Mobile Ad Space Above Posts

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Roosevelt Island Resident Has Conversation With New Public Safety Director McManus And Likes What He Hears - Good Small Step Is Removal Of PSD SUV Tinted Windows

Roosevelt Island resident Old Rossie had a conversation with Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) Public Safety Director Jack McManus yesterday and reports:

Yesterday I had coffee with Jack McManus, our interim Public Safety Director. He invited me to chat after I had emailed my concerns to the RIOC board (that was lesson 1 for me - on this island, it's easier than we think to have our voices heard). I don't speak for him, this is just my take-aways from the chat. He hit on several things that people on this blog (myself included) express concerns about. (1) He is working toward more training for PSD officers in a variety of areas; (2) he pushes to get more officers out of the station and active on the island - doesn't like to see people standing around; (3) there's only so much information about recent events that can be made publicly available given the investigative process, but anything not restricted by that process is disseminated as there is no benefit to withholding information; (4) he and Ms. Indelicato are new to the island, but working very hard to maintain/strengthen the safety of islanders.

I did ask about the idea of replacing PSD with NYPD. He pointed out that NYPD is here, including when they are needed when something happens, and at the end of the day the island is far better off with PSD than without it. As we spoke and by total coincidence, out of the window behind me there were two PSD officers speaking with an NYPD officer...

He has extensive experience working with the NYPD. He mentioned some of the complex ideas being discussed, including vertical patrols in Manhattan Park. He's also looking at the smaller details, noting that there's no reason PSD SUV windows should be tinted,

PSD SUV Tinted Windows Image From Judy Berdy

so he's looking to remove that. I like that - a minor detail that can positively impact the perspective of people on the island (both law-abiding and otherwise).

PSD SUV Tinted Windows Removed Image From Judy Berdy

I have noticed, over the last week or so, more of a PSD presence in the garage and in front of MP. I had thought it was in response to all of the recent incidents, but it may also be Mr. McManus' influence on PSD. Either way, it's an improvement.

So that was the meat of the discussion. He seems like a great guy, certainly trustworthy, and has a genuine interest in having a lasting positive impact on the island. I have a lot more confidence in our local officials this morning.
A former Roosevelt Island Public Safety Officer and current NYPD Officer, Not My Kid, offers some suggestions for improving the Public Safety Department here and here.

66 comments :

billblass said...

What did he say about bike lanes

OldRossie said...

That they were only for use by William Blass.

CheshireKitty said...

Hahahahaha!

jack m. said...

Ugh your routine is so old bill.

Secondly,I think the dept has bigger issues then the tints on the window Rosie. I think it was actually a plus. And here is my reasoning for why the rear windows at least should be tinted.

Remember when people were making a big deal about Psd "parading" people after an arrest. So now when a person is arrested and put into the rmp,guess what,that person will be paraded down the street via vehicle for everyone to see.

Yes I know nypd does not have tinted windows,but then again,chances are if you see someone arrested in an nypd car,you will not know them or they know you because they patrol a much larger area. Get what I'm saying?

So good job Judy Birdy aka oldrossie. You got the tintss removed. Now Psd doesn't need more training,better equipment,firearms. All the problems are solved with the tints removed. Get your priorities straight please.

CheshireKitty said...

Jack, with all due respect, Rossie didn't say that. She said McManus is looking into the smaller details, including having the tints removed. I understand where you're coming from in wanting to keep the windows tinted since it's a much smaller community - you have a good point. Why not let McManus know your thoughts on the topic?

jack m. said...

From my friends within the dept,it is Rosie that emailed the board,and in return McManus was told to remove the tints.

OldRossie said...

1. that was an example of a small thing that he hit on. 2. read the whole article, don't just look at the pictures (which aren't from me) - He emphasized everything you just described. 3. I'm a dude - I don't know who Judy is.

OldRossie said...

thanks Cheshire - and I agree, a big part of writing about this at all was to point out that he/they are clearly open for dialogue.

NotMyKid said...

At least the director is receptive. Lets see where this goes. I am not a fan of front tints on any police car myself. No reason for it. I as a cop want to see other cops. I want to see if they need help.

OldRossie said...

strange - seeing as how I never noticed the tints until he pointed them out yesterday (and my email was a week ago..).

OldRossie said...

Looks like we have a new billblass... I think I know the blue beard you're talking about, unfortunately, I don't have a kid either.. not yet anyway (due in a few weeks). Are you really so anxious to cause grief? I met with the guy, he made a lot of sense, answered a lot of my questions, and I sent it to you people because Rick asked that I follow up. Explain you're freakin problem?

jack m. said...

That is nor here or there. Regardless,you had a positive meeting with him which is good. It's a step towards fixing a broken relationship between the community and it's police dept. From what I hear,the officers really like the new chief and are hoping that rioc makes him the permanent chief. Too bad I didn't het to work with him.

RooseveltIslander said...

Thanks for the follow up report. I appreciate it and I am sure everybody else does as well.

I added the pictures which were from Judy B not Old Rossie.

NotMyKid said...

Let me please also add that many officers there have received awards. These awards are typically worn over their shield and name plate. With these ugly sewn on name patches, these officers cannot proudly display their accomplishments. Even a small thing like this can boost moral just a tiny bit. Just a friendly observation.

Please get rid of those ugly patches too!.

NotMyKid said...

Rick: forgot to mention before but I could have sworn the new psd director is JOHN B. MCMANUS.

scrozball said...

Good luck to Mr. McManus the new PSD director in dealing with the thugs on this island.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, I have a similar concern: it seems that some officers don't (can't?) write criminal complaints. I've read several complaints that have the form:

"Officer X is informed by Officer Y about Subject Z's actions."

So Officer Y directly observed Z, and possibly interacted by Z. Meanwhile, Officer X did not observe Y, did not observe Z, and did not observe Z's actions. Why isn't Y providing first-hand testimony about Z, rather than having X (who didn't observe any of this) provide second-hand (re-told) testimony? Ultimately it's X's signature on the complaint, not Y's. It is that Y is not yet trained/authorized to write criminal complaints ... or maybe you have a better explanation? Thanks.

NotMyKid said...

Well this is common practice in law enforcement.

Let's say officer X responded to the job, he was assigned to Main Street, so therefor anything that happens should be his report responsibility. So Officer X responds, possibly engages with Party A. Officer Y and Z also respond and talk to separate Party B and C, the information can be gathered and given to Officer X.

This is perfectly legal and makes sense. As long as the reporting officer says INFORMED BY, it's ok. The fellow officers law covers them. It is automatically presumed a fellow law enforcement officer is a credible source of information.

There is an issue for let's say Officer A observes a perp engaging in sale of marijuana in front of 591 Main Street and calls over Officer B. They approach and make the arrest. Officer B says he will process the arrest and draft the paperwork, even if he came after the fact of the crime observed by Officer A. Officer B cannot write up the complaint or report stating he observed the crime, that would be perjury. He will have to say Informed by Officer A.

Very common practice. Nothing out of the ordinary.

NotMyKid said...

Just want to add that nothing is heresay on agency reports. It can be a heresay issue at court during trial or grand jury, so then they MAY ask for the contact officer to appear and testify.

So while drafting a criminal complaint, it can say officer A was informed by officer B that he recovered 10 ziplock bags of marijuana from defendants left jacket pocket. In a few days officer b would need to sign the criminal complaint swearing to the fact he recovered 10 bags of weed.

This is routinely done everyday by supervisor arrests or at mass demonstrations. Remember occupy wall street riots and all of the white shirt supervisors going hands on? Who do you think wrote the agency reports and criminal complaints?. The cops.

scrozball said...

Hey Farance regarding your xyz scenario why don`t you check it out yourself instead of saying "it seems that some of the officers don`t (can`t ) write criminal complaints" instead of mouthing off.

Frank Farance said...

scrozball, in fact I have checked it out and it is true, I'm looking for an explanation. Why not say something informative?

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, right, I understand what you say. Here's the problem: when what was said is in untrue, who's fault is it? So when Officer X says "I am informed by Officer Y that while arresting defendant P, Officer Y observed defendant Q pull Officer Y away from defendant P", yet defendant Q did no such thing, who's fault it this? Is it Officer X for mis-hearing what Officer Y said, or is it Officer Y saying the wrong thing, which Officer X transcribed faithfully?

The problem with these kinds of statements is that they are hearsay, but they are permitted along the lines you suggest: a fellow law enforcement officer is a credible source of information. (Note: Other kinds of hearsay are permitted as evidence.)

So just as we have problems in general with "Person J heard from Person K that such-and-such happened" because of the potential loss of fidelity of the original statement or observation, I am seeing problems in the PSD criminal complaints: whether observed directly (officer's direct reporting) or indirectly (via the construction "I am informed by Officer Y ...").

On top of that, the officer who provided the direct observation (Officer Y), did not sign the criminal complaint.

My concern here is that because of these kinds of defects/errors in the testimony, the defendants have a higher bar during arraignment and require significant legal resources to overcome the problematic testimony.

NotMyKid said...

The other officer may not always be required to sign the complaint for non recovered evidence or something else. These things are all case by case.

The heresay is not an issue for signing a complaint from a fellow officer who was direct. It's double heresay that makes the prosecutor typically want you to hear it from the horses mouth and not the second or third officer.
We do it every single day, and it's widely used.

If you are talking about wrong complaint statements or false allegations, sorry Frank, I can't comment on that as that is not my place. Those issued should be directed at Mr.McManus. I can only offer an overview that these "informed by" statements are often used and perfectly acceptable.

Lola54 said...

Great idea. Between the scorching heat in NYC....and your heated disagreements on this blog, take a nice dip in the pool/ocean so you can relax your minds and enjoy your day. Keep Cool.

scrozball said...

Farance who did you check out with the mirror on the wall? Let`s have some name please.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, right, I have already addressed them with RIOC/PSD, but will continue to follow-up because this is a problem for a variety of reasons, including Section 8 evictions particular to Eastwood (Roosevelt Landings).

By the way, I don't think it's a fellow-office-issue, I think it's just problematic reporting, even the direct reports have similar problems, too.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

Frank Farance said...

scrozball, now about that hypocrisy mirror pointed at yourself, your name please?

scrozball said...

Farance my name is Frank Wisdom. What does that have to do with the issue? What are the names that informed you that some of the people you were refering to couldn`t write? If you can`t tell me where you got your information from then it may be on your wall mirror.

Frank Farance said...

Well Mr. Wisdom, just as you point out in answering my question (which I don't believe is your real name): the names were irrelevant for my question. There is no need to reveal the names, I don't know the status of the case. However, you can contact the RIOC General Counsel and ask him.



Maybe Mr. Hypocrisy might be a better name for you because your rules/positions for others don't apply to you. Based upon your thinking, if I don't know your real name, then why should anyone listen to you? :-)

RooseveltIslander said...

You're right but he calls himself "Jack" so I have been using both John and Jack.

scrozball said...

Farance---If you can`t back up your statement then pipe down. I think you took your opinion and made it reality. I feel sorry for you because you can`t tell the difference between fact and fiction. If you don`t believe me just meet me at the Trellis at 6 pm I`ll be at the counter having coffee.

Frank Farance said...

Will see you there

CheshireKitty said...

Scroz: Your comment is the most idiotic comment I've read in a long time.


Frank Farance is simply giving a "generic" example of a type of police report wherein one officer may write a report who is not the officer that either originally happened on the scene or made the arrest or assisted a resident or what have you. Somehow, or for some reason, the task of writing a report is handed off to another officer for whatever reason.


Not gave some reasonable explanations why that may sometimes happens and Farance raised some good questions as well as to whether this might sometimes be done as a way of concealing or not fully/factually reporting events.


If you read their dialog, you'll get an idea of Frank Farance's concerns about the practice, which aren't trivial. He's not talking about a specific report per se, but how the practice of handing off the writing of reports to other officers could be misused by unscrupulous officers to possibly hide or not report for example possible use of excessive force.


Nobody is talking about an actual report, Scroz! Can't you understand that?

CheshireKitty said...

There's nothing to back up scroz. He wasn't talking about a specific report. Sheesh!


I might just pop around for the entertainment value since it'll be a riot to see what you have to say!

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, right - but then you were a no-show. So much for fact & fiction, scroz. Nice going.


Making a poor kitty go out on a hot day like today to check out the scrozball only to find he wasn't there (although Farance was)! Imagine my intense disappointment..!!

NotMyKid said...

All I know at 6pm, coffee is the last thing I want to drink!

scrozball said...

Hey Farance where were you? I waited a the Trellis counter a 1/2 hour. You were a no-show. Mayber you were somewhere else doing what you best talking a lot b.s

scrozball said...

Who asked you anyway? Have a glass of milk.

scrozball said...

I didn`t go there to meet you. Try cleaning your Kittys fur.

Frank Farance said...

scrozball, you're just a bunch of baloney, you weren't there. I waited 15 minutes, you were a no-show, which is what I expected.

scrozball said...

Hey Farance---I was there and you weren`t. You must have been somewhere else doing what you do best spouting a lof bulls--t.

scrozball said...

ChshireKitty What is it with you and Farance? What is Farance a baby that you have to protect with your paws? Have a bowl of milk and take a nap in some kitty litter.

CheshireKitty said...

You weren't there - or you were invisible - still cloaked in blog anonymity that also rendered you invisible, incredibly. Why don't you tell us what you'll be wearing, or put on something easy to spot such as a Mets cap, when you want to meet at Trellis Kitties are fastidious and always cleaning their fur - it goes without saying.

CheshireKitty said...

Is that what it sounds like? I was simply pointing out that you were misreading his comment, which was a general comment about the way these reports are filled out, not a comment about a specific report.


Since you have previously picked on me, I thought it might be fun to actually meet you, or at least observe your interaction with Frank.There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not being "protective" of Frank or anything.


Milk is fine but excuse me a kitty would never sleep in its kitty litter. You must mean, cat bed. That is OK - kitties and naps are made for each other and a nap is good advice (for once).

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, getting annoyed, eh? If you can contribute a comment, then so can others, including me. Milk is always a good option for a cat.

NotMyKid said...

I woke up too early and I ended up poking around the daily reports. If I didn't know any better, and I do, I wou
ld assume that psd has been hogtied into not performing enforcement duties. That is not only sad but a disservice to the law abiding residents who want a clean, peaceful and quiet Roosevelt Island. When I went on patrol I kept my thoughts on how would I want my neighborhood to be. This is why I did my job 200%. This is not a union or officers doing this, I can assure you. This disservice has to be from the top, I am not saying Director McManus, but other culprits need to be held accountable. Seriously, loud noise and open containers by the River Road buildings and condition corrected? Numerous open container reports with no summons?. Something is very wrong here.

scrozball said...

What were you wearing a broom?

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, I'm not understanding your point. If it says: "07/15/13 - 0245 - 20 River Road - Loud group/ Open Container - Condition corrected", and the group became quiet and the container disappeared, then wasn't the condition corrected? You want everything as a summons or arrest? I see the most important part of this as "Condition Corrected" because things have been returned to the state of "peaceful neighborhood".

As for the disposition (warning, summons, etc.), we don't always know the outcome in the PSD blotter. For example, according to the PSD blotter in 2012, there were 62 summons-only and 97 arrests yet the PSD incident stats have:

- 142 misdemeanors
- 469 non-traffic violations
- 591 non-parking traffic violations

For the 1202 misdemeanors and violations, only 159 resulted in summons and/or arrest? I doubt it. A more plausible understanding is: the PSD blotter does not record dispositions, only incidents. The report of "loud group, open container" is what is reported to PSD to make the service call, it might not actually be that when PSD arrives (go back a read the PSD blotter for a while and you'll see some examples).

In summary, we can't conclusively say what the disposition was based upon the PSD blotter's lack of details, e.g., if it says "summons" then we know a summons was issued, but not how many, and if it doesn't say "summons", then we don't know either way if a summons was issued. The PSD stats are a more reliable tally of incidents.

NotMyKid said...

Your right, perhaps your angle looking at it might make sense. Where are the stats published?

I want to know If summonses and arrests are d own during this summer months compared to last year. This would explain a lot better.

Frank Farance said...

It has last been refreshed in April (May and June are missing, I've asked for an update). Here's the URL: "http://rioc.com/psdstats/stats.pdf"

Frank Farance said...

Contrary to popular impression, the summer months Jun (203), Jul (216), Aug (232) don't have significantly more than Jan (221), Feb (182), Mar (199). The warm-weather spikes are Found Property (40 in May, which is *double* the 20-ish incidents elsewhere during the year), and non-criminal investigations (33 in July, 19-ish elsewhere) ... probably not what you had in mind.

Rather than a spike in warm weather, a better description would be a "lull" incidents in Oct-Nov-Dec and the rest of the year remaining constant.

In 2012 July (1) and August (0) are the lowest months for "Possible Illegal Substance", which sounds like the "funny odor" complaint people have. Overall, according to the stats, we have less of a drug problem here than elsewhere in the City.

RooseveltIslander said...

Here's link to the May 2013 Incident Report.

http://rioc.com/Board/PSD.pdf

No Monthly Blotter for May or June though

Frank Farance said...

Rick, those stats point to this ongoing problem with Eastwood and, possibly, PSD and UA collaboration on evictions.


Decoding noise violations in May:
- Manhattan Park: 4
- Eastwood: 21
- WV-IH-RC: 6 (of which ONLY one was possibly close to the deli)


Looking at the stats, the noise violations are largely in Eastwood (Roosevelt Landings), and not significantly at River Road.

April's numbers are about the same:
- Manhattan Park: 3
- Eastwood: 21
- WV-IH-RC: 2 (of which ONLY one was possibly close to the deli)


These is the kind of funny stats (very high numbers for Eastwood, and not just on noise but other violations, too) that point to a theory that PSD collaborates with UA to evict Section 8 tenants. The numbers are not incidents (calls for service), they are violations, the kind of things like trespass, harassment, disorderly conduct, graffiti, etc. that gets an eviction process going against a section 8 tenant.

Note that the standards a lower for Section 8 evictions, e.g., "without satisfying a criminal conviction standard of proof of the activity" you can be acquitted for the criminal charge in criminal court, but be evicted of Section 8 housing because the landlord believes you've committed the crime). Here's what it says in 24 CFR 5.861 (HUD regulation):

"§ 5.861 What evidence of criminal activity must I have to evict?

You may terminate tenancy and evict the tenant through judicial action for criminal activity by a covered person in accordance with this subpart if you determine that the covered person has engaged in the criminal activity, regardless of whether the covered person has been arrested or convicted for such activity and without satisfying a criminal conviction standard of proof of the activity."


Really, the numbers for Eastwood seem to be a lot higher than other Section 8 housing on the Island. Elsewhere, a Section 8 tenant is replaced by a Section 8 tenant; in Eastwood, a Section 8 tenant is replaced by a market rate tenant.

NotMyKid said...

Frank, its not easy and the officer will be called down to court to testify against the eviction.

There is honestly no collaboration for evictions. I have a guarantee on it that my former colleagues have that much trust and moral right to not do that.

Honestly, there is a lot of trouble makers in Eastwood. Thats just the fact of things. Those staircases speak for themselves. Plenty of call for service within also. Just because a report was written does not mean there isa name attached to it all the time.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid, just not true. All that is required is the criminal complaint without any further proof, the standards are lower, and the tenant doesn't have the legal/ financial resources to prepare and fight this. I've seen these false charges propagate into evictions, and we've heard a fair amount of sharing of information between PSD and UA.

Also, you're wrong with your claim "Just because a report was written does not mean there isa name attached to it all the time". Carefully read the distinction between incidents (calls for service which have about 30 categories), and violations, which, by definition, are against one or more Persons. I am citing the violations page of the report.

Lastly, only troublemakers in Eastwood, but not 2-4 RR? So the noise complaints are in Eastwood but not 2-4 RR? On July 9, you said:

[NotMyKid:] "2-4 river road should be condemned. That place was my biggest and most dangerous headache as a public safety officer. I lost track of how many drug arrests and summonses I issued over there. It was out of control when I was there and it is still out of control.2-4 rr needs to be emptied out and restructured with better family interviews and backround checks. The islands drug problems and gang problems start at 2-4."

It's easy to bash 2-4 RR, yet the stats don't support your impression. How is it that youhave a impression that 2-4 RR is your "biggest and most dangerous headache", yet the criminal complaints are largely at Eastwood? This is the kind of inconsistency that, I believe, is a problem.

CheshireKitty said...

The financial incentive for the landlord - the market rate rent, isn't the main reason for the eviction. He is already charging market rate - or close to market rate - already, with the voucher making up the difference.


The main reasons the landlord pursues evictions is (1) He doesn't want a criminal element in the building since that element might frighten/drive other/prospective tenants away and (2) He is looking to eventually eliminate all the Sec 8 tenants if at all possible so as to convert the entire building to a luxury/market rate building, and will use any "excuse" to do so.


Let's not forget that In the same building, Eastwood, interestingly, a market rate tenant who may have a member of their family busted and convicted of a pot offense, for example, will not get evicted.


The reason the landlord may take advantage of arrests to evict Sec 8 tenants even if they aren't convicted, is that the landlord wishes to clear the building of Sec 8 tenants in general. The landlord wants affluent tenants, students, business people, anybody but Sec 8 tenants: Even if these affluent tenants themselves get busted or convicted, as long as they aren't Sec 8 tenants, the landlord wants them.


It's purely for social reasons that the Sec 8 tenants are targeted. Put another way, if the majority of the Sec 8 tenants are poor people of color (and I'm not saying they are, I'm just putting this out there as a maybe) and the majority of market rate tenants are not, then the change-over socially is stark: From poor to rich, from underfed to well-fed, from minority to white/favored minority such as Asian - or for that matter, any ethnic group/nationality as long as they are rich enough to pay the rent. Bottom line: The landlord simply wishes to remove poor tenants of a certain socio-economic layer, in favor of richer tenants who can afford the market rate rent, and will use any tool at his disposal to do so.


Another favorite technique to remove tenants that the landlord deems undesirable is to issue rent bills with varying amounts and then claim the discrepancies are due to computer errors. A tenant paying the bill will be caught off balance in determining the correct amount, eventually getting caught in an endless cycle of having the management company's computer corrected, possibly ending up in Housing Court for inadvertently not paying the full amount of rent - the possibilities are endless in getting undesirable tenants trapped because of computer "errors". Eventually the tenant may in this way be evicted or otherwise harassed into moving.


Another favorite technique is cutting back on repairs or performance substandard repairs. The landlord may not prioritize repairs for Section 8 or other undesirable tenants or unnecessarily draw out repairs, such that for example the repair of a simple faucet leak may take many hours, or multiple days. This is another way to harass tenants, by either not performing repairs or performing them in a substandard or deliberately inefficient way.

NotMyKid said...

I said there are a lot of trouble makers in Eastwood. I am sure if there was no security in 2-4 and it was psd patrols, there would be heck of a lot of reports there.

I wrote plenty of reports in eastwood, not one person was ever evicted. I did have to go to court only one time and that was for a serious trouble maker, yet with eastwood lawyers armed with numerous psd and nypd reports, violent history and a guncharge, this individual still kept the apartment.

Its preponderance of evidence in court as well know for civil and we also know tenants hold a lot of weight. Oh did I mention this tenant got free legal aid service?.

CheshireKitty said...

Of course - 2-4 RR is a building permanently set aside for Sec 8 tenants; there Sec 8 tenants that may be convicted/evicted are replaced by other Sec 8 tenants. At 2-4, the landlord probably doesn't actively pursue evictions because of convictions/arrests since the building will always be Sec 8. Of course the focus is on Eastwood - since there the landlord would like all the Sec 8 tenants to go away. By contrast, there is no particular incentive or reason for the 2-4 landlord to undertake efforts to have his tenants arrested/evicted since the building is a Sec 8 building. Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of residents in the Sec 8 program in both Eastwood and 2-4 are law-abiding citizens. They may be elderly, disabled, retired, or single moms. They may be unemployed due to problems of long-term structural unemployment. They may face institutional discrimination, and may also not have the benefit of a sound education due to the historic reduction of education funding to City Schools. There are many reasons why they need Sec 8 assistance to pay the rent. Also, let's remember that market rate rents today in NYC are exploitative rents, that do not generally match/track pay levels of the majority of the population, which is not in the category of upper middle class. The real crime is the stigmatization of anybody receiving the voucher,and their targeting by UA.


I replied to Not on his above comments that it ain't gonna happen since the US isn't a police state (yet) but that if there is gang-related drug activity in 2-4, then the PSD isn't equipped to take it on, and that would be another reason why NYPD needs to increase its presence on RI.

CheshireKitty said...

That's funny coming from a troll like you. And what were you wearing? Your pointy-aluminum troll cap?

NotMyKid said...

The issue is not nypd or not but as far as drugs are concerned I don't remember ever getting drug calls inside. Outside all the time. Inside was usually domestic incidents.

CheshireKitty said...

Presumably there is drug use. Do you think the distribution is handled by a gang?

NotMyKid said...

Yes. Absolutely. This is why there are gangs. This is how they make money. There is a gang BGM on the island. Its not a myth. They have sets in EW, 2-4 and off island.

Frank Farance said...

NotMyKid: What has changed since you served was: Eastwood is out of M-L, it has been sold, the landlord has failed in a submetering effort (one source income), and it's a market-rate building.


To CK: There are limits on what a Section 8 voucher will provide, the market rate rents are higher, so it's not financially "neutral".

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, that is true, it isn't absolutely financially "neutral". There are limits as you say, also there are limits on rent increases if I am not mistaken.


The Sec 8 vouchers were introduced to enable economically disadvantaged tenants to afford the rents the landlord wished to charge post-exit. The rents may have doubled on units post-exit for those receiving the voucher. This was not the case with the LAP tenants where the prior low M-L rent was continued. For them, to repeat, the rents did not double. The only way to pay the new, higher rent was for the less well-off tenants who did not qualify for the LAP was to apply for and receive the vouchers.


The thought was the landlord would be happy with the 900 or so Sec 8 tenants at exit, since the state would mostly pay the exorbitant rents - there was the certainty that the landlord would continue to receive this money, which might not be the case with a tenant subject to the uncertainties of the job market etc. The economic downturn made it even more desirable to retain these Sec 8 tenants.


Long-term however,and with the economy somewhat stabilized, and at least, in NYC, hordes of new rich tenants/buyers from overseas seeking units, it becomes less desirable for the landlord to retain the Sec 8 tenants.


And there are other reasons: It's possible the landlord long-term wishes to exit the Sec 8 system, not wish to deal with the paperwork/bureaucracy.


And, of course, if, down the line, UA wishes to sell the building, it is much more desirable/commands a higher price (sadly) as a market rate building - purely on the basis of the undeserved negative rep Sec 8 carries.

Lola54 said...

Here we go again listing Eastwood, 2-4RR. First of all let us take 2 River Road out of the equation...this is primarily senior residents. It is mostly your residents in Island House, Octagon, Rivercross, Westview who are the customers.

NotMyKid said...

Lola, those seniors have grandkids who aren't exactly model citizens. A shame I know. You think grandma and gramps can chase after the grandkids and see what they are up to?
Now don't get me wrong its only a handful but enough. Yes you are right there are others spread out. Not strictly a 2-4 thing by any means. Its just convrnient for off island dealers to park at the bbottom of the ramp, resupply front of and make a quick exit.