We're waiting on a statement from Columbia.

The eminent domain issue is the second of two major legal hurdles to the expansion, which comes as the university says it needs to build new facilities to remain competitive. Last December, it passed the first obstacle: approval by the city and City Council of a rezoning for the area.

[Update: Columbia declined to comment].

3 comments

Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options
Submit this as a letter to the editor?
By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Perhaps more important is a decision handed down just today that ruled in favor of Mr. Sprayregen. It upholds a lower court's decision to release documents that the state refused to hand over plus the court raises the real issue of conflict of interest between Columbia and the state in their hiring, at the same time, the same consultant. Stay tuned for more. July 15, 2008 3:48 PM

Claude Blanchet (not verified) says:
For the past six years Columbia have tried their best to get me out of my apartment on Riverside so they could use it for students..a much more lucrative prospect since I am under rent control.I have been disable for the past 18 years and yet Columbia does not show any sign of relenquishing their claim eventhough I have been residing in my home for the past 44 years.It is very doubtfull that Columbia will ever maintain their claim of fairness toward the residents of Harlem for in my case, since I live in a prime location in front of the Park they will do anything to side track the law and evict me without an afterthough
Claude Blanchet July 17, 2008 11:06 AM

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Columbia University's plan is racist and classist, and they have been courting the elected officials, who are supposed to represent the people of Harlem, via campaign contributions and public relations tactics. Particularly, Councilman Robert Jackson has completely misrepresented his constituents in an effort to maintain a positive relationship with Columbia's deep pockets. Columbia has claimed that it will not invoke Eminent Domain for the acquisitions of residential properties in West Harlem, but yet, hasn't offered any acceptable offers to the tenants in the area. Columbia would be better off buying out each tenant one-by-one; Instead, they're using electeds, PR and the government rights to displace good hard-working people. July 17, 2008 11:37 AM

Columbia Renounces (Some) Eminent Domain
Manhattanville Sues for Information
ESDC Upstate Gets a New (Acting) Leader
Paterson Installs Buffalo-Based Bank Chief as ESDC Chair [UPDATED]
Yet Another ESDC Principal Out: Upstate Chair Gundersen Resigns [UPDATED]

State Must Release Columbia Expansion Papers, Court Rules

2008-07-15T17:31:00.000-04:00

N.Y./Region July 15, 2008, 5:16 pm
City Room

State Must Release Columbia Expansion Papers, Court Rules
By John Eligon

A state appellate court on Tuesday upheld a decision ordering the Empire State Development Corporation to release documents regarding the expansion of Columbia University to a group that opposes the plans.

The court voted, 3 to 1, to uphold a June 2007 decision by Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of State Supreme Court that said the corporation’s decision to hire a consultant that also worked for Columbia was a conflict of interest. That conflict meant that correspondences between the corporation and the consultant were not exempt from public disclosure laws and needed to be released, Justice Kornreich ruled.

But the appellate court did find that certain documents were indeed exempt and did not need to be released.

The state in 2006 hired the consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc., or A.K.R.F., to conduct a study to determine whether the state would be justified in using its power of eminent domain to condemn property sought by Columbia for its expansion. A.K.R.F. was already working with Columbia on the expansion.

Consultants dealing with state agencies may be exempt from public disclosure laws, but in this case the judges found that a conflict of interest nullified the exemption in certain areas.

“Supreme Court clearly had reason to doubt A.K.R.F.’s independence, objectivity and sense of what good judgment calls for,” because of the consultant’s ties to Columbia, Judge James M. Catterson wrote in his majority opinion.

The appellate decision was praised by the West Harlem Business Group, which has been trying to obtain that documents and has been opposed to its members being removed from their properties to accommodate the expansion.

Nick Sprayregen, a member for the group, said the court’s ruling affirmed his belief “that the whole process of Columbias request for the state to condemn private property is tainted with conflicts of interest.”

Warner Johnston, a spokesman for Empire State Development, said the corporation would “expeditiously” turn over the required documents.

“We are gratified that the court rejected plaintiff’s additional claims,” he wrote in an e-mail message.

Among the communications that the court ruled did not need to be turned over were correspondences addressing how the agency would respond to an inquiry about its role in the project and e-mails discussing the scheduling of meetings involving the project.
Add a Comment
E-mail this

Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
Buildings and Landmarks,
Courts and Law,
Higher Education,
Land Use and Planning,
Manhattan,
Columbia University,
Empire State Development Corporation,
Harlem,
Morningside Heights

Related
Planning Panel Approves Columbia Expansion
Columbia Again Defends Its Expansion Plan
City Council Approves Columbia Expansion Plan
Historic Harlem Theater Gets a Developer, at Last
-->
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/state-must-release-columbia-expansion-papers-court-rules/

More Columbia News: Court Denies State Appeal in FOIL Case

2008-07-15T17:00:00.005-04:00

More Columbia News: Court Denies State Appeal in FOIL Case
by Eliot Brown July 15, 2008
Tags:
Real Estate
Columbia University
Empire State Development Corporation
Nick Sprayregen

Flickr via skreuzer
The major landowner fighting Columbia University's expansion, Nick Sprayregen, today came out victorious over the state's Empire State Development Corporation today in an appellate court ruling on a case involving the Freedom of Information Law.

The case concerned the release of documents and correspondences between the state and its contractor AKRF, mostly surrounding the creation of a blight study (slated for release Thursday).

Mr. Sprayregen, represented by attorney Norman Siegel, defeated the state at the first level last year, with the court offering criticism that the same contractor, AKRF, was used for both the blight study and the environmental review.

"It basically says that we're entitled to all these development documents because AKRF was not neutral and represented the interests of Columbia," Mr. Siegel said.

ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston said in a statement that the state would release the remaining documents.

"The vast majority of documents that the court ruled were subject to FOIL, ESDC had already made public," he said. "To the extent that there are additional documents subject to FOIL, we will release them expeditiously. We are gratified that the court rejected plaintiff's additional claims."

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/more-columbia-news-court-denies-state-appeal-foil-case

ESDC to Decide Eminent Domain in M'Ville Expansion

2008-07-15T13:41:00.000-04:00

ESDC to Decide Eminent Domain in M'Ville Expansion
By Daniel Amzallag
PUBLISHED JULY 15, 2008

The Empire State Development Corporation is scheduled to present the blight study and vote on the General Project Plan for Columbia’s proposed expansion into Manhattanville Thursday, marking the potential for an official answer to the question of eminent domain.

The board of directors of the ESDC will vote on the “adoption” of the University’s General Project Plan and the authorization of a public hearing for commentary on it. Following that hearing, the board will vote again either to affirm the original plan or to include modifications based on the public commentary.

The ESDC, an agency empowered by New York State to invoke eminent domain, will also announce Thursday whether Manhattanville is found "blighted," the declaration of which is legally necessary for the state to use eminent domain to compulsorily buy property from owners who have refused to sell.

Columbia currently owns all private property within the 17-acre expansion footprint except for four facilities owned by Nick Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away Storage and a gas station on W. 125th Street. Thursday’s meeting follows a years-long Neighborhood Conditions Study considering the condemnation of parts of the area.

“I think Columbia’s expansion in Manhattanville serves an important civic purpose and is a legitimate use of eminent domain,” Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin said in a January interview. “I think that’s been widely recognized in terms of contributions to intellectual capital, the creation of jobs, and the benefits Columbia University as a great university brings to New York City.”

University officials have repeatedly declined to comment on ongoing negotiations, save to say that they hope to reach agreements with all property owners. While eminent domain is a possibility for local businesses, the General Project Plan details the relocation of residents who currently reside in the expansion footprint.

The possibility of eminent domain has been met with stern opposition from business owners and local community members. "It’s been no secret that the community in total has been against eminent domain," said Maritta Dunn, former Community Board 9 chair and West Harlem Local Development Corporation officer. "It is inherently wrong regardless of the businesses—it is wrong to take someone’s business for your own personal use. This is not a hospital, it’s not a road, it’s not a public good."

Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, also a former chair of CB9, denied that Manhattanville should be declared blighted. “It’s never been blighted. It’s an industrial area … Any semblance of blight is strictly on the properties owned by Columbia University,” he said.

The General Project Plan, dated Sept. 22, 2006, anticipates that the area will be found to be “characterized by blighted conditions that will be unlikely to be removed without public action.”
“Parcels which Columbia is unable to purchase would be acquired by ESDC through the exercise of the power of eminent domain,” states the proposal, acquired by Spectator under the Freedom of Information Law.

The plan separately requests eminent domain for the creation of an eight-story underground space below the expansion site that would contain the bus depot, energy center, and parking and loading facilities. This would only go forward if the city agreed to sell the underground land, Kasdin said.

Spokesperson La-Verna Fountain declined to comment on the ESDC’s dealings.
Please continue to check http://www.columbiaspectator.com/ for updates on this story.

news@columbiaspectator.com
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55228

In Suit Against Landlord, Tenants Make Unusual Accusation:Racketeering

2008-07-11T17:22:00.002-04:00

patjonesny@aol.com wrote:
To: reysmont@yahoo.com, nyc-cb9m@juno.com
Subject: Fwd: In Suit Against Landlord, Tenants Make Unusual Accusation:Racketeering
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:59:46 -0400
From: patjonesny@aol.comNY

Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/nyregion/12evict.html
July 12, 2007

In Suit Against Landlord, Tenants Make Unusual Accusation: Racketeering
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

A group of tenants filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against one of the city's fastest-growing residential landlords yesterday, accusing it of harassment, fraud, rent overcharges and illegal evictions.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that the landlord, the Pinnacle Group, and its owner, Joel Weiner,systematically evicted tenants to raise rents in apartments throughout the city, but primarily in units concentrated in Harlem, Washington Heights and the Bronx.

Because Pinnacle owns several thousand apartment units in those areas - most of them bought during the past four years - tenants and their lawyers said the company's actions constituted an attack on rent-regulated housing in some of Manhattan's few remainingworking-class neighborhoods.

Pinnacle has acknowledged sending out some 5,000 letters, calleddispossess notices, to tenants in about a quarter of its 21,000 units during a 29-month period from 2004 through 2006, citing nonpayment of rent, invalid line of succession for occupancy and other violations; however, it said only a few hundred people had actually been evicted.

Issuing a dispossess notice is a legal requirement before an eviction can take place. The company said that its rate of eviction was below the industry average.Pinnacle representatives said yesterday that data on evictions since 2006 were not available.

In a statement yesterday responding to the lawsuit, Kenneth K. Fisher, a lawyer and former city councilman who is representing Pinnacle, said that the company had not violated any laws.

"Pinnacle is proud of its record of providing safe and affordable housing for thousands of New York families, and we are confident that this lawsuit, which was released to the press before being served on us, will be found to be without merit," the statement read.

The lawsuit - filed by several individual Pinnacle tenants along with a tenants' group, Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem, made up largely of Pinnacle tenants - is unusual in that it accuses Pinnacle of engaging in racketeering, including using the federal postal system and interstate wires as "part of an ongoing scheme to increase rents unlawfully, to receive illegal rents and ultimately, to free their properties from New York's rent control and rent stabilization requirements."

Racketeering allegations are more commonly used by the federal government to prosecute organized crime figures and drug traffickers.

The suit also contends that Pinnacle has intimidated tenants through threatened evictions and claimed to make building repairs and improvements that had never been made. The company has acknowledged in the past that it improperly passed on costs of repairs and apartment upgrades to new tenants, but said they were isolated mistakes.

Last year, both the state attorney general's office and the Manhattan district attorney's office began investigations into the company after receiving numerous complaints from tenants and elected officials.

In December, Pinnacle reached a settlement with the state in which it admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to hire an auditor to analyze its rents. The district attorney's investigation is continuing, officials said.Richard F. Levy, a senior partner at Jenner & Block, who isrepresenting the tenants pro bono, said the firm filed the lawsuitagainst Pinnacle after conducting its own yearlong investigation.

Andres Mares-Muro, a Pinnacle tenant who is a plaintiff in the suit, said he had recently learned that the rent on his Harlem apartment, $1,275, was almost double that of the previous tenant, $648. "In this supposedly rent-stabilized unit, we are paying market rate," he said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NB- I don't want to sound like I am defending Pinnacle but the fact is that when people don't pay their rent Landlords must take them to court and either collect the debt or evict them.

Another fact is that many rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments have changed tenants several times in a surrepticious manner against payment of "key money" and never changed the leases to the new tenants name. I know of cases, for example, where a rent controlled apartment was leased to a person back in the 1950's and in 2008 was still under that tenant's name who had died in 1960.

The truth is that this type of problems are not at all unusual in Upper Manhattan.

A new Landlord such a Pinnacle simple enforces the laws that have been ignored for years by previous owners and it is done for many reasons but the prinicpal reason is that it is a good basic business practice to recover regulated apartments, rehabilitate them and apply for the Major Capital Improvement allowances to increase the base rents. Once rents reach $2000/month the unit becomes de-regulated and the Landlord can charge Market rates.

Landlords are in it for the money, they are not social service organizations, keeping in mind that even social service not-for-profit housing will evict tenants for non-payment and for illegal succession or squatting.

In the joint Hearing that CB9M and CB12M held last year on Pinnacle most of the tesitmony and documentation supported the actions taken by Pinnacle and on a number of instances satisfactory agreements were reached between the tenants and Pinnacle.

If it is proven that Pinnacle has abused the Courts and/or MCI systems it should be punished to the full extent of the laws.

However, in most cases the Pinnacle actions were within the law and permitted, the problem is the sheer volume and the total lack of sensitivity to the common practices in the communites affected.

It was strongly recommended, personally by me to Joel Wiener to set up an ombudsman desk to evaluate each case before taking them to Court keeping in mind the peculiarity of Upper Manhattan in regards to succession - I never heard one way or another if he did.

I did not, in any way, thought or even attempted, to dissuade him from taking legal action against rent delinquent tenants.- JRM

Whose Harlem Is It?

2008-07-06T16:24:00.002-04:00

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:52:38 -0400
Subject: Major article on Hamilton Heights real estate broker in "New York Magazine"
From: "Mark D. Levine"
To: "Jordi Reyes-Montblanc"

Hey Jordi- Hope all’s well with you. In case you haven’t seen it, check out: http://nymag.com/realestate/features/48328/. You may want to post this on you list.

Let’s catch up soon.
Saludos-
Mark

New York
Real Estate

Whose Harlem Is It?
Willie Kathryn Suggs, the so-called Queen of Harlem Real Estate, has sent local housing prices soaring. She’s also touched off a heated debate: Should Harlem be preserved as an affordable haven for blacks? Or sold to the highest bidder?
By Robert Kolker
Published Jul 6, 2008

(Photo: Richard Renaldi)

Willie Kathryn Suggs is walking me through a handsome four-story brownstone at 350 Convent Avenue in Harlem—or, as she puts it, “a house everybody goes gaga for.” The most successful and reviled real-estate broker in Harlem is small and intense, a prim, light-skinned black woman with wire-rimmed glasses, her hair pinned back in a clip. The house, a Suggs exclusive, is about to be listed at $3.875 million, up from the $380,000 it sold for just nine years ago. As she shows me the ornate parlor (“Four types of wood!”), Suggs mentions that she handled that sale, too, as well as one in between, in 2005, for $1.925 million. That’s two sales going on three, for a total of $6.2 million, and a tenfold run-up from the original price. From this place alone, Suggs stands to earn close to $400,000 in commissions.

Suggs has a habit—a compulsion, really—of talking nonstop and unself-consciously, changing subjects every few seconds, gesturing wildly and injecting cornball expressions that hint at the Wisconsin girl she once was, like “li’l ol’ me,” “works for me,” and “oh happy happy!” But a ripple of exasperation colors her voice as well, as though she’s convinced she’s the only sane person in an insane world. Out of nowhere, she’ll launch into derisive shrieks in odd cartoonish voices about how “stupid” people can be. “The biggest problem I have,” Suggs says, “is people think they know what Harlem is, and they haven’t a clue! First of all, they’re not brownstones. Brownstone is a building material, not an architectural style … ”

One of Suggs’s other favorite expressions is happy camper. This she reserves for the people who are sitting pretty in life, like the current owner of this house, a woman named Lovelynn Gwinn. Suggs had convinced Gwinn to buy another house in Harlem back in 1996. As the market exploded, that place soared in value, giving Gwinn the means and leverage to buy this one. Gwinn is now a close friend of Suggs’s, and runs Suggs’s firm’s Website. Gwinn also happens to be white. Their friendship, and the real-estate deals of which it was born, are Exhibit A among those who charge that Suggs is selling out Old Harlem. But to Suggs, Gwinn was just smart. She’s a happy camper. “People hate Lovelynn’s guts,” she says. “Now, did she do anything offensive? No. All she did was come to me to buy a house. I showed her how to buy a house.”

All you need to know about the current backlash against Harlem’s gentrification, Suggs says, comes down to the happy campers who bought at the right time and the stupid people who didn’t. Those who didn’t buy, she says, are just jealous, and Suggs never seems to miss a chance to rub it in—even if they’re black. “Black people can be racist,” she says, shooting me a coy look in the restored kitchen. “Hello? Reverend Wright? We’ve got our little racists running around. Some of them want Harlem to stay black. They actually think Harlem was built by and for black people. And we have to tell them all the time, ‘Excuse me, dear? We weren’t here. We didn’t even lay the bricks, right? Some of us worked on the subway tunnel, okay. But this was built by and for upper-middle-class white folks. We were the second and third owners. We were never—and I mean zero, nunca, never—the first owner of all these houses!”

But what about the people who would like Harlem to stay mainly black, I ask, even if it wasn’t always that way?

Suggs shuts her eyes and shakes her head. “You don’t have a God-given right to own your house till the end of time,” she says, “unless you actually own your house. We’re not talking about a country like Italy that’s for Italians. We’re talking about a neighborhood in the United States of America. There’s nothing that says Harlem has to be black!”

No part of New York has changed more dramatically during the recent historic real-estate boom than Harlem, and no broker has done more to drive that change than Willie Kathryn Suggs. In the past twenty years, Suggs, a former TV-news writer who hadn’t set foot north of 125th Street until 1984, has almost single-handedly pushed up sale prices on many Harlem homes to ten, twenty, even 40 times what they were previously worth. She was the first broker to break Harlem’s half-million-dollar barrier, in 1995, the first to reach $850,000, in 2000, and the first to surge past $2 million, in 2002.

But as Willie Suggs has changed the face of Harlem, much of Harlem has come to turn on Willie Suggs. Competing brokers and even some former sales agents now call her a predator, a bully, a thief—Willie Thuggs. Even by the aggressive standards of New York real estate, they say, she will boldly horn in on a listing, land a sale, or lay claim to a commission. “Everyone knows,” says one broker, “when you go to work with Willie Kathryn Suggs, you better watch your back.” Suggs has also become a lightning rod in Harlem’s larger gentrification debate. Critics say she has wantonly driven up real-estate prices until no one but the richest Harlemites could afford them and, worse, delivered much of the neighborhood into the hands of wealthy whites. Now every new sale she rings up seems to raise a pair of uncomfortable questions: Should Harlem be preserved forever as an affordable haven for blacks? Or should it be sold to the highest bidder?

http://nymag.com/realestate/features/48328/

Home Girl: Building a Dream House on a Lawless Block

2008-07-04T22:10:00.001-04:00

From: jematloff
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:13:09 EDT
Subject: matloff book about the neighborhood - shameless self publicity
To: reysmont@yahoo.com

Jordi, here's the entry for your blog, feel free to slash and burn and edit. Thanks! Best jm

Dear Neighbors:
Random House has just released my chronicle about West Harlem and the community's fight against the narcotics activity. It's called "Home Girl -- Building a Dream House on a Lawless Block." Kirkus Reviews calls it "A loving, stirring portrait of the American cultural mosaic." It's also got funny bits.

I'll be giving a reading on July 21 at 6 p.m. at Hue-Man books, Frederick Douglas Blvd between 124 and 125 Streets.

Enjoy!
Judith Matloff

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Home Girl: Building a Dream House on a Lawless Block
Judith Matloff

After twenty years as a foreign correspondent in tumultuous locales including Rwanda, Chechnya, and Sudan, Judith Matloff is ready to put down roots and start a family. She leaves Moscow and returns to her native New York City to house-hunt for the perfect spot while her Dutch husband, John, stays behind in Russia with their dog to pack up their belongings.

Intoxicated by West Harlem’s cultural diversity and, more important, its affordability, Judith impulsively buys a stately fixer-upper brownstone in the neighborhood.Little does she know what’s in store.

Judith and John discover that their dream house was once a crack den and that “fixer upper” is an understatement. The building is a total wreck:

The beams have been chewed to dust by termites, the staircase is separating from the wall, and the windows are smashed thanks to a recent break-in. Plus, the house–crowded with throngs of brazen drug dealers–forms the bustling epicenter of the cocaine trade in the Northeast, and heavily armed police regularly appear outside their door in pursuit of the thugs and crackheads who loiter there.

Thus begins Judith and John’s odyssey to win over the neighbors, including Salami, the menacing addict who threatens to take over their house; MacKenzie, the literary homeless man who quotes Latin over morning coffee; Mrs. LaDuke, the salty octogenarian and neighborhood watchdog; and Miguel, the smooth lieutenant of the local drug crew, with whom the couple must negotiate safe passage.

It’s a far cry from utopia, but it’s a start, and they do all they can to carve out a comfortable life. And by the time they experience the birth of a son, Judith and John have even come to appreciate the neighborhood’s rough charms.Blending her finely honed reporter’s instincts with superb storytelling, Judith Matloff has crafted a wry, reflective, and hugely entertaining memoir about community, home, and real estate.

Home Girl is for anyone who has ever longed to go home, however complicated the journey.Advance Praise for Home Girl“Although I always suspected that renovating a house in New York City would be a slightly more harrowing undertaking than dodging bullets as a foreign correspondent, it took this charming story to convince me it could also be more entertaining. Except for the plumbing. That’s one adventure I couldn't survive.”–Michelle Slatalla, author of The Town on Beaver Creek“After years of covering wars overseas, Judith Matloff takes her boundless courage and inimitable style to the front lines of America’s biggest city. From her vantage point in a former crack house in West Harlem, she brings life to a proud community held hostage by drug dealers and forgotten by policy makers. Matloff’s sense of humor, clear reportage, and zest for adventure never fail.

Home Girl is part gritty confessional, part love story, and totally delightful.”–Bob Drogin, author of Curveball“Here the American dream of home ownership takes on the epic dimensions of the modern pioneer in a drug-riddled land. Matloff’s story, which had me crying and laughing, is a portrait of a household and a community, extending far beyond the specifics of West Harlem to the universal–as all well-told stories do.”–Martha McPhee, author of L’AmericaFrom the Hardcover edition.

http://www.mobipocket.com/EN/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?BookID=85878

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Home Girl: Building a Dream House on a Lawless Block (Hardcover)by Judith Matloff (Author)

Editorial Reviews
Product DescriptionAfter twenty years as a foreign correspondent in tumultuous locales including Rwanda, Chechnya, and Sudan, Judith Matloff is ready to put down roots and start a family. She leaves Moscow and returns to her native New York City to house-hunt for the perfect spot while her Dutch husband, John, stays behind in Russia with their dog to pack up their belongings. Intoxicated by West Harlem’s cultural diversity and, more important, its affordability, Judith impulsively buys a stately fixer-upper brownstone in the neighborhood.Little does she know what’s in store. Judith and John discover that their dream house was once a crack den and that “fixer upper” is an understatement.

The building is a total wreck: The beams have been chewed to dust by termites, the staircase is separating from the wall, and the windows are smashed thanks to a recent break-in. Plus, the house–crowded with throngs of brazen drug dealers–forms the bustling epicenter of the cocaine trade in the Northeast, and heavily armed police regularly appear outside their door in pursuit of the thugs and crackheads who loiter there.

Thus begins Judith and John’s odyssey to win over the neighbors, including Salami, the menacing addict who threatens to take over their house; MacKenzie, the literary homeless man who quotes Latin over morning coffee; Mrs. LaDuke, the salty octogenarian and neighborhood watchdog; and Miguel, the smooth lieutenant of the local drug crew, with whom the couple must negotiate safe passage. It’s a far cry from utopia, but it’s a start, and they do all they can to carve out a comfortable life. And by the time they experience the birth of a son, Judith and John have even come to appreciate the neighborhood’s rough charms.Blending her finely honed reporter’s instincts with superb storytelling, Judith Matloff has crafted a wry, reflective, and hugely entertaining memoir about community, home, and real estate. Home Girl is for anyone who has ever longed to go home, however complicated the journey.

Advance Praise for Home Girl“Although I always suspected that renovating a house in New York City would be a slightly more harrowing undertaking than dodging bullets as a foreign correspondent, it took this charming story to convince me it could also be more entertaining. Except for the plumbing. That’s one adventure I couldn't survive.”–Michelle Slatalla, author of The Town on Beaver Creek“After years of covering wars overseas, Judith Matloff takes her boundless courage and inimitable style to the front lines of America’s biggest city. From her vantage point in a former crack house in West Harlem, she brings life to a proud community held hostage by drug dealers and forgotten by policy makers.

Matloff’s sense of humor, clear reportage, and zest for adventure never fail. Home Girl is part gritty confessional, part love story, and totally delightful.”–Bob Drogin, author of Curveball“Here the American dream of home ownership takes on the epic dimensions of the modern pioneer in a drug-riddled land. Matloff’s story, which had me crying and laughing, is a portrait of a household and a community, extending far beyond the specifics of West Harlem to the universal–as all well-told stories do.”–Martha McPhee, author of L’America

About the Author
Judith Matloff is a contributing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review and teaches at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. She was a foreign correspondent for twenty years, lastly as the bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor in Africa and Moscow.

Her stories have appeared in numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Economist, Newsweek, and The Dallas Morning News, and she is the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation grant, a Fulbright fellowship, and the Godsell, the Monitor’s highest accolade for correspondence. Matloff still lives in West Harlem with her husband and son. www.judithmatloff.com
Product Details
Hardcover: 304 pages
Publisher: Random House; 1 edition (June 24, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1400065267
ISBN-13: 978-1400065264
Product Dimensions: 6.4 x 2.8 x 1 inches
Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review:

1 Review
5 star:

(0)
4 star:

(0)
3 star:
(1)
2 star:

(0)
1 star:

(0)See all customer reviews...
(1 customer review)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #205,853 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
(Publishers and authors: Improve Your Sales)
In-Print Editions: Kindle Edition (Kindle Book) All Editions
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images

http://www.amazon.com/Home-Girl-Building-Dream-Lawless/dp/1400065267/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215318349&sr=8-1

Lead Poisoning Cases Decline

2008-07-03T20:07:00.005-04:00

N.Y. / Region

Lead Poisoning Cases Decline
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: July 3, 2008

Childhood lead poisoning declined by 15 percent last year, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reported on Wednesday, reaching the lowest rate ever recorded in New York City.
Skip to next paragraph

Related Leave a Comment on City Room

The 2007 figure — 1,970 poisonings among children 6 months to 6 years of age — is a 90 percent decline since 1995, when nearly 20,000 children were identified with lead poisoning. Even low levels of lead poisoning can cause learning and behavior problems.

Lead-based paint, the primary cause of lead poisoning, has been banned since 1978, but many older buildings still contain the paint. Ingesting particles of lead-contaminated dust from flaking, peeling or chipped paint — often on doors and windows — is the most common pathway for lead poisoning among young children in the United States.

In 2007, 621 children under 18, including 538 younger than 6, were identified with blood lead levels of at least 15 micrograms per deciliter — a level that triggers an environmental investigation in the home and case coordination services. These cases have fallen 22 percent since 2006, when 800 children under 18 received the diagnosis. (Lead poisoning is defined as 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood.)

The 2007 findings also show that testing for lead poisoning increased by about 3 percent among 1- and 2-year-olds since 2006.

Childhood lead poisoning occurs throughout New York City but is highest in Brooklyn.
While only 34 percent of New York City children age 6 months to less than 6 years live in Brooklyn, 43 percent of children newly identified with lead poisoning last year were Brooklyn residents.

Neighborhoods with the greatest number of cases included Borough Park, East Flatbush, Flatbush, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Williamsburg, Bushwick, Greenpoint and East New York.

Of the remaining New York City children with lead poisoning, 22 percent lived in Queens, mostly in western and southwestern Queens; 19 percent lived in the Bronx, mostly in Crotona, Tremont, Pelham, Throgs Neck, Fordham, Bronx Park, High Bridge and Morrisania; 13 percent lived in Manhattan, mostly in Washington Heights, Inwood, Central Harlem and Morningside Heights and on the Upper West Side; and 4 percent lived on Staten Island, mostly in Stapleton, St. George and Port Richmond.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/nyregion/03lead.html

Record-low number of lead-poisoned kids in city

2008-07-03T19:50:00.004-04:00

Record-low number of lead-poisoned kids in city
BY JORDAN LITE DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 9:56 PM

The number of young New York City children poisoned by lead continues to fall, reaching a record-low, health officials said Wednesday.

Some 1,970 kids ages 6 months to 6 years old were diagnosed with lead poisoning last year, according to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. About a quarter of them - 538 - had high enough levels of the metal in their blood that authorities investigated peeling paint and other lead hazards in their homes.

The figures mark a 90% decline since 1995, when nearly 20,000 children in that age group were diagnosed with lead poisoning. The condition can affect learning and behavior.

"It's great news - that's a blessing," said state Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), who as a city councilman sponsored legislation requiring landlords to annually inspect and fix peeling or damaged lead paint in residences with tenants under age 6.

"Lives have been saved and futures for these children have been greatly enhanced," Perkins said.

Brooklyn had 43% of the new cases, followed by Queens (22%), the Bronx (19%), Manhattan (13%) and Staten Island (4%).

Brooklyn neighborhoods that were especially affected were Borough Park, East Flatbush-Flatbush, Bedford Stuyvesant-Crown Heights, Williamsburg-Bushwick, Greenpoint and East New York.

Lead poisoning also occurred in West Queens and Southwest Queens; Crotona-Tremont, Pelham-Throgs Neck, Fordham-Bronx Park and High Bridge-Morrisania; Washington Heights-Inwood, Central Harlem-Morningside Heights and the upper West Side; and Stapleton-St. George and Port Richmond.

Babies should be tested for lead poisoning at ages 1 and 2, according to New York State law. They are most susceptible because they often put their hands or toys that may have picked up lead-laced dust or paint chips in their mouths.

While there are no clear symptoms of lead poisoning, parents of older children who think their kids were exposed to lead in paint dust or chips or household renovations should talk to their doctor, said Nancy Clark, the city's assistant commissioner for environmental disease prevention.

Experts believe the cognitive effects of lead are permanent, but some studies suggest that some of the decline in abilities may be reversible, especially when poisoning is caught early.

Lead specialist Dr. Morri Markowitz said the report showed a positive trend for the city, but that the definition for lead poisoning was arbitrary and may miss children with lower levels of exposure who still suffer health effects.

"The current definition has no foundation in terms of lead toxicity," said Markowitz, of Montefiore Medical Center.

"I don't want to belittle the numbers - it's great for New York, what's happened in the last 10 years, and the department deserves credit," he said. "But it doesn't tell the whole story."

jlite@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/02/2008-07-02_recordlow_number_of_leadpoisoned_kids_in.html

Celebrate Freedom with a Discount and New Perspectives!

2008-07-03T16:05:00.004-04:00

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Anne Z. Whitman" whitmananne@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: Celebrate Freedom with a Discount and New Perspectives!
To: Jordi Reyes Montblanc reysmont@yahoo.com

Anne Z. Whitman

--- On Thu, 7/3/08, Christina Walsh wrote:
From: Christina Walsh cwalsh@ij.org
Subject: Celebrate Freedom with a Discount and New Perspectives!
To: "IJ Distribution" IJDistribution@ij.org
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2008, 11:53 AM

Friends:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Happy 4th of July! ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This Independence Day, we want to thank you for standing on the frontlines of the battle against eminent domain abuse. Property rights are the foundation of all our rights, and dedicated activists like you ensure that our homes, businesses, churches and farms remain our castles.

To celebrate, we are offering all Castle Coalition members 10% off at the Freedom Market through Sunday, and will include copies of our two new exciting Perspectives on Eminent Domain Abuse (see below) with every order.

We will also extend this to any new members that sign up now through Sunday - so be sure to forward this message to your friends and family! They can sign up here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join.

Visit the Freedom Market at http://fmarket.ij.org/, and enter coupon code Happy4thCC upon check-out.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Studies Detail the Roadblocks Cities Put Up to Revitalization
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Last week, the Castle Coalition released the next two installments of Perspectives on Eminent Domain Abuse - trust us, you won't be able to put them down!

In "Baltimore's Flawed Renaissance: The Failure of Plan-Control-Subsidize Redevelopment," authors Stephen J.K. Walters, a professor of economics at Loyola College, and Louis Miserendino, a graduate of Loyola, closely examine Baltimore's half-century-long failed attempt to bring investment back into the city. While the Inner Harbor is often touted as the prime example of government-subsidized redevelopment, Baltimore "is today two cities, separate but unequal, not in spite of its extravagant and interventionist redevelopment program, but because of it," argue Walters and Miserendino. They conclude, "The city's lack of progress on so many fronts is a direct by-product of its failure to understand and treat the real source of its problems: hostility to private property rights and a resulting flight of capital that largely drained the city of its economic lifeblood."

"Simplify, Don't Subsidize: The Right Way to Support Private Development," by independent developer Doug Kaplan, details the outrageous bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles small developers must pass in order to build projects. Kaplan shares his experiences attempting to build a shopping center in Santa Cruz County, Calif., and demonstrates that the "ever-expanding gauntlet of government-imposed regulatory, administrative and financial obstacles" actually stifles efforts to bring economic development to local communities. Kaplan has found that "more often than not, local governments don't 'catalyze' private development; they drive it away by making it too expensive."

Both studies are available for download here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications, and both come free with any Freedom Market orders placed now through Sunday!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Sued for Protesting Eminent Domain Abuse: Activists Fight Frivolous Lawsuit Filed by Politician and Developers
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson are developers in Clarksville, Tenn., who are using the power of government to benefit developers - and they sued citizens, demanding $500,000, simply for saying so. On Monday, those citizens, members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition, fought back with the help of the Institute for Justice. IJ filed a motion to dismiss Swift and Wilkinson's frivolous defamation lawsuit.

On May 3, the CPRC ran an ad in the local newspaper, criticizing Clarksville’s proposed redevelopment plan and its backers, including Swift and Wilkinson. Swift is not only a developer, but also a member of the Clarksville City Council - an elected official with the ability to vote for eminent domain for private development. Wilkinson is a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership.

The ad, noting that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers, said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.” Six days after the ad appeared, Swift and Wilkinson sued the group and its members for defamation.

Indeed, political criticism like the CPRC’s ad occurs every day and has been a mainstay of debate on public issues since America’s founding. For home and small business owners in Clarksville and nationwide, the ability to protect what they own depends on the right to speak freely. Especially after the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates to eminent domain abuse in its infamous Kelo decision, protest is often the most effective way for property owners to defend what is rightfully theirs.

Being the subject of a pending lawsuit is intimidating - and that is the point. At first, the members of the group became reluctant to speak out against the plan and worried about hiring a lawyer and defending themselves in court. But then they decided to fight back.

Swift and Wilkinson's defamation lawsuit is part of an ominous nationwide trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to silence and intimidate home and business owners who are fighting to save their neighborhoods. We are trying to document more examples of this type of lawsuit. If you have ever been threatened with a lawsuit for speaking out against eminent domain abuse in your community, please reply to this e-mail with more information.

For more information about this case, visit http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/tn_slappsuit/index.html.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

We hope you have exciting plans for this 4th of July! Have a safe and happy holiday.

Best,

Christina Walsh Castle Coalition Coordinator Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 682-9320 http://www.ij.org/ http://www.castlecoalition.org/

To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email to cgrodecki@ij.org.

Hamilton Heights is city's most earsplitting neighborhood

2008-06-28T09:11:00.001-04:00

Hamilton Heights is city's most earsplitting neighborhood
BY CAITLIN MILLAT and KATHLEEN LUCADAMO DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Saturday, June 28th 2008, 11:32 PM

Hamilton Heights wins again.

The Manhattan neighborhood remains the noisiest neighborhood in the city with 5,686 complaints to 311 since last July 1, when the city introduced a hard-knuckled new noise code.

But a year after the code promised to hush noisemakers, residents in notoriously loud communities say the volume is as high as ever.

"I can't sleep. I can't talk on the telephone. I can't hear my TV. It's so noisy, I can't hear my own voice," griped Marsha James, 79.

Mesiyah McGinnis, 38, agreed. "It's always noisy here," he said. "I can hear sirens at all hours nonstop, but the noise is the pulse of the city."

The overhauled code cracked down on a host of noise culprits including jackhammers, bars and clubs, lawnmowers, barking dogs and even ice cream trucks. Fines can hit $175.

Noise complaints to 311 jumped 8% this year to 294,953 and the chief woe was loud neighbors.

Emily Lloyd, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, said the spike in complaints is proof New Yorkers are getting the message that noise won't be tolerated.

"Not that you have to do much to get New Yorkers to complain, which is a good thing, but now they know what to do when they see noise is a problem," said Lloyd.

Neighborhoods that produced the most noise complaints were Williamsburg and Flatbush in Brooklyn, Norwood in the Bronx and the East Village.

"Every year, it gets noisier because more and more people are moving here," said Sunny Kang, 53, who owns Sunny's Florist in the East Village. "The more people, the more business."

Danny Thomas, 56, said his East Village block could use some relief. "The horns, the music, the drunk people screaming all night. It hasn't changed a bit down here," he said.

Lloyd estimated it would take three to four years before the number of noise complaints starts to decline and New Yorkers notice a quieter city.

Still, the statistics should be read with caution, advised one expert.

"For the average New Yorker," said Eric Zwerling, director of the Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center, "it's whether or not a specific complaint has been resolved in a reasonable matter."

klucadamo@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/06/28/2008-06-28_hamilton_heights_is_citys_most_earsplitt.html

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns

2008-06-27T11:21:00.008-04:00

Washington

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns

Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court on Thursday after the justices’ decision on the District of Columbia handgun ban.

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia

Graphic
The Majority and Dissent
Graphic
Interpreting the Second Amendment
Related
News Analysis: Coming Next, Court Fights on Guns in Cities (June 27, 2008)

Back Story With Linda Greenhouse (mp3)

Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits (March 19)

Text of the Decision (pdf)

Enlarge This Image
Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, challenged the District of Columbia’s law.

Enlarge This Image
Susan Walsh/Associated Press
Dick Anthony Heller and his attorney Alan Gura, right, on the steps of the Supreme Court on Thursday following the ruling upholding the rights of the residents of the District of Columbia to own guns.

Enlarge This Image

Larry W. Smith/European Pressphoto Agency
Brent Willard helping a shopper on Thursday at the handgun counter of the Bulls Eye pistol range in Wichita, Kan.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a new round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country.

The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, his most important in his 22 years on the court, said that the justices were “aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country” and “take seriously” the arguments in favor of prohibiting handgun ownership.

“But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” he said, adding, “It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion was signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia’s assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Rather, it was “today’s law-changing decision” that bestowed the right and created “a dramatic upheaval in the law,” Justice Stevens said in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer, also speaking for the others, filed a separate dissent.

Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens went head to head in debating how the 27 words in the Second Amendment should be interpreted. The majority opinion and two dissents ran 154 pages.
Justice Stevens said the majority opinion was based on “a strained and unpersuasive reading” of the text and history of the Second Amendment, which provides: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

According to Justice Scalia, the “militia” reference in the first part of the amendment simply “announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”

The Constitution’s framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do, Justice Scalia said.

But he added that this “prefatory statement of purpose” should not be interpreted to limit the meaning of what is called the operative clause — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Instead, Justice Scalia said, the operative clause “codified a pre-existing right” of individual gun ownership for private use.

Contesting that analysis, Justice Stevens said the Second Amendment’s structure was notable for its “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense,” in contrast to the contemporaneous “Declarations of Rights” in Pennsylvania and Vermont that did explicitly protect those uses.

It has been nearly 70 years since the court last examined the meaning of the Second Amendment. In addition to their linguistic debate, Justices Scalia and Stevens also sparred over what the court intended in that decision, United States v. Miller.

In the opaque, unanimous five-page opinion in 1939, the court upheld a federal prosecution for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. A Federal District Court had ruled that the provision of the National Firearms Act the defendants were accused of violating was barred by the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the indictment.

For decades, an overwhelming majority of courts and commentators regarded the Miller decision as having rejected the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. That understanding of the “virtually unreasoned case” was mistaken, Justice Scalia said Thursday.

He said the Miller decision meant “only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Justice Stevens said the majority’s understanding of the Miller decision was not only “simply wrong,” but also reflected a lack of “respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself.”

Despite the decision’s enormous symbolic significance, it was far from clear that it actually posed much of a threat to the most common gun regulations. Justice Scalia’s opinion applied explicitly just to “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and it had a number of significant qualifications.

“Nothing in our opinion,” he said, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The opinion also said prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons would be upheld and suggested somewhat less explicitly that the right to personal possession did not apply to “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not typically used for self-defense or recreation.

The Bush administration had been concerned about the implications of the case for the federal ban on possessing machine guns.

President Bush welcomed the decision. “As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America,” he said in a statement, “I applaud the Supreme Court’s historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms.”

The opinion did not specify the standard by which the court would evaluate gun restrictions in future cases, a question that was the subject of much debate when the case was argued in March.

Among existing gun-control laws, just Chicago comes close to the complete handgun prohibition in the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old law. The district’s appeal to the Supreme Court, filed last year after the federal appeals court here struck down the law, argued that the handgun ban was an important public safety measure in a congested, crime-ridden urban area.

On the campaign trail on Thursday, both major-party presidential candidates expressed support for the decision — more full-throated support from Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and a more guarded statement of support from Senator Barack Obama, his presumptive Democratic opponent.

Mr. McCain called the decision “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States” that “ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would “provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”

He praised the decision for endorsing the individual-rights view and for describing the right as “not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

Unlike the court’s ruling this month on the rights of the Guantánamo detainees, this decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, appeared likely to defuse, rather than inflame, the political debate. The Democratic Party platform in 2004 included a plank endorsing the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.

The case reached the court as a result of an assumption by the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization here, that the time was right to test the prevailing interpretation of the Second Amendment. Robert A. Levy, a lawyer and senior fellow of the institute, looked for law-abiding district residents rather than criminal defendants appealing convictions, to challenge the law.

Mr. Levy, who financed the case, recruited six plaintiffs. Five were dismissed for lack of standing. But the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of one, Dick Anthony Heller. He is a security guard who carries a gun while on duty at a federal judicial building here and was denied a license to keep his gun at home. The court said Thursday that assuming Mr. Heller was not “disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights,” the district government must issue him a license.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html

NB- Of course there are those who will continue to repeat that that oxymoron, "guns kill people", I must extrapolate that if a few people are killed with wrenches then they'll say "wrenches kill people".

Duh! Guns are made for two purposes "killing" and "target shooting" not necessarily in that or that one excludes the other order.

The fact is that people PEOPLE kill people using whatever means they have at hand whether a kitchen knife, strangulation with a garrote, or a 10-penny spike nail in the ear or a six by four whack to the head. In fact most killing is done via automobiles but no one seems to want to ban cars.

A Free people can only be assured of that Freedom by the Right to Own and Bear Arms just as the our Citizen Soldiers Founding Fathers did in 1776. The best defense against a despotic government is a well armed citizenry. - JRM

Spain Gives Rights to Apes

2008-06-26T23:22:00.000-04:00

Inside Cover

Spain Gives Rights to Apes

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Spain’s parliament on Wednesday voiced its support for the rights of great apes to life and freedom, Reuters reports.

Spain adopted this new policy at the behest of the "Great Apes Project," a plan developed, in part, by Peter Singer and other philosophers and scientists who say the animals deserve the same rights as their closest genetic relatives.

Australian-born Singer, dubbed the “godfather” of animal rights, has stirred up controversy by asserting, among other things, that Christianity is a “problem” for the animal rights movement.

A professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, Singer attacks "speciesism," which he defines as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species." He has also stated that a "severely disabled" infant may be killed up to 28 days after its birth if the parents deem the baby's life is not worth living.

Spain’s environmental committee of parliament approved the resolution with cross-party support. If the resolution becomes law, it will mean that potential experiments on apes will be banned within a year. In addition, apes used for commercial purposes, filming or circuses would also become illegal.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project, tells Reuters.

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas notes.

Apes in Spanish zoos, of which there are currently 315, will remain legal, according to the legislation, but living conditions reportedly will improve substantially.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/spain_apes_rights/2008/06/26/107595.html

Intro No. 476-A benchmarking and Preconsidered Int. No. ? disclosing efficiency

2008-06-26T22:40:00.003-04:00

From: reysmont@hdfccentral.org
To: gennaro@council.nyc.ny.us
Cc: viverito@council.nyc.ny.us
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2008 06:47 pm
Subject: Intro No. 476-A benchmarking and Preconsidered Int. No. ? disclosing efficiency

Hon. Hon James F. Gennaro, Chairman
Environmental Preservation Committee
The Council of the City of New York

Dear Chairman Gennaro:

Jim, as I will not be able to attend tomorrow's Hearing on captioned subject I am sending you a copy of my very short testimony for the record, I will send copies directly to Gary Alman and to Melissa Mark Viverito whom I have known for some time and consider a friend.

If there are any questions from me I will be happy to answer them at a later time or by e-mail.

Regards,

Jordi Reyes-Montblanc

Cooperative Coalition to Prevent Blackouts

c/o The HDFC Council

601 West 136th Street, Suite 1

New York, NY 10031

Tel: (212) 926-6425

Fax: 212-926-1765

E-mail: Reysmont@HDFCCentral.org

Web Forum: http://forums.prospero.com/HDFCCentral

No Walk-Ins - By Appointment Only

The HDFC Council........ 601 West 136th Street, Suite 1,
Cooperative Coalition to Prevent Blackouts..New York, NY 10031-8101
Tel: (212) 922-6425...........................................Fax: 212-926-1765

E-mail: Reysmont@HDFCCentral.org

Forum: http://forums.prospero.com/HDFCCentral/start

J. Reyes-Montblanc
Before
The Council of The City of New York
Committee On Environmental Protection
June 27th, 2008

Re: Proposed Int. No. 476-A; In relation to benchmarking the energy and water efficiency of buildings.
Preconsidered Int. No. _____: In relation to disclosing the energy and water efficiency of 1-4 family homes, co-ops and condominiums

Good morning Chairman Gennaro and honorable Committee Members, my name is Jordi Reyes-Montblanc and I am the President of the HDFC Council a City-wide association of Housing Development Fund Cooperatives for persons of low and middle income.

I am also the Chairman of the Cooperative Coalition to Prevent Blackouts (CCPB) and as such have testified before you on several occasions.

We find ourselves in a quandary in wanting to support legislation that promotes energy efficiency and lower costs to consumers and understanding the good intention of the legislations being proposed.

However, well intended those good intentions are misdirected in these cases.

This legislation will mandate an additional burden to cooperatives in general and to HDFCs in particular as most HDFCs are self-managed by volunteer Board of Directors.

The information that these Intros pretend to want to develop is readily available to City agencies and Consolidated Edison.

NYC DEP reads every water meter in every building in the City and their professional staff should be able to develop a computerized routine to calculate the efficiency profiles sought. Particularly after the last two water rate increases I find it very difficult to assume their responsibility at my own cost.

Consolidated Edison reads the electric meters of every building and every apartment on direct billing. Again the professionals at ConEd are in a perfect situation to develop computer routines that will develop the legislation desired efficiency profiles. Again I find it very difficult to assume a utility’s function at my own cost.

DEP and ConEd should provide that service and make the information available on line so that anyone interested may access it.

Additionally ConEd should be mandated to promote the use of “smart” interval meters in all of the installations they serve and read including master-metered buildings.

The legislation should be redrafted accordingly and place the burden where it belongs.

Sincerely,

[signature]
J. Reyes-Montblanc
President

Grey Wolf-6

http://forums.delphiforums.com/HDFCCentral/messages/?msg=.903.1

Supreme Court Voids D.C. Gun Ban - SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!!!!

2008-06-26T17:16:00.006-04:00

Newsfront

Supreme Court Voids D.C. Gun Ban
Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:31 AM

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/court_voids_gun_ban/2008/06/26/107529.html?s=al&promo_code=64F3-1

NB - Some people tend to forget that everyone of the Framers of the US Constitution owned firearms of various types for many purposes. The same people tend also to forget that everyone fo the Founding Fathers owned firearms and used them to create our Republic and separate us from England.

Personal ownership of firearms is the best guarantee of the Citizens and Citizen Soldiers to defend our communities and country against all enemies, foreing and domestic as the old saying goes.

This decision by the Supreme Court should be applauded by every Freedom loving Citizen and Legal Resident of our Country and should serve as an example to New York as all of the restrictions on gun-ownership only empowers the criminals. It is time New York laws were changed to allow Citizens to own firearms and even carry with minimal restrictions. - JRM

Is Columbia Ready for Our Recession/Depression?

2008-06-25T22:09:00.000-04:00

Blogger News Network
High-quality English language analysis and editorial
writing on the news.

Is Columbia Ready for Our Recession/Depression?
Posted on June 25th, 2008
by Ed Kent in All News
Read 111 times.

Is Columbia Ready for Our Recession/Depression?

CAUGHT OFF GUARD — BUT WHY?
Economic downturns are part of a painful and predictablereality for universities, but — perhaps purposely — few have long term strategic plans to deal with budget cuts.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/06/24/statecuts

…………………………

None but the most optimistic of stock brokers (paid to buy or sell regardless) are not deeply worried about the state of the economy — U.S. and also global. The stock markets have been dropping rather precariously this month and the job picture — particularly for college grads trying to get launched — is grim.

Where in this picture does Columbia stand? Yale and Harvard have been putting great efforts into planning for their undergrads — now tuition blind admissions for them allow the choice of the best, regardless of family incomes. It can make a vast difference for students, particularly when families are being hit by economic hardships induced by health, death, job emergencies.

Is Columbia revising its plans in light of the obvious? To date it has been laying out astounding funds for administrative salaries and perks. I don’t know where its faculty are in this picture, but they presumably will be feeling the pinch with inflation and increased living costs. One has to wonder how Columbia is going to manage its ambitious expansion plans into Manhattanville? It has sunk considerable monies there with high expectations for fund raising and NY State loans.

But will both of these sources be able to meet this high risk project’s demands? NY State, itself, is not in the best of shape — one of the states with the largest debt pictures and its own public universities to maintain. My department of philosophy at Brooklyn College alone was matching Columbia’s students with awards of prestigious grants and fellowships — quite a bargain for the expenditures for a college education which increasing numbers were taking on with our special CUNY honors programs designed for gifted students.

The bottom line here — will Columbia be driven into even higher tuitions for undergrads to keep its heat and light bills paid. I would hate to be a parent of a Columbia student with such possible prospects entering the picture during the grim financial years to come.–“A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope.” (Livy cited by Machiavelli)

–Ed Kent 212-665-8535 (voice mail only) [blind copies]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FindingHumaneJobs
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OurStupidEconomy
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Let Others Know About This Post These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Remembering George Carlin

2008-06-25T14:48:00.004-04:00

Remembering George Carlin
The Man Who Took the Stand
By Andy Thomas
Epoch Times New York Staff
Jun 24, 2008

Late comedian and actor George Carlin
at the "Conversation With George Carlin"
event, May 8, 2008 in Beverly Hills,
California. (Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)

When you talk about the legends of comedy, certainly Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, and Rodney Dangerfield come to mind.

There is no doubt that George Carlin belongs with such a group. Yet in his style, George Carlin seemed like a man made from his own mold.

Raised in Morningside Heights in upper Manhattan, he was much more than a guy who would grab the mic and make people laugh.

For a man who questioned whether vegetarians could eat animal crackers, or if it was possible to have a civil war, there was much more under the humor that he longed to answer.

He inspired people to think, to question, to do a double take and recognize when we were being sheep.

He had a way of looking at humanity, life, and politics that smashed the box that we were told to think out of. He was the crazed old uncle that would tell you like it is, leaving the cushion of subtly and political-correctness to the wind.

Brute honesty would be called his angle by historians, yet he had no angle at all. Honesty was a part of who he was.

What others would think but not dare say, Carlin would say loudly with a punchline crescendo.

A memorial wreath stands near comedian
George Carlin's star on the Hollywood Walk
Of Fame on June 23 in Hollywood,
California. Mr. Carlin died Sunday at the
age of 71. (Charley Gallay/Getty Images)

He refused to recognize the boundaries others feared to cross, or if he saw them, he would drive past them as if they were a traffic light along a journey of self-reflection that he and his audience were taking.

And he was one of the few that was courageous enough to do so. Yet this wasn't done for the sake of causing controversy, like most comedians today who test or cross the line. Carlin did it for the sake of coming to an understanding of who we are as a society.

He was just as lost as all of us, but he yearned to know the answers, and spoke out loud about the questions that still lingered in the back of his mind.

And despite his profane crankiness, there was this sense that after the whole routine or interview, after all the supposed complaining stopped, and after you thought he had no more questions left to ask us all, that he would invite you into his world even more, to grab a coffee and talk shop about the world.

If there are seven words to describe George Carlin: He was a man that inspired, humorously.
Thanks George!

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-24/72374.html