Tuesday, October 7, 2014

President Of Roosevelt Island Tree Board Urges Rivercross Shareholders To Attend Tonight's Coop Board Meeting And Tell Directors To Stop The Arborcide Of Healthy Courtyard Trees For The God Of Real Estate

An update of the September 22 post regarding Rivercross Coop Board Of Directors decision to cut down 4 healthy courtyard trees.

Image Of Rivercross Courtyard Trees Planned To Be Cut Down

As previously reported:
The Roosevelt Island Rivercross Coop Board Of Directors informed shareholder residents of the building that 4 very tall courtyard trees (almost 9 stories high) planted before the building was constructed over 38 years ago will soon be removed. According to a September 19 memo from the Board of Directors the trees are a safety danger and block the views of some apartments negatively impacting their value. The memo also states that the trees will be replaced by 5 cherry trees and accompanying shrubbery....
... I am told that some residents are extremely upset by the Rivercross Board Of Directors decision to remove these trees describing it as "arborcide".
Roosevelt Island Tree Board President and Rivercross resident Ali Schwaryi sent this September 23 letter to Rivercross shareholders urging them to attend Rivercross Board of Directors meeting tonight and tell the Rivercross Directors to stop the arborcide of the 4 courtyard trees.  Here is the transcript of the letter pictured below:
Dear Neighbors,

My name is Ali Schwaryi and I am writing in opposition to the Rivercross Board's decision to cut down four great trees in the inner courtyard (memo dated Sept. 19. Replacement of Trees")"

I have been a Rivercross resident since 1977 and as president of the Parks Committee, and currently the Tree Board. I and other members have worked tirelessly to plant about 150 trees and to save some great, mature trees from destruction by developers.

The Board's reasons for cutting down those four trees (two London Plane and two Norway Maple) are not convincing, even BOGUS in my opinion.

Reason 1: " The trees are big and a potential danger. In case of another hurricane such as Sandy to the Blue Wing and the Child School".
Fact: The Trees are healthy and have already survived hurricane Sandy with no damage to the trees, the Blue Wing or the Child School. They are surrounded on three sides by the building and are protected from the effects of high wind.

Reason 2: "The trees obscure the views of some apartments and negatively impact the value of those apartments."
Fact: The trees PARTIALLY affect the views of some apartments for only about 5 months per year but for the remaining 7 months when the trees are leafless, the views are unobstructed. Some residents I have discussed this with love having both views (trees and river/cityscape) at different times.

There are about 18 big trees on the south, west and north sides of Rivercross, which are closer to the building and have the same effect on views. ARE WE TO EXPECT THE BOARD TO ORDER THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE TREES IN THE FUTURE? Are we setting a bad precedent?

Reason3: "The trees are impacting the value of the apartments affected".
Fact: Everyone knows that trees enhance property values by providing natural beauty and shade, and by minimizing the effects of hot weather.

Reason 4: "We are not just removing trees, we are replacing them with Kwanzan Cherry trees and flowering shrubs".
Fact: The Board wants you to accept cutting down four big trees, some as old as 75 years, and replacing them with five Cherry trees and some shrubs that will not do well in that location because of limited sunlight. The Norway Maples predated the construction of our building by many years i.e. they were here first and deserve to live even if they partially obstruct the views of some for part of the year.

The trees in question can be intelligently pruned (not topped) to improve the views of those affected. The real reason for cutting them down, in my opinion, is disregard by some for our natural surroundings, ignorance about the value of trees and placing the "God of Real Estate" above all.

As president of the Tree Board, I and other members will do everything in our power to inform the residents of Rivercross about this important issue.


Come to the next Rivercross Board meeting on October 7, 531 Community Room 8 PM and speak against their decision and let your voices be heard.

Sincerely Dr. Ali.N. Schwaryi, President of Tree Board with support form Dr. Kathie Grimm and Ms. Fay Christian Tree Board members.

Rivercross resident Dr. Kathie Grimm added:
Dear Fellow Share Holders, This is a condensed letter I sent to the board members and management on Sunday. The issue of cuttting the trees down has previously been presented to the board and voted down. A former board member suggested a petition to see how the building feels in general about the trees. Another former board member suggested that all those who face the court yard be questioned for their opinions. This is a very controversial issue and unhappy share holders need to let their opions known to the board.

September 20, 2014,

Dear Rivercross Board Members,

Over the years I have always appreciated and supported the good work that the Rivercross Board does. However, yesterday while I was still busy at work, I received two distressed calls about the recent decision to cut down four trees....

..As you know many people on Roosevelt Island are passionate about trees and for good reason. The trees are a big reason for making this such a special place. Indeed one of the reasons I moved to apartment ... was because of the trees when I lived in ..., I loved the trees outside my window.

I have been on the Tree Board with Dr. Schwaryi, Faye Christian and Nurity Marcus for years. Dr. Schwaryi is extremely knowledgeable about trees and has served as a consultant to RIOC and Cornell-Technion as well as Hudson Related. It is his opinion that these mature trees do not represent a danger to our building and indeed as I walked around the building today, there are many other trees just as close if not closer the building than these four.

It would sadden me greatly to have those trees removed and planting new trees does not insure success. I think that the trees actually contribute to the value of my apartment rather than detract from it.
Real estate web site Brick Underground reported on the Roosevelt Island Rivercross tree controversy:
... In 2000, the New York Times addressed this very issue, noting that “unless the proprietary lease or bylaws of a co-op contain unusual provisions, the board of directors generally has the right to make all decisions regarding the operation and maintenance of the co-op's property. … It is unlikely that a court would grant an injunction barring the removal of the trees.”...
I asked Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC) President Charlene Indelicato:
... Since RIOC is the lessor of the Rivercross ground lease is Rioc's consent required to cut the trees down?...
Ms. Indelicato replied:
No consent is required by RIOC
Will update with more after the meeting.


CheshireKitty said...

Home ownership? We are obviously talking past each other. Home ownership is not exactly a possibility nor necessarily the best choice for poorly-paid urban dwellers. In tightly packed urban areas, home ownership may not be an option available/sensible for poorly-paid employees (e.g. those making minimum wage).

Home ownership is usually not possible on low-wage jobs - except in either rural areas where land values are low, or economically "collapsed" (de-industrialized) urban areas. However, in these areas work may be scarce as factories close or automation disrupts employment.

People who are paid the minimum do not receive a tax benefit of deducting the interest of mortgages - since their income is so low to begin with, the deduction doesn't make much of a difference; moreover, they would not earn enough in he first place to pay a mortgage and still have enough money left over to support their families. Imagine how low a mortgage would have to be to be paid on minimum wage, and still leave enough money to pay various home-owner insurances, fuel, property tax, and of course put food on the table and so forth.

There are plenty of people who are currently faced with the dilemma as described above: They may have saved for their retirement, but their savings will not go far in the current over-heated real estate environment, which is of course, a bubble.

That is why the social safety net system (Social Security) is wildly popular - even if a worker saves, pensions such as Social Security are vital in enabling the retiree to survive, given the ever-increasing cost of living.

KTG said...

Just nuts. BTW Bloomberg was knighted yesterday glad to see a hard working man get acknowledgement he deserves.

CheshireKitty said...

If it doesn't exist, then why are you getting so angry? If it doesn't exist, then you should be singing the praises of exploitation (I got mine, now you get yours). Ahh, but you can't exactly praise greed -as it's the antithesis of every moral and ethical teaching that has ever been drummed into you: "Do unto others as they would do unto you" or "Do not do unto others and you would not want them to do unto you." Either way, the Golden Rule has largely superseded and vanquished the Rule of Gold i.e. Money. Isn't that so?

CheshireKitty said...

Oh right - I'm sure megalomaniac BB loved receiving the "trappings" of "nobility" - the empty husks of the corrupt British caste system, how fitting a "reward" for BB.

"Sir Bloomie!" At last he can claim some of the "glamour" of aristocracy!

BB was always a bit of dictator when he "ruled" NY - what with his 3rd term shenanigans, and so forth; now he can even style himself a "noble," really "above" the "common people" of NY he so despised. Maybe BB should move to the UK (he already has a pad in Bermuda) to permanently revel in his newly-acquired "noble title," even buy himself a crumbling castle (or two) to strut around in, much like Hearst in a bygone era.

CheshireKitty said...

All I can say is I was laid off - due to down-sizing - and received the entire package of retirement benefits, a portion of which was later tripled. That is how much I was valued as a worker.

I was correctly compensated for the level of skills I brought to the position - however, newly-hired workers were getting paid half as much as me, and even newly-hired supervisors were getting less. The system of "forced retirement"/layoff for those earning that much was applied to many categories of workers - even highly-trained professionals such as multi-degreed nurses. There is no need for me to explain why my employer preferred to reduce labor costs by hiring new cheaper workers rather than retain highly paid older workers; there was of course age discrimination at play, as well as the wish to reduce labor costs, which is the highest overhead item for an employer. I saw innumerable highly skilled highly experienced people go the same route - a well-compensated retirement - long before the same "fate" befell me. Since I refused to accept the generous retirement package, it was forced on me, when I was laid off.

Unless you are a business owner or an employer, you are punching the clock for a business owner or employer. Thus, KTG, you are punching the clock, even if you did receive a promo.

Well, who's to say what is the value the army of Walmart employees provides to the Walton family? Clearly, without them, the business couldn't survive, right? So, they should be compensated accordingly.

Of course, I agree that skills/education is vital, but so is compensation commensurate to enabling the employee to survive without having to resort to Food Stamps (for example). You may think that McJobs, or McWorkers, add little value to a business - but without them, the business will fold. So how much should workers, who enable a business to succeed, be paid? The owner, without them, has no money if the business fails. Thus, he should pay them accordingly, since his survival in that business, depends on them.

Project management training? Technical skills? You don't know what you are talking about with regard the field I was in. Project management skills and technical skills weren't exactly applicable in the job I held - or, if anything, technology was only a tool enabling greater efficiency. You forget that I certainly did want to stay - I refused to retire although I was offered the opportunity to do so. When I refused I was then informed that I could be laid off (forced to accept the package) because of downsizing at any time, which is exactly what eventually did happen (layoff).

I didn't stay the course, I wanted to work - and I was considered excellent at my job. Of course I added value: A good indication is that my team remarkably was never once hit with a malpractice lawsuit, and we were generating the most revenue in our department: the result of course of positive word of mouth/referrals.

CheshireKitty said...

I never said I was laid off becuase I was just too good, I was laid off because I refused to retire and accept the generous retirement package I received when I was laid off, i.e. it was a forced retirement. The same thing happened to plenty of highly skilled professionals when they reached the top of their pay scale - eventually, they would be offered early retirement. They then went off to happy retirements, and would occasionally come back to visit, tanned and relaxed.

You could say we were all laid off because we were earning top dollar, and we could be replaced by new hires at half the price. The only reason we were getting paid as much as we were was because we were "good." Obviously, employees who were no good would get fired right and left (there was a bit of a revolving door) and so you could be certain that people like me, and the other skilled professionals that were eventually laid off, had to be "good" to have made it to the 20+ year mark - and received maximum raises and so forth through the years.

OldRossie said...

I've said this before - I don't actually intend to have a rational discussion with you, I just enjoy pointing out your stupidity.

Jimmy Kimmel had a bit where they asked random people on the street who Joe Biden was, and found several that didn't know. He found fitness fanatics on gluten free diets that didn't know what gluten was or why it was a diet. There are many people out there that will buy into things with no rhyme or reason - that makes people like you dangerous. You spew things out as facts that are incorrect, you make sweeping generalizations and unfounded criticisms, you make claims about people that are outlandish. If you knew my actual name, after your comments, if someone googled my name they'd find your comments saying I had this extreme belief, and that exaggerated position...

So beyond the pleasure of highlighting your ignorance, if I really needed to point to a reason for continuing conversations with you, it would be so anyone that reads your nonsense, maybe, will read mine too and just dismiss both.

OldRossie said...

I'd also like to point out that rather than addressing the point that your ridiculous demands would never work, you managed to go in a different direction...

OldRossie said...

Weren't you a secretary?

CheshireKitty said...

Well, yes, there is a constant turnover of population in NYC, for example, as, no doubt elsewhere.

In fact, as of 2011, "...for the past two decades New York's net population loss due to domestic migration (i.e. people moving elsewhere in the country) was the highest in the United States." http://gothamist.com/2011/08/02/people_who_dont_love_new_york_leave.php

Even so, the population of NYC is the highest it's ever been, at 8.4 million as of 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City - as the population losses are replaced by gains mostly due to the influx of immigrants from around the world (a tradition since way back after all); the number is bolstered as well by the "greying" of New York because of increasing life expectancy.

CheshireKitty said...

Ridiculous demands? We are only talking about common humanity here.. as opposed to inhumanity and exploitation. What's there to argue about? Either you agree that morality and ethics should be factor in determining how the elderly, disabled, unemployed, and so forth are treated in our society, or not.

CheshireKitty said...

For a portion of my career, I was an industrial worker, then an office worker - including a temp office worker and then when word processing came in, word processor.

For the final 20 years of my working life, I worked for one boss, as part of his team. Even though many other members of the team came and went (fired/otherwise left) he and I were a tight team, and as I wrote, our team was highly successful. Days I would be off on vacation, he would sometimes have "caniptions" - could not get along without me. That means I was indispensable to the success of our team.

CheshireKitty said...

So, what would you recommend instead? A return to poor-houses - like the ones that used to be on RI?

Oh, and BTW, since you seem so interested in the career I pursued, what about you? Tell us a bit about yourself. As I recall, you are a pediatrician living in Manhattan Park. Am I correct?

CheshireKitty said...

That is entirely up to you, "Herr" Rossie..

OldRossie said...

Yes, clearly, by pointing out social security goes to more than the elderly, I'm advocating poor houses. On the ball as ever.

Where I live and what I do will be part of the discussion when I deem it applicable. You consistently bring your own story into the discussion, and we respond to that. When I bring mine, you can have as much fun with it as you like.

CheshireKitty said...

Then how about welfare going to the young, Rossie? Would you rather have the young go into poor-houses like the one they used to have on RI?

Oh, I'm so sorry - you can pick apart my background and the circumstances of my layoff but you won't reveal your career trajectory. Maybe you are jobless now too - since you seem to have so much time to compose comments...

CheshireKitty said...

You've outdone yourself - with an irrelevant reply that's filled with ad hominem attacks, which proves you've run out of arguments. Everyone who reads your comments knows I've once again beaten you - out-argued you, argued you under the table, Rossie. When you resort to name-calling, Rossie, that means you've had it!

CheshireKitty said...

Oh please - how is personal accountability going to pay the rent? The only thing that will pay the rent is money, and the rate of pay Walmart is paying is insufficient to pay rent and buy food; it is poverty wages according to Federal poverty standards, which is why Walmart workers qualify for Food Stamps even though they work full-time. Can you understand that?

What difference does it make why I was laid off? I'm doing better now than before - I'm getting the same money I was getting before from my pensions without having to punch the clock, like you. So who is ahead, KTG - me or you? But regardless of whether you are still punching the clock, which we know you are, or if I am doing fine, which we know I am, we're not discussing you or me; we're discussing the Walmart workers and all the other workers working full-time who actually qualify for Food Stamps since the minimum wage is set way too low. That is the question we're discussing KTG - and yet you come back with nonsense about personal accountability. Someone is going to have to work at Walmart, and someone is going to have work at McDonalds - so these people should be paid a living wage, a wage that enables them to rise out of poverty. You don't agree. Let's leave it at that: You are a conservative, I am not. We'll see how the next election (2016) shapes up, and the direction the country will take in terms of equalizing income, which is how this thread originally started (How Income Inequality is Contributing to the Housing Crisis).

CheshireKitty said...

Well that's fine - but don't complain when you can't find low-wage workers around to do your low-wage work. Once the City fills with yuppies, and there are no more exploitable workers left to fry your burgers, then what are you going to do?

OldRossie said...

Is that the rule? then you lost a long time ago - I'm a nazi, remember?

OldRossie said...

Yes! You volunteer your background and your perfect attendance, you're offering it up! Speaking of which, it does explain the long winded comments... being a typist and all.

CheshireKitty said...

We're talking apples and oranges. How about those that will never be in a position to own a home? How can you talk about home ownership with them? We're simply talking about affordable housing if their pay is not raised - or paying them more money so they can afford market rate housing. Those are the options, KTG.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, you said it.

Actually, my comment was directed to Not, as follows:

"Well, that's "genius" thinking, Not: For those of us who cannot "strive" for whatever reason, old age, disability, lack of good-paying jobs and so forth, what exactly do you recommend? We know what the Nazis did with the infirm - they were the first to be "removed" since they were considered a "burden." Is that what you recommend?"

Even here, I am not actually calling Not a Nazi. I am suggesting that his lack of constructive recommendations with regard the amelioration of the masses' problems of survival, could be likened to the genocidal policies of the Nazis, which began with the mass murder of the infirm. Those who complain about Social Security, or Medicare, or the other social safety net programs - what do they recommend instead? The solution the Nazis implemented?
I was only asking a question - not calling anyone a Nazi. If you, Not, or KTG, can make a constructive recommendation, other than the vague stories about home ownership, personal responsibility and so forth, go right ahead.

So far, I haven't heard anything from any of you that addresses the problem, as I've described it: Income inequality is exacerbating the housing crisis. People should be paid a living wage. Housing prices need to come down. More permanently affordable housing should be constructed. Anybody but an ultra-conservative would agree with the preceding statements.

Go ahead and disagree, Rossie - but what would you do? That's the question I was asking Not, and remains the question none of you (Rossie, Not, or KTG) evidently can answer.

KTG said...

really if that's what people want why is there a continuing growth of voters identifying with libertarian values of fiscal conservation and social liberal polices growing.


How does this fit in to your diatribes.

CheshireKitty said...

Ahh, but you never reveal your background. You are jobless, too, right? That explains the volume of comments - and their poor quality...

KTG said...

tripled your benefits, they must really have wanted you out.

So Walmart (while not a company I would hold up s shining star)
has right to make money. To do so it sells goods at appealing price for both
sides (cheaper than competitors but enough make money) any forced Increase labor cost
forces them to raise prices jeopardizing that model.

If you don’t like Walmart policies don’t shop there that’s
it. I don’t because they are an environmental disaster especially in China
where there partners produce goods.

CheshireKitty said...

Sour grapes, huh - since you know your employer would never give you such a generous package. Too bad, KTG - it's only extraordinary employees - like me - that are rewarded with triple benefits! With your anti-human attitude, you would lucky to get even single benefits when the time comes for you to be "separated" aka kicked out, of your company.. Mr. Nice Guy KTG: You would be lucky to get any benefit package when they dump a porcine lazybones like you! LOL.

Oh please - don't apologize for the Walmart family as if you are their lackey. The Walmart family has more than enough dough to pay their workers decent wages and still keep their prices competitive. To say otherwise is utter nonsense - just repeating the conservative mantra that higher wages = higher prices. Higher wages = less profit for the greedy 1%, but they don't want to admit it!

I don't shop at Walmart since thank goodness NYC refuses to allow them into the 5 boroughs (although they keep trying to get in).

Oh, I'm sure that's true - but why would Walmart care about the environmental mess they are causing in Asia by purchasing goods from manufacturers who disrespect the environment? All Walmart cares about is money, money, money! To heck with the environment.. that's Walmart's mantra!

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, c'mon, KTG. You really expect me to comment on a faction of the Republican Party? Libertarians anyway have a reputation for having strange ideas. The Republican Party is dominated by crack-pots these days - the baggers - and the Libertarians probably aren't conservative enough for the crack-pots in charge of the Republican Party.

In today's political climate, only a centrist - of either party - stands a chance, and given the economic misery since 2008, the Democratic Party has more appeal, as the more activist party that is more likely to actually do something to help the economy, and try to help people displaced by the economic crash and so forth.

I don't see the Libertarians becoming influential - certainly I don't see them bumping the baggers out of the #1 influential spot with regard Republican Party.

OldRossie said...

Isn't that name calling? Doesn't that mean you lose the argument?

OldRossie said...

Yes, KTG, we should be envious of this secretary's layoff package. Heck, on welfare island, it's a golden parachute!

Frank Farance said...

KTG, CK doesn't get: businesses are in business to make money, e.g., lower costs/wages, etc.. Businesses don't have the luxury to be social welfare organizations. Why? Because "social welfare" incurs cost and cost is something that reduces profits. So either their prices go up and/or quality/quantity go down (which competitors will take advantage of), or their profitability will go down (investors are displeased, so institutional investors, like the ones that provide pensions, go elsewhere for investment).

Businesses are less worried when they don't have to provide the "social welfare" directly, but it is paid for by all the businesses (i.e., their competitors, too). This kind of Leveling The Playing Field happens on a local level (think about mayors in NYC vs. NJ/CT business competition), a state level, and an international level (e.g., US workers are required to have benefit/employer-cost X, meanwhile country Y's workers don't have benefit/employer-cost X, which causes a competitive disadvantage to US companies competing internationally).

In other words, I'd guess that the Walmart executives would be more accepting of food stamp benefits (via taxes that are paid by Walmart AND their competitors), than Walmart providing the food stamp benefit directly (higher wages that their competitors do not have to pay).

And if it is the case that, due to the economics and the economy, that (say) most workers are in the minimum/low-wage category because that's how (via automation, efficient money/ transportation/ communications, aging population, rising healthcare costs, etc.) the national economy has shifted away from (say) manufacturing/etc., then there needs to be a national solution to the national problem.

For example, if training is absolutely essential to having a efficient, mobile, and adaptable workforce (which is sorta where we're at now), and employers no longer see the value in training (because the employees will move to the next job in 18-24 months), and training is no longer a deductible expense (due to tax code changes), then for the people who take on "personal responsibility" what is the long-term plan for skills maintenance over one's lifetime of multiple careers?

I think some employers understand this, but the more we have a McJobs economy without the skills acquisition/ maintenance, at some point employers will have a workforce shortage ... I'm not sure the McJobs workers can really afford McDonalds (which is pretty expensive for a family on limited income). Yeah, I know at times, opening up immigration helped with the workforce, but it's not a great national plan to hire immigrants because we (as a country) don't do a great job training our workforce.

In summary, the wages need to be competitive, but we need to have several national plans (food stamps, affordable housing, healthcare, training, etc.) to support our our 21st century economy, not our 20th century economy nor our 19th century economy.

CheshireKitty said...

That's right.. I can really imagine the two of you, one jobless and the other still punching the clock, really green with envy.. LOL.

And neither of you reveal exactly what you are doing or even if you are working at all. For all we know, you may both be denizens of your mom's basement, somewhere out in the boonies.. pretending to be adults..

CheshireKitty said...

Calling baggers wackos isn't exactly name calling - it's telling it like it is!

CheshireKitty said...

What a lotta babble to justify paying poverty wages.

What a retrograde conservative - and that's not name-calling.

Maybe you would be happier sitting in your castle drinking tea from a delicate golden teacup while observing your serfs carefully tend your ornamental gardens - a scenario of hundreds of years and many social revolutions ago.. A hereditary ruler, you are never wrong because you were born into the class that is always right.

The reality though is, you can't square the circle with your views: You can't be simultaneously for affordability/affordable housing but opposed to a living wage - which would be the only way workers could afford even the affordable housing.

So that dilemma results in your thinking being hung up in a kind of ideological limbo: You say all businessmen, no matter how exploitative, are kings, yet in not paying a living wage, they have no one to buy their products, including even the affordable housing you hypocritically push.

Hypocritically, because if you truly ascribed to the totally free-market view, then you would also be opposed to regulations on the price of housing, just as you are opposed to regulations on the price of labor (minimum wage).

You can't be simultaneously for a mixed income (middle- and low- income) community like RI, which was never meant to include any luxury housing, and which was built around the concept of rent regulation, and tout the "benefits" of low wages that would make it impossible for workers to actually live in the community. The "benefits" of low wages - enriching the 1% - disappear once the 99% no longer accept the "wonderful" arrangement of exploitation leading to income inequality. The push back started long ago - at least as long ago as the US Civil War. But I suppose you would have to be an advocate even of slavery, if you feel business is king. How very unethical, unpatriotic, antithetical to morality and basic Judeo-Christian tenets.

And you know that, you know that your sort of thinking inevitably and eventually leads to widespread evil - so you have to contort your thinking to accommodate your pro-business, pro-exploitation views as well as your pro-social welfare, supposedly progressive views on affordable housing. You can't say, as your views if they were consistent, that RI was developed along mis-guided lines, that it should have been a market-rate development from the beginning, an opportunity for business/developers to make as much money as they want (after all, they aren't social welfare organizations). You can't say that and still have a shred of credibility left politically, so you have to contort your thinking to encompass somehow your blindly pro-business outlook (no regulation) and your pro-social welfare influenced housing outlook (I was the one who successfully negotiated the regulated housing plan for IH - the "Affordability Plan!").

However, it's pretty clear that the center of your politics is really "I got mine, now you get yours:" The "genteel" social Darwinism that leads eventually to the heartlessness of kicking the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and so forth, to the curb,or even worse. Right?

What does exploitation of workers lead to? What does slavery lead to? Well, we know that each of these evil systems led to thorough-going social revolutions/wars since at least the middle of the 19th C; why does this fact not seem to seep into some peoples' sadly very confused brains?

OldRossie said...

I love your statement "mixed income community... never meant to include luxury housing". Contradictory?

Are you watching something, like game of thrones, while you write your garbage? Or is this just years of valium abuse?

KTG said...

as a opposed to adult acting like a petulant child.

CheshireKitty said...

Speak for yourself Rossie: Aren't you on various psychoactive drugs? And haven't you been on them for lo these many years?

No, sorry to disappoint you - I do not watch much TV. If I was going to watch TV, it would probably be a news program, or maybe a classic film.

Well, did the GDP call for luxury housing, or even market-rate housing? It didn't. The entire island was under M-L as we know and the potential renters/buyers targeted were certainly not millionaires - they were not eligible for the units which were rented/sold under M-L guidelines; information here:

RI was thus developed similar to a project, except income limits would include middle-income people, as opposed to City housing, wherein only the poor/low-income are allowed.

The M-L income limits mean that RI was not developed as a luxury mecca, and in fact, the rich/millionaires/those who would likely live in a luxury development, were not allowed to apply for housing on RI under M-L guidelines.

Thus, plenty of people who are coming from shelters live on RI, as well as political refugees from around the world, who arrive with little more than the shirt on their backs and many times no knowledge of English (i.e. no income, and no immediate prospect of finding work). RI is a mosaic of mostly low- to middle-income folks.

And RI housing of course was designed from the outset to be accessible to the disabled - and continues to house many disabled residents, many of whom live on a fixed income. An entire wing of the largest residential building on RI, Eastwood, was specifically set aside for the elderly as well as the disabled.

Thus, RI was specifically designed to not be a mecca for luxury housing - quite the opposite.

CheshireKitty said...

Obviously, the discussion has hit a dead-end, and the topic is likely exhausted. We were only discussing the topic that income inequality - which is real - is having an impact on the housing crisis - which is also real. The reality of income inequality and the housing crisis can't be disputed. What can be discussed it how to address these issues - and here, as we know, you and I disagree. That is fine; we exchange ideas and information, but we can't arrive at agreement, since we cherish certain beliefs that are non-negotiable. In a sense these are the political "battle-lines" if you will, that will shape discussions on housing and tax policy, and eventually lead to voting decisions.

OldRossie said...

So you're saying upper income hasn't been allowed, and shouldn't be allowed. Shouldn't your golden parachute you tell everyone about make you ineligible to live on the island? You're ok with income discrimination, so long as you define the line, and fall on the right side.

CheshireKitty said...

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.

My golden parachute? It's not much of one. It does enable me to not have to work but that's about it. I'm not exactly a millionaire. Far from it.

Income discrimination? You're accusing me of income discrimination? If so, then City projects practice it - since they exclude rich folks, there are income criteria at City projects as well as at M-L projects. These apartments are set aside for poor/middle-class residents. The assumption is the rich/well-off can afford the market rate housing, thus the City or State doesn't have to make a special effort to provide housing for them.

I think you are saying these nonsensical things because you have no-one else to chat with, as you sit in the basement of your parents' house somewhere. Am I right?

CheshireKitty said...

This comment today, on Humans of New York "HONY meets the income-inequality gap" gives an excellent idea of what people are facing in NYC today;

"If they raise the subway fare one more time, I'm going to explode. I'm making nine dollars an hour. I walk home three hours from work every day to save that $2.50, because that's a half gallon of milk for me and my daughter. And every time they raise the fare, they have a 'hearing.' But they aren't hearing anything. It's a f*****g joke. If you go to one of those 'hearings,' every single person stands up and says: 'Don't raise the fare.' Then they raise it anyway. Oh man, it burns me up. 'We need the money,' they say, 'America is hurting.' That's b******t! If I see one more TV program bragging about multimillion dollar homes I'm gonna scream. How about a f*****g TV program that shows me if there is anywhere in this city that I can f*****g afford to live anymore. I'm sorry, but it's burning me up."

Frank Farance said...

CK, you're wrong. The GDP did call for market rate housing. Here is what it says for Northtown and Southtown:

"The housing in the North Town Area will be provided approximately as follows: (a) 20 percent for persons and families eligible for admission to Federally-assisted public housing; (b) 20 percent for persons and families eligible to benefit from interest reduction payments pursuant to Section 236 of the National Housing Act; (c) 35 percent for persons and families eligible to occupy limited profit housing financed under Article 2 of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law; and (d) 25 percent fqrpersons and families who can afford conventionally financed and fully tax-paying units or market-rate units. For purposes of the Lease: (i) Subsidizing Housing includes all units occupied by any person or family in categories (a) and (b) hereof; (ii) Middle Income Housing includes all units occupied by any person or family in category (c) hereof; and (iii) Conventionally Financed Housing includes all remaining housing units.

The housing in the South Town Area will be provided approximately as follows:
(a) 10 to 20 percent for persons and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the
prevailing median income in the New York City Metropolitan Area and for persons and families whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the prevailing median income in the New York City Metropolitan area; (b) 30 to 40 percent for persons and families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of the prevailing median income in the New York City Metropolitan Area and for persons and families whose incomes do not exceed 148 percent of the prevailing median income in the New York City Metropolitan Area; (c) 40 to 60 percent for persons and fan1ilies who can afford conventionally financed and fully tax-paying units or market-rate units. For purposes of the Lease; (i) Subsidized Housing includes all units occupied by any person or family in categories (a) and (b); and (ii) Conventionally Financed Housing includes all remaining housing units.

Bedroom distributions in both the North Town Area and the South Town Area will offer accommodations for a substantial number of families with one or more children and for hospital

Frank Farance said...

CK, again your wrong: one can easily favor affordable housing, yet support competitive wages. McJobs wages are eligible for Section 8 and Section 236 housing (among other housing programs).

My point is: at a macro-level, this country will need to adapt its policies to the kind of workforce that is being imposed upon us via international competition. Protectionism doesn't work. And I think paying a "living wage" (e.g., poverty line, which is $23,550 for a family of 4) for every job can distort the economy, just as the 1971 wage and price freezes (which seemed to be a good response at the time to inflation) had many unintended macro (destabilizing) effects.

Thus, food stamps, healthcare, day care, affordable, housing, and a variety of other programs will become *more* necessary, including worker training to support job mobility.

Gee, I'm recommending an expansion of a variety of government programs ... does that sound like a retro conservative? Of course not.

OldRossie said...

You're almost right. I can't find anyone with such a backward perspective of the world as you have. I say the first thing that comes to mind when I read your nonsense, because I have no one else saying such nonsense! And it's entertaining... And hopefully I can continue to poke holes in everything you say so no one comes on this site and (presumably under the influence) begins to actually agree with you... but mostly it's entertaining...

OldRossie said...

Now you're quoting a blog that is an art project riddled with profanity. Your sources are as valuable as your input.

OldRossie said...

awesome, thanks Frank! CK provides false facts yet again.

CheshireKitty said...

The original development did not include market rate housing, because all the original buildings were under M-L. No matter what the GDP may have said, the fact is, none of the original buildings included market rate coops/rentals. Had the island not "taken off" - based on the original M-L buildings, which did not include luxury/market-rate housing, it's questionable if developers would have ventured to build the remaining developments. The GDP provided a frame-work, but only time and the success or failure of Northtown, would provide the subsequent reality.