Follow Roosevelt Islander On:




Thursday, October 9, 2014

You're Invited To Roosevelt Island Outdoor Viewing Of Ken Burns's Documentary The Roosevelts: An Intimate History Tonight 5 PM At FDR Four Freedoms Park - Bring A Blanket

According to the FDR Four Freedoms Park Conservancy:

The Roosevelts: An Intimate History, An Outdoor Viewing

Thursday, October 9, 2014


Park hours have been extended to 7:30pm for this special event. Event will be held weather permitting.
Follow us on Twitter for updates.

Bring your blanket and join us for a special outdoor viewing of highlights from Ken Burns’s documentary series -

The Roosevelts: An Intimate History!

The viewing will be held on our great lawn from 6:30 – 7:30pm.

This event is free and open to the public.

The Katchkie Farm food station will be open from 5:00-7:00pm.

Members will receive free popcorn and a beverage.

(Click here to learn how to become a member!)

Check our website or twitter for updates.

We hope to see you there!
Here's Ken Burns talking to David Letterman about The Roosevelts.


CheshireKitty said...

That's not true Rossie: Ask Frank, if the apartments at IH, once we buy them, if we can sell them to millionaires. We can't - there are even income limits on who we can sell our apartments to - because of the aim to keep the building within the original income parameters as set forth under M-L.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, the "art project" also was turned into a book, which became an "instant #1 NY Times best-seller" and is rated 4 1/2 out of 5 stars on the B&N website in addition to continuing to amass thousands of followers on his blog and Tumblr sites. You are perhaps arguing with a popular and apparently critical success?

OldRossie said...

You quoted the art project as if it were some factual support to an argument. Here's another quote from the same source - I wouldn't consider this a meaningful source...:

"Everyone is born with a number. Mine is the number of The Beast. Jesus told me he needed an Antichrist. And now Satan is smoking me like a cigarette. But maybe I will be an Antichrist who helps people, because I’m also a white wizard. "

OldRossie said...

You said the GDP did not call for market rate house. Frank cited where it did. You didn't know what you were talking about (or lied... whatever you prefer). unspinable.

Frank Farance said...

CK, you're ignoring the point: you said "did the GDP called for ... market-rate housing? It didn't", which is factually incorrect.

Frank Farance said...

CK, it seems you're unfamiliar with macroeconomics and large systems, e.g., your ideas don't Scale Up.

Let's just game this out for a moment: so you want a 90% tax rate and want to solve income inequality at the same time. So you expect the high tax revenue to go to the government, which then does what?

Either you're giving the money back to the poor via benefits (food, housing, education, healthcare, daycare, etc.) which does NOT decrease income equality.

OR, as the government, you're hiring people directly with higher wages, which puts great pressure on businesses to increase their wages (otherwise they lose workers to the government) but that increases the business's costs, which makes them less competitive, which causes them to lay off workers (or go out of business), or possibly increase prices which increases an inflationary cycle on the economy as a whole.

Not to mention, many governments entities in the US have tried this approach (with the strong influence of unions) and have found that, long-term, they can't afford the workers, and many of the workers now suffer a decrease in benefits they once had expected to receive. The City of Detroit seems like a good example of how that process goes wrong.

While I do see economic inequality as problematic, I think it is more of a symptom of an economy and not something that one attempts to fix directly. Here is what I said before, and I think it is an accurate assessment:

"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."

OldRossie said...

Frank, sound argument (there may be a lot of details I don't necessary have the background to debate), but it's worth mentioning: you're going over CK's head because she isn't going to think threw recommendations like a 90% tax rate, but rather, see it as a punishment to people different from her because of this race and that religion and blah blah blah until she sees red and all should be punished... know what I mean?

CheshireKitty said...

The remarks of the man who was quoted in Humans of New York (HONY), is as meaningful as those of any other New Yorker struggling to survive - millions of New Yorkers are in exactly the same category, under the poverty line, and so forth. There is wide-spread misery in New York for millions of residents - you would have to be blind or morally oblivious to not see it. The shining city on the hill - the shiny expensive apartments in the expensive neighborhoods, are surrounded by a sea of poverty. Just take a ride on the F train some day and study the stoic faces of many of those riders. These are faces of people who need to fight to survive every day, people that do not receive a fair wage, people that are often squeezed into dwellings like sardines, or maybe are entitled to a spot on a shared cot for a certain number of hours a day, because a share on a cot is all they can afford on their paltry pay.

Anyway, my comment quoting the Humans of New York story bears repeating, as it's emblematic of what millions - obviously, many more millions than the rich in NYC - are going through these days:

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."

CheshireKitty said...

No, I was right. The original buildings were all developed as M-L buildings - and that is in the GDP. Only had these buildings proved successful would the remaining building - to include market-rate apartments - be constructed. Had Northtown not been a success,it was perfectly possible that the remaining buildings would never have been constructed. Plenty of large-scale M-L developments have no market-rate housing included, such as the biggest one of them all - Coop City:,_Bronx

CheshireKitty said...

The original parameters - as set forth in the GDP - called for the construction of 4 M-L - and only M-L, that is low- and middle-income, no market-rate - developments on RI. This is what the GDP called for. The remaining buildings, to include market-rate rentals, would only go up if the original buildings - the M-L buildings - succeeded in attracting residents and so forth. No developer would take a flyer on the island had the original 4 developments not taken off, which is exactly why they were priced so low, with free utilities thrown in, and even the free intra-island shuttle bus (Red bus). Had the original exclusively low- to middle-income - not exactly mixed-income - development not succeeded, the remaining developments, which do include market-rate apartments, would never have been constructed, or, had they been developed, might have followed the pattern set forth in the GDP for the original 4 developments: Low- to middle-income ONLY.

CheshireKitty said...

Raising the minimum wage is a civil, and human rights issue. Enough said? Please read the report here:

OldRossie said...

Lafayette, Louisiana was ranked as the happiest city by the national bureau of economic research. I've got an idea for you...

CheshireKitty said...

Say what you will, my recommendations are quite popular these days - with extreme income inequality, in-your-face humiliation of the poor such as with "poor doors" - the job actions by fast food workers agitating for increased pay, and local laws that have raised the minimum wage in cities around the country, attest to the popularity of my views and Mayor de Blasio won based on his recommendation to tax the rich to finance UPK.

You can read about the minimum wage in this article

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. It's more likely you will one day return to the boonies where *you* came from, Old Rossie, rather than me - a Native New Yorker, born and lived my whole so far pretty long life in NYC - leave.

I sense you are beginning to give up on the argument: As the song goes, another one bites the dust? Too sad, Rossie!

Hoping that the majority of New Yorkers, those of us who are, of course, not rich, will "go away" to Louisiana or maybe even further afield, or even to Hell (as I'm sure you and your ilk ultimately wish the non-rich to go) does not mean it's going happen - also, your praying for it, in vain, is indicative of your finally having given up on arguing the issue of income inequality exacerbating the housing crisis rationally and constructively.

Frank Farance said...

Nope CK, you're still wrong. The original GDP called for market-rate housing, i.e., there is no factual basis for your statements. Here's the wording from the original GDP:

"1. Basic Program. The Corporation will develop on the Island a New Community including approximately 5,000 units of housing (including a program of hospital related housing developed in consultation
with the City), approximately 200,000 square feet of office
space, approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial space and the public facilities defined below. The New Community will be developed in two areas, a South Town Area and a North Town Area, with a Town Center in the South Town Area and with related Open Space Areas.

The housing will be provided approximately as follows: (a) 20%
for persons and families eligible for admission to Federally-assisted public housing; (b) 10% for elderly persons and families of the same income class; (c) 25% for persons and families eligible to benefit from interest reduction payments pursuant to Section 236 of the National Housing Act; (d) 20% for persons and families eligible to occupy limited profit housing financial under Article 2 of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law; and (e) 25% for persons and families who can afford conventionally financed and fully taxpaying units. Bedroom distributions in such housing will offer accommodations for a substantial number of families with one or more children and for hospital employees. For purposes of the Lease, Subsidized Housing inelnrles all units orcnpied by any person or family in categories (a), (b) and (c) hereof, Middle Income
Housing Includes all units occupied by any peerson or family in category (d) hereof and Conventionally Financed Housing includes all remaining housing units."

OldRossie said...

I notice you're ignoring the various comments pointing out that you're wrong. Is that how you address your inaccuracies - head in the sand?
Regarding who's going where - seems to me anyone with cash around this city (or anywhere else in the real world) can basically go anywhere and find a nice new luxury building waiting for them... Meanwhile, you can keep fighting the fact that Roosevelt Island is one of those places, but it doesn't seem to be doing you any good! So, typist, type on!!

CheshireKitty said...

I'm sorry, but none of the 4 original developments included market-rate apartments. Period. And those were the initial developments called for - not apartments for the rich, but apartments for the poor or middle-class. You can't continue to deny this, because you know there were income limits to either buying at RC or renting @ EW, IH, or WV. So I am right, and you are wrong.

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. I'm not denying that those with dough can rent anywhere - except in M-L apartments, such as the ones that originally comprised RI (the WIRE buildings). Those driving up housing prices in NYC of course can buy/rent anywhere; they can go live on Mars as far as I'm concerned.

Certainly the ratio of affordable to market rate as set forth in the GDP must not be skewed on RI, the rich must not be allowed to take over.

At least I had a career as a typist. I'm not ashamed of having put in years on the job. I'm working class and proud of it. How about you? Did you *ever* work?

OldRossie said...

Didn't you say a few days ago I was a pediatrician? I guess you continue to make up facts they fit.

CheshireKitty said...

You never confirmed it - I only recollect something along those lines from a long-ago thread in which you were complaining about the legless beggar lady hovering around MP - making uncharitable remarks about her.

Why don't you reveal your profession - unless you are simply a kid in your parents' basement "typing away!"

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. More like you should leave NYC and return to the boonie you came from - there, you'd be a "big fish in a little pond," the ex-New Yorker who could brag about how "horrible" it was to live in NYC, with all people of "various income levels" running around, especially on RI and the ultra-diverse ultra mixed-income F train. All those people must have made your skin crawl, poor Rossie! Well, if you move back to the area you came from, you would finally return to your element, and could even laugh scornfully at the millions of poor/struggling souls in NYC that you couldn't stand living around or being in even proximity to, anymore, and had to leave behind. Rossie: Let me assure you: We won't miss you.

I, OTOH, was born in NYC, have always lived in NYC, and intend on living out all my days in NYC, thank you very much.

Rich or poor, better or worse, this is my town. As long as there's an increasing supply of affordable housing available - the 200,000 new units promised by de Blasio is a good start - and, for those who work, lessening income inequality, why should I, and the millions of New Yorkers like me, leave?

NYC is a great place to grow old in. Life expectancy keeps rising in NYC. There's no reason for folks like me to leave, as long as affordable housing continues to be available.

Which brings us back to the original question: How does income inequality exacerbate the housing crisis? Hopefully, we will see some progress on alleviating the housing crisis - as far as tackling income inequality the legislation in various states/Federal level to raise the minimum wage, are a step in the right direction.

With more cash in their pocket, workers receiving a higher minimum wage should have more housing options available to them. That can't be argued over: More income = increased housing options. More income = less income inequality, as the Grand Canyon-like gap between those at the bottom and those at the top of the income ladder is lessened.