Friday, August 16, 2013

Roosevelt Island Youth Program Soccer Season Begins September 3 For Kids 6 to 13 Years Old, - Registration Now Available And Coaches Needed Too

If you are a Roosevelt Island Soccer player between the ages of 6 and 13, the parent of one, or just enjoy soccer, this is for you.

The Roosevelt Island Youth Program (RIYP) 2013 Soccer Season will begin on September 3


with registration open now.

RIYP Soccer coaches are needed too.


Some scenes from RIYP 2012 Soccer Season


You Tube Video of RIYP Soccer

and a final recap of the exciting 2012 RIYP Soccer Season.

You can fill out the RIYP Soccer registration form here.

35 comments:

billblass said...

This is a sissy sport

CheshireKitty said...

Do you know anything about it? Do you know that because they can't stop the action often, it will never be popular in the US, since commercials can't be inserted in the telecast, and thus it's not commercially "viable". Do you know that because the players are constantly on the move it might be much less of a sissy sport than baseball, or even football? But you don't know about it because it's never on regular broadcast TV, and you've never bothered to watch a game played here on RI or anywhere else.

rosislander said...

Just like you

billblass said...

Its for the sissy people moving onto the island o my they dont want little johnny to get a boo boo

billblass said...

Well when i am elected to rioc i will have mexican soccer games every weekend

KTG said...

I believe they call it FĂștbol.

billblass said...

When i am elected to rioc i will have a soccer game every weekend and a mariachi band playing in front of southtown

billblass said...

I see them playing on saturdays. Its all the new people of the island watch ing their kids play. I dont see the real island people there

KTG said...

probably because the "real island people" all have kids who have grown up it has been over 20 years.


But feel free to give up your sec-8 apartment to a young family with kids.

KTG said...

Yeah wasn't really looking for a manifesto or trying making a comment on sec-8.


To be frank, I was really just trying to point out Bill crappy attitude towards neighbors could be alleviated by a change of locale.



Quick comment on west side tower story you reference though. If someone does get a rent controlled apartment in that tower they should thank there lucky stars and be quiet. Not having access to a doorman or concierge is not oppression of the poor its actually them just getting what you pay for.

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. I'll reserve comment on your "recommendation" for the affordable tenants of the new condo tower in the UWS. So, if that's the case, what about the residents of affordable units at Southtown who share the amenities/lobbies/elevators with the market-rate tenants?


Anyway, you missed the point of my "manifesto" or rant. The 2-track system is enabled by our tax dollars enabling the greed of developers/property owners etc. It's not a true reflection of the market. It subverts capitalism in a way.


If apts were constructed to meet local demand at priced accordingly, without subsidies, they would have to be affordable otherwise they wouldn't be leased.


You are currently getting a flood of buyers from overseas some of them buying the apts as investments. The local market is distorted not only by the vouchers but by the new money flooding in much of it from Asia, and builders just figure they might as well cash in on the bonanza.


The complaints about the lack affordable housing paradoxically might disappear if builders were forced - by the disappearance of subsidies - to price their units according to the local market, not to meet the demand of overseas uber-rich. But there is no way to tell a builder whom he can or cannot lease to - thus, until there is a collapse of the bubble in Asia, and/or the voucher system ends - the builders will just continue to take advantage of the flood of easy money.

KTG said...

For Southtown that's at discretion of Hudson /Related and that's fair.


As far as 2 track system its funny how biggest affordable advocates are always courting & receiving donations from developers. The loopholes are put in place by these advocates. Far too many luxury developments get incentives and and abatements I would agree.


I also think we may see luxury bubble in Manhattan if there is a change in fx rates or market conditions.

billblass said...

You are the only one who knows the real deal of what happend with the deal in eastwood. The backstabbing job of rioc and ron vass god bless you

billblass said...

I would be happy to so. Just get me the same deal ron vass got on his apartment and i will give up my sec 8 right now.

KTG said...

I have no idea who Ron Vass is don't really care.


Pointing our that if you don't like it here you can try Queens or the Bronx affordable housing in many neighborhoods.

CheshireKitty said...

Yep, not too surprised, KTG.


Isn't the City of New York the biggest landlord in town - with hundreds of thousands of NYCHA units? Yet the City can't manage to keep up with repairs. That is because the buildings are crumbling - many are pre-war. And there is no place to put these people if the buildings fall apart. This is where the state is supposed to step in and do something. But it doesn't - it's sold out NYCHA.

Imagine if instead of exclusively promoting market rate development, there was a focus instead on affordable housing. In the coming years, this will be less an option than a necessity. It has to be a State-owned project - not Mitchell-Lama - but someone like Bloomberg will never contemplate replacing projects with new projects, or at least, not on the scale that's needed (if the existing projects really can't be repaired). Bloomberg just pulled back from his plan to give away/sell at a cheap price green space within the projects to developers for luxury housing development http://gothamist.com/2013/08/18/bloomberg_backs_down_on_plan_to_mak.php which would have represented an overt and total abandonment of the projects. That is fine, but what will Bloomberg/next Mayor do about the problem of crumbling projects? The City has to bite the bullet and recycle money into buildings that will benefit those of moderate income.



The bubble here is definitely linked to fx rates as you say. Once things unwind in Asia, they should let up here as well.

CheshireKitty said...

KTG - Vass is a long-time Eastwood resident, community activist/leader, who headed up the tenants' committee at the time of the building exit. You can find articles about him in the Wire archived articles.


Once the building exited, the rents were maybe doubled. The moderate-income tenants were placed in Sec 8 to help them pay the rent. Those that did not qualify for Sec 8 were placed in a Landlord Assistance Program (the LAP) which kept their rent at the pre-exit level and limited rent increases to RGB + 1%. Also, no downsizing for tenants with up to 2 BR apts for LAP tenants although Sec 8 tenants were subject to downsizing (not sure if this is really enforced though).


The problem is, if the Sec 8 tenants exceed the income limits, then they lose their voucher and the apt becomes un-affordable for many of them.


You can imagine how this might work. They get a job, but not a high-paying job. They fill out their annual re-certification form, and because they've exceeded the income limit by a trivial amount, they lose their voucher. However, they still can't afford the rent since their income hasn't increased by that much.


Moreover, these tenants have always resented the fact that the LAP tenants do not face income restrictions - LAP tenants still will have the cheap rents no matter what they make. The income limit is like a Damocles sword hanging over the heads of Sec 8 tenants - either they score a really high-paying job in which case they can afford the market rate rent, or basically, they need to stay low-income so that they can continue to receive the voucher and afford the high/market-rate rent.

CheshireKitty said...

Unfortunately, that isn't entirely true. I'm not sure if any one person really knows exactly what happened in the deal that was worked out between Belson, Berman, and Vass, as well as Sergei, the building committee's attorney.


You can point to the outcome of the negotiations - the building exited, the vouchers were issued, the LAP agreed to by Belson for those tenants who didn't qualify for the vouchers. Some have said the State of NY sold out the tenants. Others, that it was Vass, or Sergei even. One thing you can be sure of though: Belson certainly did well, and had no complaints once he got out of the Eastwood investment.


It was the subsequent transfers, the buying and selling of the building afterwards, that is shrouded in mystery. The building now may well be underwater and that may be driving the landlord's push to sub meter, for example. It may not be worth as much as he would like to think it is worth. The excessive prices paid for the building after the exit - were they manipulated? Some people made a lot of money in those transactions, of course Belson among them.


Now the question is, how to justify the putative price of the building to some future buyer? I would say every tenant of moderate means is in the cross-hairs of UA, even if UA gets the benefit of the voucher payments. There is currently no way Eastwood can be "sold" or promoted as a luxury building - not as long as upwards of 60% of the tenants are receiving the voucher. This is the problem for UA.


UA invested in cheap new windows - that is a fact. That as a multi-million dollar fiasco. But they needed to do this expensive upgrade in order to sub meter. Next - the rehabbing of the electrical/heating system, which will also cost untold millions - no doubt more than the windows. So then what?


The building is basically a cheaply constructed building - every buyer since exit was hoping to score a bigger and bigger profit with each cycle of buying and selling, each flip. The bubble collapsed around the time of the final flip. The building is over-valued - because it was cheaply built. The current owner is going to have to accept reality and will probably lose money in the next sale. No amount of upgrades is going to change that fact.


Or, maybe the Eisenberg family/UA is counting on Cornell riding in to save the day - upping demand for their units, making the building more attractive to possible buyers. That's a long-term play, and for that possibility the Eisenbergs need to cultivate a lot of patience (like maybe 20 years worth) and be ready to defer a lot of profit.

billblass said...

Thank you for telling the way it is.also down sizing is very well being enforced. Ask anyone living in eastwood and they will tell you

billblass said...

Yes so this is the reason it doses not pay for sec:8 people to work thanks to ron vass and the other backstabbers

Frank Farance said...

billblass, given the choice between (1) eviction, (2) market-rate rents, or (3) sec 8 sticky/LAP, most tenants went sec 8/LAP. Unless you want to pay market rate rents, you have rent assistance via sec 8, LAP, or 236 housing programs. The prior Mitchell Lama program had up to 50% rent surcharges, so if you made more money your rent could be increased up to 50%. Every affordable housing program has income limits.


As for Mr. Vass, would you have preferred mass evictions, or retaining the current tenancy via several affordable housing programs? It seems like Mr. Vass got something imperfect but reasonable: being able to stay in one's apartment at affordable rates.


If you thought the LAP program was better, then why didn't you choose LAP?


In summary, it sounds like you're one of the people who is making a fair amount of money, enough money to top out of section 8 enhanced voucher limits, and instead of


(1) being grateful for having affordable housing,


Or


(2) recognizing that the housing you're in isn't really for you (it's for people who make less money than you),


You frame this as it being


(3) a motivation against work (when, in fact, all housing programs have income limits),


And, it sounds like:


(4) in exchange for choosing the section 8 enhanced vouchers (over LAP), you were able to get lower rents for many years (circa 2006 onwards), but it also gave you an income cap, whereas LAP have fewer restrictions but the initial rents were higher.


Right?

billblass said...

See frank i was right all along about you. Just by you saying that i choose to be in sec 8 . Tells me you dont know what this deal was. I and many others did not choose we were forced into sec 8. .so stop talking about something when you dont have the facts you are rons lap dog.

billblass said...

Frank try to get a copy of the agreement and then you will see what i am crying about. Until then please say nothing because you do not know the facts. Read it then talk

CheshireKitty said...

Sorry to hear the downsizing is being enforced, Bill. Are the tenants that are downsized offered renovated apts?


The stress was certainly real for the thousands of Belson tenants in RI and Manhattan affected by Belson buying out of M-L and doubling the rents all at once. Here's an article from 2005, as Eastwood and the other Belson properties (such as 3333 Broadway) were on the verge of exiting M-L. Even Island House and Westview are listed as properties on the M-L "endangered list". IH has since exited into an affordability plan/coop conversion.http://www.insaf.net/ml/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56

CheshireKitty said...

I have a copy of the Landlord Assistance Program and will try to put it into scribd so anyone can read it.

Incidentally, Bill, it is possible for a building to return to Mitchell-Lama after exiting it! Here is a recent article about a 900+ unit Rockaway building (The Sand Castle also known as Seagirt and Roy Reuther) that has returned last month to M-L. http://www.insaf.net/ml/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=416

CheshireKitty said...

Bill, I think you misinterpreted Frank's comment. He says tenants were given a choice by the landlord, which is true. The alternative would have been no choice or options. The choice of accepting an option of rent support or stabilization programs depended on their income. A lower-income tenant could not chose to go into the LAP if their income disqualified them, nor could a higher-income tenant chose to receive Sec 8. What Frank means is that the landlord offered the tenants a choice of the Sec 8 or LAP - the tenant's inclusion in each program depended on their income affidavit. The tenant could also choose to not accept either program, leading to 3 possible further options.

Eviction - if a tenant deliberately chooses to stop paying rent, they will eventually be evicted. Eviction in this way - deliberately not paying the rent even if a tenant can pay the rent - is always an option - whether or not a building is affordable, or whether or not a tenant is receiving benefits. A tenant can also choose to beat the landlord out of rent - i.e. not pay but leave overnight before the landlord has a chance to catch up with them with eviction proceedings. If the tenant carefully covers their tracks, the landlord may have a hard time tracking them down to demand the back rent. This option or choice - which is related to eviction, beating the landlord out of the rent, unfortunately happens all the time. An existing Eastwood tenant could also have chosen to become a market-rate tenant i.e. accept their rent being doubled at the time of building exit. I don't know of many or possibly any tenants that accepted a doubling of their rent for the same/unimproved/un-renovated unit, however. This is similar to receiving half pay for the same amount of work, or being suddenly charged double for the same electricity - most people would strongly object to either as it would seem to represent cheating. For the average tenant there was no reason to pay that sort of a rent increase for the same apt - so I've never heard of any Eastwood tenants at the time of building exit deciding to become market-rate tenants, although that too would theoretically have been a choice.

There is not much difference in what you and Frank is saying. The only thing I would point out is that the LAP tenants' rent did not rise after exit, they kept the same M-L rent, and they also lost the M-L income surcharge. Thus, they could make hundreds of thousands of dollars and still pay the M-L rent under LAP without the 50% excessive income surcharge. Also, they can transfer the LAP apt to family members. However, as good as all that sounds, the rents for the LAP tenants too rise inexorably so eventually will not be that different from those of the market rate tenants. Another benefit is that LAP tenants in apts up to 2 BRs do not get downsized no matter what their family composition is; I'm not certain if downsizing for those who have >2 BR apts is being enforced, though (since the building has such a high turnover rate to begin with). All in all, at the time, the LAP seemed very favorable to the small group of tenants who qualified for it (i.e. those who were disqualified from receiving the Sec 8 voucher).

Meanwhile, here is an interesting article of 8/19/13 re what really happened to affordable housing in NYC under Mayor Mike. http://www.theawl.com/2013/08/the-truth-about-bloombergs-affordable-housing-in-new-york

billblass said...

I was making much more money than alot of people in in eastwood and i was put in sec8 and people making less money than me were put in lap.thats how messed up this deal was

billblass said...

Can you please tell me why it is called landlord assistance program .is the landlord assisting these people by paying part of their rent

CheshireKitty said...

That's just a standard title for this type of program. It is supposed to assist tenants to stay in their apts - those that did not qualify for Sec 8 vouchers. The landlord agreed to not to raise the rents of the tenants who qualified for the LAP, and to abide by RGB + 1% for future rent increases along with a number of other provisions. Basically the tenants became rent stabilized + 1%, but with no income limit. I suppose you could say the assistance was the landlord "giving" the tenant the value of the rent increase all the other (non-LAP) tenants received. The tenant in a way received this "gift" from the landlord by means of the LAP.

CheshireKitty said...

You could always have tried to fight being placed in Sec 8. Some people successfully managed to move from Sec 8 to LAP, but it was a difficult thing to do, requiring court appearances etc. Believe me, placement in Sec 8 doesn't depend on the someone deciding who gets in and who doesn't. It depends on an income affidavit. You have to show or prove how much you make to qualify for Sec 8. At the time, those were the options available to Eastwood tenants: Sec 8, or for who did not qualify for Sec 8, LAP.

billblass said...

Cant you understand sec 8 is a program made for low income people these people are most likly paying below 25.000 . Per year no taxes food stamps ect now when you give people making 50 60.000 and up it doses not work.

billblass said...

Why would they go from sec 8 to lap according to frank being in sec 8 is a great deal

CheshireKitty said...

Yes - I'm not disagreeing. It is a program for low income people making below 25,000/year. The only problem is if they start earning money, but not that much more, they are dropped from the program. People making $60,000/year wouldn't qualify for Sec 8.

CheshireKitty said...

Will you please stop picking on Frank? Sec 8 is a great deal except for things like being able to leave your apt to your relatives/kids and not have to downsize (for people in up to 2 BR apts). Some people might value space - an additional BR - as more valuable than the Federal subsidy.

Frank Farance said...

billblass said "I was making much more money than alot of people in in eastwood and i was put in sec8 and people making less money than me were put in lap.thats how messed up this deal was", yet:


- you complain about the Rich People on the Island but, in fact, you are one of them, as you rate yourself against other Eastwood tenants' incomes


- you made more than LAP people, but didn't qualify for LAP, but *did* qualify for section 8 enhanced voucher


There are significant inconsistencies in your stories, that cause one to question the truthfulness of what you're saying, just like when you claimed to be a new Island resident, but then started your complaint about Mr. Vass's actions circa 2005, thus revealing that you're the old Joe Carbo.


So maybe you should explain your inconsistencies because it sounds like you're scamming the system with higher income than what is allowed, right?



And you no longer get to complain about the Rich People of the Island because you have revealed you are one of them yourself, right?


Tsk tsk.