Saturday, September 11, 2010

RIRA President On 9/11 Memorial Service, RIRA Elections, Island Calendar, Retail RFP, RIOC Nominees, Roosevelt Island Governance & Upcoming Meetings

Image of June 2010 RIRA Meeting

Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) President Frank Farance sends the following report to Roosevelt Island residents. Mr. Farance addresses:
1. RIRA Sponsored 9/11 Memorial Service. On Saturday, September 11, at 6:45 p.m., the community will come together at the 9/11 memorial behind the Good Shepherd Community Center. There will be readings, performances, and moments of silence. Don't forget to bring your own candle.

2. RIRA Elections. Our two-year terms, which are up this November. I encourage you to consider running in the RIRA elections. The Southtown complex has grown since the 2008 elections and will have 9 representative (up from 6) to the RIRA Common Council. RIRA will post the details of nominations and elections after next week's Common Council meeting.

3. Island Organizations to meet to on Common Calendar. On September 21 at 8:00 p.m., I'm holding a meeting with all organizations invited with the hopes that we can have a common calendar through June 2011 so we can avoid gratuitous conflicts. We'll publish the calendar in well-known places, including The WIRE, RIOC, and Roosevelt Islander blog websites. If you are a representative of one of the Island's organizations (not just a member), please RSVP to me (rira-president@rira-council.org) no later than Friday, September 17.

4. RIOC Produces a Flawed RFP for Main Street Storefronts. The RIOC Real Estate Development Advisory Committee (Chaired by Jonathan Kalkin) has produced a poor RFP. Significant problems include the lack of resident input (and even RIOC board input). Right now the proposals use a notion of "best value", which is based upon three criteria: (1) total economic value and financial return to RIOC (50%), (2) proposer's plans to improve the retail space or retail units (25%), and (3) experience, competence and commitment of the proposer (25%). Furthermore, "RIOC will select the proposals for the Retail Space that, in the sole discretion of RIOC, most successfully fulfills the Selection Criteria" [the three above items]. Nowhere does it say that the residents or the RIOC Board will have any input on the selection of the choice of tenants. If the RIOC Board decides to change its evaluation criteria (e.g., "we're focusing on how much resident input there will be in new tenants"), then RIOC opens itself to litigation because the criteria has changed. This is why it was so critical to get input from us before the RFP was posted for bid. Or said differently: given the years of complaints about Gristedes and the residents' desire to have something different, now with a master lease we will have even less input on Island merchants. Regardless of the downturn of business at Gristedes, Gristedes can still afford to stay there because Gristedes is profitable across all its stores -- that's the same rationale for why we have a Starbucks here that would normally not have enough business to survive in other locations. Do you remember how Mr. Kalkin's real estate committee refused to participate in the Q&A of the RIRA Town Meeting in June that was specifically scheduled to discuss the master lease? Now Mr. Kalkin and his committee don't have to answer questions because the RFP demands "No board member, officer or employee of RIOC, the State or City of New York, or any of their respective public agencies or advisors are authorized to give interpretations of this RFP or additional information regarding the requirements of this RFP directly or indirectly". No discussion beforehand, and no discussion permitted afterwards. Mr. Kalkin's committee could have easily asked the bidders to include proposals on "how to address the needs of residents" and assigned it some percentage weight (a common idea in complex government RFPs), but Mr. Kalkin's committee chose to ignore the needs of the residents or the existing merchants and chose to avoid public Q&A.

5. RIOC Director Nominee Elections. I read the Maple Tree Group's report, as provided by Ashton Barfield (RIRA Chair of Government Relations Committee, of which MTG is a subcommittee). Essentially, they contradict their prior actions. In 2009 when two board positions were expiring in the future, MTG recommended that we have elections. Now then four board positions are available prior to the 2012 election cycle (one already expired, two in Spring 2010, and one at the end of 2011), MTG takes the opposite position. MTG's present position in postponing elections to keep incumbents in positions longer than their terms -- the opposite of MTG's prior position. An MTG member told me: now that the Governor has vetoed Kellner's legislation, maybe we should have elections sooner just in case the Governor tries to appoint people and there are no available resident nominees. This is not principled thinking, this is just expedience. All the Southtown and Octagon people can feel nicely disenfranchised because of MTG's postponement of elections. What's my plan? If you look at the 2009 RIOC director nominee election process, it had the same amount of advance notice as the normal RIRA election process. I plan on advocating strongly at next week's RIRA Common Council meeting that we should have RIOC elections this year. The RIRA election process is very similar to the RIOC director nominee process and we can use the RIRA election machines for the RIOC elections, too. I plan on asking RIRA to use these processes, regardless of MTG's recommendations.

6. Governor Vetoes Legislation. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere. What is really disappointing is that the Maple Tree Group (the committee that meets in secret and only lets 13-year members vote) supported legislation that was technically flawed. If you read the Governor's (reasonable) explanation of his veto, the legislation Kellner and MTG proposed duplicated existing laws. How does this happen and why don't they understand that these kinds of flaws make for strong rhetoric against this legislation? I guess the experience of those 13-year members (to the exclusion of the rest of us) didn't help, right? The moral of the story here is: a transparent process and an open process produce better results.

7. Upcoming RIRA meetings. The next meeting is on September 15 at 8:00 p.m. in the Good Shepherd Community Center; future meeting is October 6. Last night (Tuesday) the overnight low was above 70 degrees, which will probably be the last summery night this year.
A version of the RIRA President's message is also published as the RIRA column in the 9/11/10 Main Street WIRE.

15 comments :

Anonymous said...

I read the reactions to Frank's last published opinion about the postponement of the elections. Hilarious. This is one of the few times when I think that his big mouth is appropriate. It makes people speak up. Well done.

Anonymous said...

At some point resident input stops and other forces determine what happens. Why do I want to have a say in what stores will open up on this island? Market forces will determine this just like anywhere else in this country. If something opens that you don't like, don't go there. A couple years later they will shut their doors and something else will move in.

Sure, that pretty much means that we will most likely see chain stores. Is that bad? Anything but what's going on currently is 100x better.

Anonymous said...

I find it hilarious that all of these folks from the Maple Tree Group are writing articles and letters in the WIRE against Frank Farance. They were his main support system in RIRA, but now because he has spoken out about their attempt to control the RIOC Board Elections by extending the current BM's terms - the MTG wants to hammer him.

Good for you Frank. You finaly became the voice of reason. It's just too bad, you have alienated some of the folks who, like you, also speak out in public. They all work for the WIRE, so you'll get no support there. I wouldn't be surprised if they make Matt Katz run against you in the next election.

Good luck... you're gonna need it.

Anonymous said...

Um, calling Farance a "voice of reason" is either deep irony or the saddest commentary possible on RI resident governance. And fwiw, I wouldn't know the MTG if if bit me on the ass.

Anonymous said...

I think Frank is doing the right thing in this case. The delay of the RIOC elections, the ousting of Shane, the financial interest of the current RIOC board members in the privatization process. I am not much for conspiracy theories but in this case... it really should to be looked into a bit more detailed.

Anonymous said...

The next attorney general for the state of new york should make investigating the self-dealing of resident RIOC board members a top priority. Two of the leading candidates have already vowed to do so.

Anonymous said...

That's a serious allegation thrown out as an anonymous blog comment. What exactly is the evidence of "self-dealing"? The bare fact that board members might favor privatization for their respective buildings? That's some courageous whistle-blowing from behind the keyboard right there.

Anonymous said...

Conflict of interest. As simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Five of the 9 board members (a MAJORITY) do NOT live in a Mitchell Lama Building.

This board was the only board ever to vote in favor of long term affordability plans. THEY drafted a resolution and voted
a historic yes vote on it. DHCR determines and approves these plans as stated in the resolution. Not RIOC.

Next time you write something try to actually know something.

Anonymous said...

4 out of 9 is a lot.

Anonymous said...

Wow. What a great and insightful analysis. Let me see if I can follow your thought process.

1. I'll read a comment with a lot of information and acronyms and agencies that I don't understand or don't care to and I'll gloss over any parts that make my head hurt and BAM

1 2 3 4 - Four is a A LOT! 5 is bigger than 4 and forget that the Board isn't even the ones negotiating or approving affordability plans, but yeah 4 is like a big number. What is DHCR, or state affordability rules, or disposition guidelines that regulate this sort of thing. Who cares, I can count and that would take actual time and care to understand so 4 4 4 4! Oh man I forgot I have to go comment on how health care is socialism on another blog. So busy!

Anonymous said...

Poster above: o-kay. I just think it's funny you took so much time to reply like that to my comment.

Anonymous said...

don't be cute, eastwood is not a Mitchell Lama building any more!!! a current BM, who was a BM when the building was privatized, REFUSED to recuse himself from voting and voted to award himself the benefits of privatization. AG candidates are very interested on past votes and preventing the corruption from continuing.

Anonymous said...

AG candidates could care less about R.I.
Just let Smith, Christian and the other 2 BM's get their money, so they can get off the board and allow someone who cares about others to get on.

Anonymous said...

Hey I don't mean to knock the crayon out of your hand because that is a really nice conspiracy picture for your mom's fridge and all, but guess what the AG reviews every privatization agreement. It is part of the review process for any building.I hope the AG you voted for knew that because if they didn't they don't deserve the job. What's that? Oh RIOC doesn't approve privatization agreements? DHCR and about 4 other agencies do? Who is DHCR? Oh who cares just continue to write anything you want even if its not accurate. You deserve it, I mean you watch law and order a lot that's like having a law degree. Good grief.