RIRA Housing Committee Chairperson Responds To Criticism Of January Report - Intent Was To Highlight Differences Between Roosevelt Island's More Affluent Southtown And Mixed Income Northtown

Image Of RIRA Southtown Resident Aaron Hamburger Defending Southtown

The Housing Committee report submitted to the January 2011 Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) was quite controversial resulting in part to the prohibition/censorship of RIRA Reports being published on this blog prior to RIRA Monthly meetings, the withdrawal of that report to RIRA and a defense of Southtown (including video) from it's area RIRA representative Aaron Hamburger. Before this evening's March RIRA meeting, Housing Committee Chair Helen Chirivas, the author of the controversial Housing Committee Report wanted an opportunity to present her side of the issue. From Ms. Chirivas:

Although the issue is from last month, could you please put my entire report into the blog archive which recorded Aaron’s attack on my report? He of course completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say: I never said Southtown residents brag about their wealth etc, I simply said the buildings telegraph the message that because they contain expensive apartments and condos, they are only accessible to those with money. Ordinarily I wouldn’t care if a building telegraphs this or any other message – but on Roosevelt Island, which is supposed to be a “mixed income, racially diverse waterfront community situated in the East River of New York City” an island which in theory at least was to be developed under the terms set forth by the GDP, the message of exclusivity and wealth had to be noted in a frankly shocking manner to make the point that Related – or another developer if not Related – must build 7, 8, and 9 as affordable housing as was originally planned! Otherwise, it seems to me, Southtown remains an enclave, and cannot be considered an extension of RI as it was originally planned, as a mixed-income community. I tried to force people to look at the differences as they exist today between Southtown and Northtown by writing that section in as shocking, forthright, or attention-grabbing manner as possible. If it has gotten people to think about the ramifications of how each “half” of RI was developed, then my purpose was accomplished.

Interestingly, no-one on the Housing Committee (including Matt) said anything negative about the report when I relayed it them before Matt re-transmitted it to the CC. I was therefore shocked by the Housing committee members that attended the 1/5 RIRA CC meeting + Matt caving into Aaron at the CC meeting of 1/5. They had all read the report beforehand and never indicated there was anything wrong with it. When I asked Matt about this about-face afterwards, he claimed via email to never have read the report before transmitting it the CC. (!) Either he read the report and agreed with it (which is what his comments by email to me thanking me for the report indicate) or he really didn’t read the report – which invites questions about Matt’s diligence as RIRA President.

In fact, I thought, as a Committee Chair “rookie” writing a “maiden” report, I would certainly get feedback from at the very least Matt, on that report. I was surprised the portion about the Southtown building telegraphing arrogant messages to the often poorer people of the rest of RI didn’t grab Matt’s attention or generate comments. I could only conclude that he agreed with the report. 

Ms Chirvas adds:

... this was the first report from a first-time Cttee Chair, and in submitting the report to the Housing Cttee + Matt + Ellen I pretty much expected a reaction/comments or pointers/constructive criticism from them, before Matt re-transmitted it to the entire CC.  Not only did I not get a negative reaction/comments from the Cttee, Matt + Ellen, I received positive emails from Matt & Lisa; the rest of the Cttee members never replied back.  Matt then relayed the report on to the entire CC. 

Also, most importantly, it was never explained to me that reports/minutes must be voted on & OK'd by the Committee before they are submitted to Matt for consideration by the CC.  In fact, I don't think there ever was an instruction to that effect so I simply wrote a report and forwarded it to Matt, Ellen & the Housing Cttee. Now it's been explained to me that any reports/minutes must first be considered by the Cttee in an actual Cttee meeting. Actually I thought by emailing the report to the Cttee Members + Matt + Ellen, it would give them a chance to consider/approve the report, which is what I had thought happened.  As I wrote above, Matt (& Lisa) at least appeared to approve it. Matt didn't indicate there was anything wrong with it.  Then he relayed it on to the entire CC, so I can only conclude he thought it was OK. 

My current status on RIRA CC is certainly up in the air.  Matt has been requested to remove me from RIRA. I expect there will be a motion (probably from Joyce) at the upcoming CC meeting to remove me which may very well pass, in which case the entire episode will be a moot point. I am expecting some supporters of my position (i.e. working to find a way to fix loopholes in protection for Sec 8 Eastwood tenants so they may keep their apts if their income eventually exceeds Sec 8 income guidelines) to attend and make statements during the public comment portion of the meeting.  I'm not sure if RIRA Treasurer Russ Fields, who is my spouse, and has been upset about the entire controversy since the Jan CC mtg, may quit in solidarity with me if I am removed, but I would certainly be surprised if he did not. At that point, RIRA would need to immediately find an accountant -- even one from outside the Island -- to fill the spot of Treasurer as it is a position that must be filled by an accountant according to I beleive NYS corporate law. Interestingly Sherie (Matt's wife) has never contacted Russ - a long-time volunteer Wire distributor - to help distribute issues of the Wire since the controversy broke in Jan.  I guess she thinks it's in poor taste to ask Russ to distribute a publication that has run stories since Jan that have certainly been a source of anger for him.  Or maybe this is part of the process of freezing Russ (and me) out of Island affairs etc. in anticipation of Matt/CC formally removing me next week.

Maybe the report + my comments appearing on your blog will clarify what I was trying to do etc. I never got a chance to defend the report before the CC because of health problems I did not attend the last 2 CC meetings. I will be at the upcoming CC meeting; however, the issue of the actual report may not be revisited and instead the "remedy" CC members may wish is my removal.

Ms. Chirivas January Housing Committee Report to the RIRA Common Council is after the jump.

JUMP!

January 2011: RIRA Housing Committee Report

By Helen Chirivas

The Committee met on 12/6/10 and the attendees included Lorraine Williams, Lisa Knox, Russell Fields, Matthew Katz, Sal Morabito, and Committee Chairwoman Helen Chirivas.

Our Committee met to consider the three questions on the Agenda:

1. Section 8 tenants in Eastwood that eventually exceed the Section 8 income guidelines are not then automatically transferred to the LAP Program; this violates the exit agreement whereby all of the tenants of Eastwood were to be protected upon exit from Mitchell Lama.
2. Southtown is not in compliance with the guidelines set forth in the General Development Plan, as it was not developed inclusively and does not provide low-income or affordable housing, a vital component of the General Development Plan, which is still in effect.    Unfortunately, the lack of affordable housing at Southtown and the sense that Southtown is an enclave has exacerbated social tension and resentment on RI. Whereas RI was previously an oasis where the socioeconomic mix provided opportunities for building bridges and friendships across the ethnic, economic, social spectrum, we now have the phenomenon of a nearly complete lack of contact between the populations of Southtown and Northtown, leading to community conflict and the tarnishing of its reputation as an inclusive, caring place to live. The divisions of NYC, which were previously absent on RI, have now arrived on RI. Day and night, the million-dollar apartments of Southtown telegraph the message to the people of Northtown: We have money, you don’t; we do not need to know you much less lay eyes on you; Northtown residents don’t count because they can’t afford million-dollar apartments; Southtown is where the money is; that’s why Southtown residents never set foot in Northtown and definitely do not care to interact in any way with Northtown residents. Buildings 7, 8, 9 should be developed as truly affordable Rent Stabilized housing open to tenants with fixed incomes, moderate incomes, and those receiving Section 8 subsidies– this would help rebalance the socioeconomic mix on RI.
3. The RIRA Housing Committee would be happy to assist and support efforts in any of the complexes on RI; however, we can only assist at the request of the building associations. If a building or complex does not have a building committee or association, the Housing Committee has no-one with whom to coordinate efforts within a particular building.    Landlord intimidation may be a factor preventing tenants from organizing building committees in some buildings.

The attendees had a thorough discussion about the lingering issue of the Section 8 tenants of Eastwood, who, because of economic circumstances such as families doubling up due to rampant unemployment, children becoming adults, managing to get jobs but still not being in the position to move out because of high rents, or Section 8 tenants slowly getting pay increases through the years so that eventually their income may exceed the Section 8 guidelines, and many more possible situations whereby a household may no longer qualify for the Section 8 subsidy, these families are suddenly exposed to the excessive market rate rents being charged by Urban American, and because of this unjust economic circumstance, are usually then forced to face the harm of having to give up their apartments. This represents an unfair displacement since the other tenants that were in place at the time the building exited Mitchell-Lama in 2005, those that did not qualify for Section 8 subsidies are permanently protected from excessive market rate rents by having been placed in the LAP Program. Yet all Eastwood tenants at the time of exit from Mitchell Lama were promised they would be forever protected from market rate rents. The Committee agreed there is unfairness with the above scenario – the loophole whereby the landlord can prey on Section 8 tenants that may wind up even slightly exceeding the Section 8 income guidelines by suddenly imposing excessive rents on those tenants -- and considered how the situation can be corrected.

First, we must find out how many Section 8 tenants are vulnerable to displacement as outlined above. We agreed that many Section 8 tenants, those on fixed incomes for example retirees or disabled, would likely not exceed the income guidelines, but that many other Section 8 tenants, those whose children have grown up and gone to work but cannot afford to leave home, or other families that may have taken in a grown child or relative that may be down on their luck but eventually may earn some income, may be affected. It is possible that this data may be available from the DHCR so that we could have an idea of the size of the problem.    If in the end it turns out that the number of households in danger of displacement is in the range of 300-400, then the issue is a major problem with the risk of displacement affecting hundreds of residents. We would like to have this data before proceeding with next steps such as having meetings with RIOC, Urban American, elected representatives, etc., to plead that the
exit agreement and the agreement worked out with the tenants and the new owner upon exit could be amended to extend LAP protection to Section 8 tenants that may eventually exceed the Section 8 income guidelines. We need to find a way to keep people in their homes especially in these times of high unemployment and high rents.

We recognize that the Tenants Association of Eastwood/Roosevelt Landings is currently fighting the landlord over electrical sub metering, that is, electrical sub metering the way the landlord wishes to carry it out –making electrical bills a lucrative source of income as well as providing another way to evict tenants that may be unable to pay grossly inflated electrical bills, by considering the non-payment of inflated electrical bills as equivalent to the non-payment of rent, and extending to the landlord the power to evict tenants even if the tenant can afford to pay the rent but cannot afford the unjustly inflated electrical bill. As the Tenants Association is currently focused on this problem which threatens the future of all Eastwood tenants, the issue of Section 8 tenants exceeding income guidelines and not being transferred into the LAP Program, may not be immediately addressed. Also, the above possible steps can only be carried out under the auspices of, and as an effort by, the Eastwood tenants and their organization. We discussed that it is vital for Section 8 tenants of Eastwood to become active and involved in the Tenants Association. If requested by the Tenants Association the Housing Committee is happy to lend support and help with these issues.

We discussed the problem of Southtown not providing affordable housing. Related has said the hospital housing is affordable housing. This claim is ludicrous not only because hospital housing not open to the general public, but even within the hospital community itself, this housing is only made available
to certain exclusive employee categories such as doctors, nurses, post-docs etc. These segments of the hospital community, with the exception of post-docs, do not earn low or moderate incomes. The hospital buildings cannot be described as affordable housing and do not satisfy the requirement to provide publicly accessible affordable housing. Related would go a long way toward correcting this imbalance by constructing buildings 7, 8, and 9 and insuring that these buildings are Rent Stabilized and open to Section 8 tenants as well. It appears that Related would like to “protect” its investment – the enclave of Southtown -- by conveniently “forgetting” to build the moderate income buildings – RIOC and the State Government should hold Related’s feet to the fire and force them to build these buildings. State Government must act in the interest of all of the people of the State of New York, not just the high-income people.

We discussed the problem of Manhattan Park not having a Tenants Association so that there is no counter-weight to oppose landlord actions that harm tenants such as inflating the price of the sub metered electricity. Manhattan Park tenants must first organize themselves and form a Tenants Association. The Housing Committee would then be happy to assist a Manhattan Park Tenants Association once it is organized.