Friday, October 10, 2014

Good News - Roosevelt Island F Train Service To And From Manhattan This Weekend

According to the MTA Weekender, there will be Roosevelt Island F train service

to and from Manhattan this weekend.

F Trains run local in both directions between 21 St-Queensbridge and 71 Av

Weekends, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, until Oct 13

Trains stop at 36, Steinway, 46 Sts, Northern Blvd, 65 St, Roosevelt, Elmhurst, Grand Avs, Woodhaven Blvd, 63 Dr and 67 Av.


CheshireKitty said...

The GDP never called for luxury housing, such as is now seen @ ST. The initial mix didn't even include market-rate. Thus, I am certainly not factually wrong: The GDP did not call for luxury housing ever, and in the initial set of buildings constructed, the WIRE buildings, rich people were definitely excluded; these buildings were constructed for the benefit of the poor and middle-class. There were income limits. The rich were definitely excluded, and so it was not a mixed-income community initially; it was a community similar to a project except that middle-income people were allowed in as well as poor.

Now you know that and everyone knows that, so why argue?

Had the WIRE buildings not taken off, the direction of development would have differed from what was set forth in the GDP. Neither you nor I can say for sure how the island would have developed. Probably, the mix would have continued to slant to poor and middle-class lessees - rather than the subsequent pattern which favored the rich, in terms of the number of market-rate apartments (80-20, or multiple market rate buildings vs. 1 Sec 8 building, as @ MP).

There's nothing to argue about. The island was not initially developed as a mixed-income community since the rich could not get into the WIRE buildings because of the income limits. Of course, those that did get in, if they did happen to get rich and wish to stay in their units, could not be thrown out. So you get some additional layers little by little even in the WIRE buildings. Whatever the GDP may have called for in Phase II would have gone out the window had the WIRE buildings not taken off. And the GDP did not call for a mixed income community in Phase I since the rich were deliberately excluded (just as they were excluded from the many thousands of M-L units constructed all over the City, not just on RI).

I know you put a lot of time and effort into your comments, and I'm sure that you believe you are right, but the fact is, Phase I did not call for market-rate apartments, thus, RI was not originally a mixed-income community. The mixed-income phase was Phase II - but that was contingent upon Phase I succeeding, and there was no guarantee that would happen.

Frank Farance said...

CK, again and again factually. wrong. You frame things as Rich vs. Not, which isn't the GDP wording. Original GDP called for market rate: "(e) 25% for persons and families who can afford conventionally financed and fully taxpaying units").

Also, wrong on so-called "luxury" apartments, which are not a term in the contracts. The original GDP included Conventionally Financed and Fully Taxpaying units, as does the present GDP wording, which are the "market-rate" apartments. And "market-rate" means what the market will bear, so if you believe that some Southtown apartments are "luxury" apartments (possibly because they use the term "luxury", as does MP, in their advertising banners), then that distinction is a marketing term but not a contractual distinction in the GDP.

Putting "Conventionally Financed and Fully Taxpaying Units" on banners does have the same pizazz as "Luxury Apartments" ad copy. :-)

You're also wrong on "Phase I did not call for market-rate apartments, thus, RI was not originally a mixed-income community". There were no "phases" in the GDP, as the wording clearly shows. The WIRE buildings were mixed income: they addressed 4 of the 5 categories of the mix in the GDP. Certainly back in the early 1980's we would have considered ourselves as "mixed income", it was obvious there were residents on public assistance and there were residents who were well-off (probably what you would call "rich").

You say "since the rich were deliberately excluded", but according to you, the "rich" could easily get an M-L apartment by having their income meet the limits one year. Here is what you said in this thread on how millionaires get apartments on RI within the original WIRE buildings:

CK: "Ugh.. you fail to grasp the principles of M-L evidently: People are rented apartments as long as they are income eligible, but once they're in, they cannot be removed if their income rises above the eligibility limit, they just pay a surcharge on the rent increase. So, Mr. XYZ could rent an apartment and if he should become a millionaire and for some reason wish to continue living in what is essentially a
middle-class project, he could stay. They cannot get rid of you once you are in, as long as you continue to pay the rent. Duh."

You state without basis or substantiation "The mixed-income phase was Phase II - but that was contingent upon Phase I succeeding, and there was no guarantee that would happen". No developer, in thinking about market-rate units, would have thought "Gee, I think I'm going to wait to see if the WIRE buildings are successful before building a market-rate building" ... that makes no business sense, especially when you're looking at waterfront apartments on the East River.

There was no such "contingency" in the GDP. Other developers were very much interested in building on RI with its East River views, but what limited
them was (1) the 63rd Street subway line yet to be completed, and (2) the transition
from UDC to SAHE to RIOC, which would give the developer a ground lease. Not to mention, RIRA was against new development, as they were against MP, Octagon, and Southtown.

You say:

CK: "Whatever the GDP may have called for in Phase II would have gone out the window had the WIRE buildings not taken off. And the GDP did not call for a mixed income community in Phase I since the rich were deliberately excluded"

Again, not true because other developers wanted to build market-rate housing.

Lastly, your thinking is all framed in terms of the "rich" (which is not a distinction in the GDP), and your citations of the GDP are wrong.

"Us and Them" said...

great response. Really surprised to read Frank's statements

CheshireKitty said...

I am not wrong: The original WIRE buildings are not luxury buildings and did not allow rich people in. That is because they were M-L developments with strict income guidelines that exclude rich people. This is just a fact.

Thus, RI was originally developed similar to all the other M-L or City projects, which also do not allow the rich to lease apartments. All these projects, some of which are gigantic, such as Coop City, are certainly not mixed-income developments.

Thus, RI was not originally developed as a mixed-income development as the WIRE complexes were all under M-L.

It was many years later, when MP was built, that the first rich people were allowed to lease on RI. Right?

CheshireKitty said...

Thanks! You should check out Frank's other responses the last few days, on whether RI was originally developed as a mixed-income community. I keep reminding him that the original WIRE buildings, since they were under M-L, had income limits - thus, the rich were not allowed to lease in these M-L buildings, thus, the island was not mixed-income originally if we consider mixed-income to include the rich, as well as poor and middle-income. He won't listen to me - even though factually, the island's initial developments (WIRE building) were all under Mitchell-Lama!

OldRossie said...

Unfortunately, that's not what you originally said in the below link. Lets be clear about what statement is being debated:

CheshireKitty said...

Oh please: The issue under debate is whether the island was developed as a mixed-income community originally. The answer is no.

RI was originally developed as a Mitchell-Lama project consisting of 4 M-L complexes and each complex had income limits, just as all M-L complexes have income limits. Whether M-Ls later privatize, or new developments that are not M-Ls are later built nearby, which is of course the case throughout the City, was not the topic under discussion. The topic was the fact that the original 4 WIRE buildings did not by law allow rich people to lease.

Thus, Frank was wrong because the original 4 WIRE complexes were not mixed-income developments since they excluded the rich.

Maybe his definition of a mixed-income community is not the same as everyone else's, but my definition would include the rich as a component of mixed-income.

RI became a mixed-income community with the construction of MP, the first development with no income limits on most (but not all) of its buildings.

Frank Farance said...

CK, you're trying to spin your wrong statement: "Well, did the GDP call for luxury housing, or even market-rate housing? It didn't." -- factually incorrect, as cited and as OldRossie pointed out.

CheshireKitty said...

No, you are wrong: The island was initially developed only for the poor to middle-class, just like any other M-L project. NO MARKET RATE, AND NO LUXURY. Under M-L NO RICH ALLOWED IN.

You know you're wrong - you of all people, fighting for years for an Affordability Plan for IH, which also excludes buyers making over a certain amount of money, i.e. keeps the IH complex out of the hands of the rich/yuppies/speculators etc.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"... businesses are in business to make money ..."

This doesn't have to be that way, though. Yes, businesses are in the business to make money BUT they also have a social responsibility, IMHO. It can never be all about the money without consideration of the human costs. Unfortunately, many people subscribe to this believe that money trumps everything. I am surprised that you, Frank, are one of them.

YetAnotherRIer said...

You are correct that the original buildings were not "market rate" buildings. BUT... the GDP did not disallow the future development of market rate units. The latter is what you insisted not to be, originally.

CheshireKitty said...

Don't be surprised. Probably, Frank's politics can be described as Independent/Libertarian favoring Republican politicians such as Lhota and Astorino, which explains why he never objected to Ferrarro being appointed to the RIOC Board as a favor to a Republican.

In a politically left-liberal city, with an even greater ratio of liberals on RI itself, he can't admit that he is not a liberal, much less not a Democrat. Of course, there must be some Republicans on RI - even baggers/conservatives: Somewhere along this right-wing political spectrum is where sadly, you will find Frank.

CheshireKitty said...

I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. All I was saying was under the GDP, the island was not originally developed as a mixed-income community, because there were no market rate apartments included, and there were strict income limits on the 4 M-L complexes that were constructed (the WIRE buildings) such that the rich could not move in to RI even if they wanted to. This was all part of Phase I - in the GDP. The subsequent phases allowed market rate development - within defined parameters. I have always questioned the rationale of considering the hospital housing "affordable" but that is another story. However, had the train station not been constructed, nor Phase I been a success, my contention is that the subsequent development would have followed the Phase I pattern: Keep the housing cheap to attract *anyone* to live here, as it would continue to be undesirable if so cut off from the rest of city without the train.

Also, M-L as we know, have a finite "life" - thus, the island's WIRE buildings were bound to become market-rate eventually anyway. All I said, is that the GDP did not envision rich people moving in to the original 4 developments (WIRE buildings) since these were M-L projects. This is a fact that for some reason Frank refuses to accept. The GDP mandated only poor to middle-class people originally living on RI. The WIRE buildings by law could not allow rich people in.

I don't see what the problem is - my saying no rich people were allowed originally, thus RI was not a mixed-income community originally since the rich were excluded - is a fact. There are still plenty of M-L complexes were rich people are not allowed by law to move in, nor are they of course allowed to move into City projects. RI was originally developed as a project for the poor and middle-class. Unlike City projects, however, M-L developments, in most but not all cases, eventually revert to market rate rentals/coops/etc. I know this, we all know this - this isn't the question. The question is how the island was originally developed: And the answer to that question is, as a mecca for poor to middle-class residents only.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer, a business being "socially responsible" is dependent upon its profit margin. For razor thin profits, "socially responsible" can mean the difference between success and failure of the business, e.g., the business choosing between a reasonable healthcare plan vs. a crappy one in order for the business to remain profitable.

Now if a business's competitors all have the same cost at being "socially responsible" (regulation, taxes, etc.), then there is a level playing field, which is why I suggested that the Walmart executives might be more accepting of a tax/regulation spread across itself and its competitors (for various "social responsibility" goals), than Walmart having to take the burden on its own.

So I *don't* believe money trumps everything, but if one is going to push for various "social responsibility" policies, then a better route towards broad adoption is when all parties suffer the same pain.

For example, given the choice between having a nationalized benefit (e.g., healthcare) that is not dependent upon being employed vs. having to pay it out of pocket, I think many people would want it nationalized ... such as avoiding the worry of "Gee, I just became much less (but not completely) unemployed, I've lost my health insurance, I can't afford the deductible, and I don't qualify for public assistance or Medicaid, so I can't get treated and can't afford my medications". Yes, that means paying for it in higher taxes, but the universal healthcare approach is the one I now think is best for the US. And if you read my prior comments, you'd see that I think there needs to be national solutions to various national problems.

Just saw CKs attempt to pigeonhole me into political stereotypes. I'm not affiliated with any political party, my politics are Fiscally Responsible combined with Socially Liberal. CK's claim I'm a Libertarian is really far from the truth since I support various regulatory models and various tax-and-spend models (as outlined in various posts on this thread).

So rather that have constructive discussion on policy ideas, CK is back to exaggerations, political stereotyping, and name-calling (as if the world operates according to her simplistic stereotypes), which seems to be her Home Turf.

It's tiring having to correct CK all the time. For example, I did oppose Ferrera's appointment to the RIOC Board, but it was based upon (my perceived) conflict of interest with the Child School (and his role as Executive Direct) being one of the larger leaseholders of RIOC. I did not oppose Ferrera based upon his "non-elected" status (since the Governor has a right to do so), and since RIRA-MTG-WIRE cancelled the RIOC 2010 elections, there was no one to point to that the Governor should appoint. The fact that Ferrera was politically connected to some Brooklyn politician didn't matter much to me: most everyone who is appointed to public authorities is politically connected in some way.

CheshireKitty said...

"...socially responsible" can mean the difference between success and failure of the business" if profits are "...razor thin..." And so, the right thing is to continue to screw the worker so the business can survive, which it can only survive by means of screwing the worker? If the profits are "razor thin" it would seem even the owner is probably not doing too well.. and we know the workers aren't, if they are only getting minimum, which in many areas is not enough to live on. So I don't get the rationale for the whole enterprise. What is anyone getting out of it, if the workers are getting screwed and even the owner isn't doing well?

As far as "razor thin" profits justifying not paying the workers enough, that is certainly not the case with Walmart or the fast-food chains. Yet you have said that it's OK that Walmart workers supplement their pay with Food Stamps, since even working full-time these workers qualify.

Why should we - the taxpayer - subsidize the Walton family's mega profits, which are built on exploiting workers, by pouring money into benefits that their thousands of employees are only eligible for because Walmart doesn't pay them enough? I don't see that as "socially responsible," I see that as the Walmart family/1% taking advantage of anti-poverty programs to line their pockets, i.e. pay their workers a pittance and let Uncle Sam "pay" the workers in benefits.

I am glad that at least you are not a Libertarian, as they are known for even wackier politics. However, being "fiscally responsible" as you put it, can lead to many unexpected policy choices, some of which may not be entirely pro-the 99%.

Social liberal? I doubt it, considering you were pro-Boy Scouts including accepting their anti-gay policy a couple of years ago on this blog (since then the Boy Scouts have come around & accepted gay youth although I'm not sure gay Scout Leaders are accepted as yet). As I recall you were the only one who defended the Boy Scouts on a thread on this blog at that time.

I don't want to pry and I'm not particularly interested in finding out the rest of your opinions on social issues - but, could you really call yourself a feminist? I doubt it. Feminism continues to be one of the biggest social issues today, along with gay rights. If you are not pro-women's and gay rights, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and so forth, then I'm not sure you can really call yourself a social liberal.

As far as Ferrera was concerned, did you really oppose the appointment from the outset? No. Only later, when the conflict came into play as he tried to grab space for his school, did you point out the conflict and oppose his appointment. You were not opposed to the Ferrara appointment initially. You saw it as the inevitable result of the canceled 2010 RIOC Board member nominee election.

But wasn't there another reason for your not complaining about the appointment - a reason you could not be totally transparent about? Even if you swear that you are not a registered Republican, the Ferrara appointment meant a "win" for the Republicans in the legislature. Although we can't be sure, it is quite possible Ferrara was somehow "allied" with this Republican sponsors in Albany. Thus, once Ferrara was appointed, the Republicans were happy, Ferrara was happy, and of course, you were happy.

Not only did many on RIRA oppose the Ferrara appointment, but even several RIOC Board members publicly complained about it at the time. You were in a distinct minority in not opposing the appointment initially - just as Republicans are in a minority in NYS, and especially so in NYC. It's more than just a coincidence that you did not oppose this appointment initially, Frank.