City Limits Magazine, April 1980 Issue

8/3/2019 City Limits Magazine, April 1980 Issue

1/24

CITYLIMITSAPRIL 1980 $1.50 VOL. 5 NO.4

End of the Road


2/24

RENEWAL PLAN AT CRITICAL STAGEOVER DISPLACEMENT IN PORT CHESTER

by Bernard Cohen

Port Chester, N.Y.-She began puffing hard on thefirst landing. By the time Elsie Sistrunk had climbed twomore flights past the dark walls tattooed with graffitiand walked slowly into her apartment, she was gaspingfor air. Without taking of f her jacket, the 38-year-oldwelfare mother, who suffers from asthma and epilepsy,sat down at the kitchen table to wait for her breathing toreturn to normal."I'm very sickly," she said as the late a.fternoonsunlight brightened two tiny bedrooms where her sixchildren, ages 18 months to 18 years, were playing andwatching television. "I get all clogged up and can't

breathe," she continued. " I shouldn't be up here, but Ihave no choice."The Sistrunk family was moved by the Village of PortChester into the cramped five-room apartment-in abuilding that one regional housing official called"pretty deplorable"-over New Year's weekend afterbeing evacuated from the house in which they had beenliving because of a dangerously malfunctioning boiler.Village housing officials call the relocation of thefamily temporary, but after three 'months they havebeen unable to find a vacant apartment that is safe andsanitary for the family to move into.A near zero vacancy rate, no reeent housing development to speak of and a growing burden of seriouslydecayed and abandoned housing in Port Chester havecreated an extremely tight market that is facing evenfurther pressure by a controversial "redevelopment"plan that propels the Village into the national debateover displacement.

Port Chester, with a population of 25,000, is a declin-

West Side of South Main Street in the heart of the redevelopmentarea.

CITY LIM ITS/Apri I 1980 2

ing, urbanized community that borders Connecticut in alargely suburban region know for its wealth. A thrivingplace 20 years ago, the Village has lost major industries.Outlying shopping centers have drawn of f a lot of itsbusiness. The South End, once a hub of activity, is filledwith slum housing, boarded up businesses, vacant lotsand people standing around. The Italian families thatpopulated the South End and who still dominate Villagepolitics have moved to other sections, replaced by lowerincome blacks and Hispanics who make up approximately 13 per cent of the population.The ticket to Port Chester's rebirth in the minds oflocal officials is a $5.7 million plan to b r ~ n g lightindustry and office space to a four-block area of theSouth End. The Village received $500,000 in federalCommunity Development funds in 1978-79 and$450,000 in 1979-80 to pay for acquisition and clearanceof property to improve vehicular access to the redevelopment area. It has applied for $675,000 to continue thework in 1980-81.The redevelopment is expected to displace 170-families in all. An estimated 29 will be uprooted in the firstphase, scheduled for completion in September, 1980. Todate, 14 families have been relocated, according to 'officials. Between 1980 and 1982, another 60 families willbe moved and 85 more after 1982, according to presentplans.Ever since the redevelopment plan was unveiled in1977, community advocates have charged that theVillage has ignored its responsibility to insure that therewill be safe and sound replacement housing for all thosewho are displaced. They have pressured the Board ofTrustees to come up with a relocation plan, writtenletters to government review agencies opposing the useof federal dollars for the redevelopment and organizeddemonstrations.The housing struggle is an integral part of a longhistory of poor relations between successive Villageadministrations and the minority community of PortChester. In 1968 and again in 1978, the Board ofTrustees washed its hands of renewal projects thatwould have brought millions of dollars to the Villagerather than build ad


3/24

INCLEMENTWEATHERIZATION

The City of New York has been allocated $8million in weatherization funds from the federalDepartment of Energy through New York State.This money, like previous weatherization money,will have little impact on the low income families itis supposed to serve, unless the regulations take anew approachThe Department of Energy (DOE), recognizingthe problems created by the regulations, hasrecently proposed changes that would raise themaximum amount to be spent on each unit from$800 to $1,000. DOE, recognizing the limitations onCETA contracts, will allow ""eatherization funds tobe used for labor costs, where CETA is unavailable,or needs to be supplemented. In those cases, DOEnow allows a maximum of $1,600 per unit to bespent. We strongly support these changes in theregulations and urge that they be put into effect asquickly as possible.The real problem with the weatherizationfunding, however, has not been corrected, and stillstands in the way of an effective weatherizationprogram in New York City.This problem lies in DOE 's basic approach inproviding the benefits to low income people. The

regulations require that 66 per cent of the building'sdwelling units be occupied or set aside for lowincome persons-as defined by 125 per cent of thepoverty level established by the federal Office ofManagement and Budget. The problem of certifyingthese incomes is difficult enough. But it is compounded by the fact that no building-without S ~ c -tion 8 subsidies-can afford to have such a highproportion of low income residents and remain economically viable.Recognizing this, the state has p r o p o s ~ d a "demonstration" in New York City utilizing a higher basepoverty figure as defined by the federal ~ u r e a u ofLabor Statistics. Using this measure, a family of fourcould earn a maximum of $10,250. Unfortunately,BI,.S standards, too, define a building .that is noteconomically viable. If the one-fourth of Income ruleis applied, the example family, can afford a m o n t ~ l y rent of $172 after utilities. The average AlternativeManagement building, after being purchased by itstenants will be charging more than $200 per monthfor a t w ~ - b e d r o o m apartment, and the typical privatelandlord much more than that.3

D.O.E.'s income requirements are unrealisticand render weatherization program inoperable forunsubsidized buildings. In the face of rapidly risingrents driven by escalating fuel costs, a morerational approach would be to weatherize any building in alow income or Community Development-eligibleneighborhood that meets criteria that would insurethat the flow of benefits from lower fuel costs wouldbe used to hold down rents rather than increaseprofits. In this way, buildings will remain affordablefor their low income residents.This approach would provide more weatherization to more units in a shorter period of time. Itwould also reduce administrative costs and allowthe city to provide weatherization funds to thosebuildings that offer the most housing opportunitiesto low income residents, rather than struggling tofind a financially unviable building that meetsunrealistic income criteria.We strongly urge the city to propose such anapproach to DOE.To the editor:Beginning in 1977 an effort was madeto seal up eight abandoned buildings on6th St. between Avenues A & B on theLower East Side. Four were sacrificed toarson and the damages of winter beforethe city completed its task. A communitygarden now stands on the lot formerlyoccupied by a building that the TheatroAmbulante had planned to adopt before it was burnedbeyond saving. Out of these crises grew A Better Way-26 black, Hispanic, and white, family and individualcontinued on page 15

4CITY LIMITS'City Limits is published monthly except June/ July and August!September by the Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers ,

Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board . Subscriptionrates: $20 per year; $6 a year for community-based organizations andindividuals. All correspondence should be addressed to CITYLIMITS, 115 East 23rd St., New York, N.Y. 10010. (212) 674-7610Second-class postage paid New York, N.Y. 10001City Limits (lSSN 0199-0330)

Editor . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard CohenAssistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan BaldwinAssistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom RobbinsDesign and Layout .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis FulgoniBusiness Assistant . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. Carolyn WellsCopyright 1980. Al l rights reserved. No portion or portions oj thisjournal may be reprinted without the express written permission oj hepublishers.This issue was funded by a grant from New York Community Trust

Cover Drawing by Marie Thurman

CITY LlMITS/April1980 .


4/24

RENT AND TAX AID FOR TIL BUILDINGSBUT NO PLEDGE ON SALES, REPAIRSCity housing officials, meeting with nearly 200 tenants who are managing their city-owned buildings, have

pledged financial aid to blunt the impact of rent increases that might otherwise force many of them tomove out.The HPD officials said that a supply of Section 8 (existing housing) subsidies and senior citizen rent increaseexemptions should minimize if not eliminate the displacement of low and fixed income tenants as rents inbuildings in the Tenant Interim Lease program areraised.There are now more than 250 buildings with 5,500apartments in the TIL program, which provides foreventual sale of the buildings to the tenants following aperiod of s ~ l f - m a n a g e m e n t . Rental assistance was one of 14 demands presented toDeputy Housing Commissioner William Eimicke andAssistant Commissioner Philip St. Georges at a meetingwith the City-Wide TIL Coalition on March 26. In all,

HPD said 'yes' to seven of the demands, including revision of the lease in collaboration with the coalition; taxabatements equal to those offered to private developers,and better communication with other city agencies tofacilitate transfer of signatory control over two-partywelfare checks to the tenant associations .Although other demands elicited 'yes' responses,many in the audience called the commitments "soft."Two of those i s s u ~ s involved liability insurance and therental assistance. "I feel that what they said will have tobe analyzed a little bit," said Jim French, a member ofthe TIL Coalition steering committee. "Some of those'yesses' were kind of iffy. "I f those questions drew slightly slippery answers,others elicited pronounced 'no's.' Eimicke and St.Georges refused to commit HPD to a maximum salesprice of $250-per-unit for all TIL buildings; they refusedto promise repairs and upgrading of the building at alevel of $2,500-per-unit, and they refused to guaranteethe major systems of the buildings for 30 years.Organizers of the meeting said they were pleased withthe large turnout and called the first large-scale meeting

of TIL tenants and HPD commissioners a productivesession. At the same time, they observed that in grantingsome of the demands and saying 'no' to others in a waythat deflected responsibility elsewhere, the commissioners had skillfully succee.ded in partially disarming thegroup.For example, the commissioners strongly endorsedshifting the burden of insuring the buildings from thetenants to the city for as long as the buildings remaincity-owned. The buildings now in the TIL program pay

CITY LIM ITS/AP il 1980 4

a total of more than $500,000 per year for liability insurance. A recent study by HPD shows that there havebeen only eight successful claims totaling $40,000 fromaccidents in all city-owned buildings in the past 10 years,St. Georges said. " It is absurd at this point that we arerequiring each individual building to carry liability insurance," Eimicke said. "We completely agree withyou. But recognizing a wrong and changing it are twodifferent things." He said the problem is selling the ideato the Comptroller's office. City property other thantenant and community managed buildings are "self-insured," meaning that claims are paid out of the citytreasury.The commissioners took a similar tack on the-question of committing more funds for the buildings.Eimicke said that with an anticipated 6,000 units in theprogram next year, it would take an allocation of $15million to provide repairs averaging $2,500 per unit. "Isupport it," Eimicke said. "D o I think it's realistic nextyear-probably not." In fact, HPD's request for theTIL program is only $2.4 million from next year's Community Development budget.And while HPD's response to the rental assistance demand was listed as a 'yes,' the commissioners acknowledged that non-elderly, single individuals are not protected by either Section 8 or the senior citizen rent increase exemption. Moreover, applying the rent increaseexemptions to the TIL buildings before sale will reducethe revenue needed by the tenants association.Eimicke and St. Georges said that TIL buildings areamong the class of buildings that have been over-taxedin New York City and that there would be an effort toreassess the properties before they are sold. Othersfamiliar with the buildings said that no one really knowswhat effect reassessment would have.Among the constraints that HPD officials said hampered their effectiveness is having only 3 engineers to service 600 buildings when emergencies come up and fivelawyers to handle rent non-payment cases and a backlogof 1,000 cases per month. Under consideration, theysaid, is a proposal to utilize the services of a non-profitorganization to work with the TIL buildings to speed uprepairs.The city's refusal to accept a uniform $250-per-unitsales price remains one of the most controversial issues.So far, the Clinton section of Manhattan is the only areawhere it is known that HP D intends to exercise itsoption of deviating from that pricetag. But HelenRosenberg, a tenant at 455-57-59 West 35th Street, oneof the affected buildings, warned the audience, "Whatthey are doing to us, they can do to you." 0


5/24

RESURGENT WELFARE MOVEMENTDEMANDS GRANT INCREASEAfter a decade of relative quiet, welfare recipients areonce again turning to political activism. Inflation haseaten away at grant levels, and the downturn in the

economy is forcing increasing numbers of people ontowelfare or unemployment.In New York, with the third highest cost of living inthe nation, inflated costs have far outstripped benefits.People on welfare still receive just $2.08 per person eachday for all non-shelter expenses. Despite supposedly

"high" welfare rent ceilings ($218/month for a familyof four), 50 per cent of all New York recipients areforced by even higher housing costs to spend more onrent than they receive in their rent grant. That extra rentmoney must come out of the basic grant allotment forfood, clothing, and other necessities.The Redistribute America Movement (RAM), anorganization of welfare recipients and other: poorpeople, was formed in New York City last year and nowhas eight city chapters and ten others throughout thestate. RAM is working with the Downtown WelfareAdvocate Center (DWAC) to inform recipients of theirlegal rights, and to organize to fight for expanded rightsand benefits through direct action.

On March 27, 1980, 2,000 recipients and supportersmarched for the second year in Albany to demand agrant increase. The march from Lincoln Park concludedwith a rally on the Capitol steps. After the demonstration, groups of recipients talked with legislators aboutthe desperate need for a grant increase.The Black and Puerto Rican caucus, supposedly committed to holding out on the budget until a welfare grantincrease was included, lost some of its clout whenseveral members took a tour to Africa that kept themout of the country during legislative discussion. Although there is still a possibility for a welfare grantincrease this year, it certainly will not approach thealmost 100 per cent increase that is needed to bringrecipients up to a minimal standard of living. On March30, the State Assembly passed a 10 per cent increase inthe grant, although the bill is still in committee in theSenate. Governor Carey has indicated his support for

the increase.These two rallies, the largest welfare rights actions inthe country in the last eight years, are proof that welfareorganizing is experiencing a rebirth. Today's strugglesare the continuation of a fifteen-year history of struggleover welfare rights. Before 1969, most states gave publicassistance in the form of specific payments for rent,clothing, furniture, and other necessities. For yearsmost people on public assistance were not given information on their right to such grants, and so did notreceive them. However, due to the success of the Na-5

Demonstrators at Albany rally, March 27, demanding an increase inwelfare grants.tional Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the1960's in educating people about their rights and directaction methods of obtaining them, the number ofpeople receiving all their legal grants increased dramatically.

That directly contributed to a nationwide rash of legislative changes setting grants at a predetermined "flat"amount. The change occurred in New York in 1969, atwhich time the legislature used the U.S. GovernmentBureau of Labor Statistic's Lower Living Standard as astarting point to determine dollar amounts for their newflat grant.From the Lower Living Standard the legislature subtracted all money for books, recreation, gifts, and foodaway from home. They then deducted more by underbudgeting for transportation, utilities and food. Finallythey cut this amount by 12 per cent assuming tha t a welfare mother with three children would need less food,utilities and clothing than the "typical" family of twoadults and two children.The New York grant was raised 11.85 per cent in 1974to adjust for inflation (calculated at 1972 prices), andhas not been raised since, despite a 100 per cent increasein inflation.As inflation continues to eat away at already meagerwelfare grants, the resurgence in welfare organizing willbecome even more marked. RAM and other welfaregroups are pushing for the replacement of welfare witha guaranteed ADEQUATE annual income, with anautomatic cost of living indexing. Until then, thestruggle for welfare grant increases will continue. 0

Diana Autin

CITY LlMITS/Apri l1980


6/24

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

With the exception of subsidized housing, both theHouse and Senate budget committees have followedPresident Carter's lead on 1981 spending cuts forhousing and community development programs thatimpact low and moderate income neighborhoods.Carter proposed a $611.5 billion budget on March 30that reduces outlays by about $5 million from thebudget he presented on January 28. Although the revised Administration budget cuts away at major domestic programs, it leaves untouched the original goal of283,000 to 300,000 units of Section 8 and public housingin 1981. That represents a proposed increase over thisyear's level, which was about 240,000 units.The House Budget Committee cut $16.5 billion fromthe President's request but left the federally-assistedhousing intact. In the Senate, however, the BudgetCommittee voted to cut subsidized housing back toapproximately 210,000 units. The reduction wasapproved after a resolution to continue present commitments but provide no additional units was defeated by atie vote. The senators criticized the high cost of theprogram, the long term commitment tha t would be uncontrollable and the profits being made by developers.The two budget committees were less independentabout other housing programs. "In general, the Houseand Senate were consistent with the President's reduction," a HUD budget official said.The Carter budget calls for a cut in outlays from whatwas originally proposed for 1981 of approximately $92million in Communi ty Development Block Grant funds,$28 million in Section 312 low interest loans and $3million in grants under the Neighborhood Self-HelpDevelopment Fund.In addition to these cuts, Carter's budget called forthe elimination of general revenue sharing to the states.Should that become official, New York city could sta'nd

continued on page J JCITY LlMITS/April1980 6

BUDGET AXE LOOMSOVER CETA JOBS

"CETA is the most unpopular program in Congressright now, so Carter's not going to have any unfavorable reaction to the cuts he's proposing. There are nowjust a few voices crying in the wilderness, saying 'to hellwith the balanced budget, let's do what has to bedone' " remarked Othello Poulard who heads theCETA Project of the Center for Community Change inWashington.Proposed cuts for CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, in fiscal year 1981 reflect agloomy picture in both White House and Capitol Hillversions . Already hard hit by cuts in this year's CETAbudget, and plagued by a shortfall in the numbers ofjobs funded but not allocated, CETA may well be buta shadow of its former self by the time the ink dries onfiscal 1981.The administration has called for a $1.6 billion slicefrom the CETA appropriations of 1980, and while finalfigures have not been reported out of House and SenateCommittees, estimates suggested they were equal to,and in some instances more severe than, the WhiteHouse cuts.Hardest hit in dollar figures is Title VI Public ServiceEmployment jobs, which may lose up to $800 millionand 70,000 slots. Summer Youth Employment andYoung Adult Conservation Corps are both earmarkedfor cuts between 50 and 100 per cent, while PrivateSector jobs may lose $90 million. In addition, the Welfare Demonstration Program will be eliminated entirely.So far, no broad-based national opposition hasemerged to the CETA cuts, although such a networkmay grow from a national CETA conference of community based organizations, called by the Center forCommunity Change in late May in Washington.With sweeping reductions in many parts of the administration's proposed balanced budget, CETA may

continued on page JI


7/24

CD BUDGET HEADS FOR HOME STRETCHby Brian Sullivan

The lasting lesson of last year's Community Development budget processis that there really was not enoughCD money to pay for all the commitments made by thecity.In a continuing effort to use the CD budget to satisfyall of New York City'S housing and neighborhoodimprovement needs as well as provide supportive publicservices without using any of the city's own Capital orExpense budget funds, the city planners succeeded inshortchanging everybody in general. Hurt most particularly were the low income neighborhoods whichdepend almost exclusively on CD funds for basicimprovements and public services.HPD eventually got some $175 million in cn. Year.5.

which was evenly split between "In Rem" programs andthe rest of HPD's housing rehabilitation, code enforcement and demolition programs. Following hearingsthroughout the city, the City Planning Commissionattempted a highly controversial plan for 10 Neighborhood Strategy areas as well as a mixed bag of economicdevelopment, public services and improvements.That was last year. Although some things havechanged, the game is still the same: how to use $259 million in federal CD funds to substitute for a non-existentCapital Budget and keep pressure of f the ExpenseBudget in a year when Mayor Koch has promised tobalance the city's books.HPD has put together a CD 6 request totalling $247million, just $12 million short of the entire CD 6 allocation! For the time being I am assuming that PresidentCarter 's budget cuts will not affect New York City'S CDallocation, although a cut of $10 million to $15 millionhad been rumored prior to the New York primary.The HPD proposals include major increases in rehabilitation programs ($26 million to $54 million) and in InRem programs ($78 million to $106 million).Commissioner Anthony Gliedman's priorities forincreased funding will undoubtedly raise some criticismamong neighborhood housing groups. The Participation Loan Program (which, with private mortgageinterest rates going through the roof, is virtually uselessfor producing affordable housing for low and moderateincome families) is in for a big increase-$13 millionmore than last year.Likewise, the Article 8A Loan Program, which isbasically a landlord moderate rehabilitation program, isslated for an increase of $9.5 million over last year.On the other hand, the Sweat Equity program hasbeen put in for only a $2 million increase over last year.This translates into only about 9 or ' 10 sweat equity

buildings (assuming 7 dwelling units per building atabout $30,000 per unit). Meanwhile, the pipeline ofsweat equity buildings is over 60 and growing.And while the CD 6 draft budget has not yet beenpublished (it should be out in April), Herbert Sturz, thenew chairman of the City Planning Commission andhead of the Mayor's CD Committee, has already runhead on into the NSA issue. In an internal memorandum he has proposed to designate only the four additional NSA's mandated by HUD and at the same time togive some as-yet undefined priority status to the sixcommunity districts in the South Bronx. Since there isroughly the same amount of CD money available thisy ~ . r . as last, the designation of these 10 additional areasfor increased attention in CD 6 may be little more than agesture.This skepticism is based on the experience of the first10 NSA's, which are still tyring to squeeze CD moneyout of the city after months of frustrating negotiationswith CPC staff in formulating their neighborhood plansand more frustration in trying to cajole the operatingagencies (such as HPD) into releasing the money earmarked for their neighborhoods.How these ongoing NSA commitments can be honored while at the same time taking on 10 additionalneighborhoods in CD 6 and financing a whole range ofservice programs, economic development projects andcapital improvements is a trick that Sturz's predecessorshave been unable to pull off. Whether he will fare anybetter remains to be seen.Of course we will have to wait and see the draf t CD 6budget, but in case the Mayor's CD Committee is looking for a few suggestions as to how to get the most out

of the available funds, the New York City Housing andCommunity Development Coalition will be drawing upits annual CD Counterbudget at its next meeting.

7

We expect the counterbudget to be ready in time forneighborhood residents and community activists to usein testifying at the Board of Estimate and City Counciljoint public hearings scheduled for May.In case anyone has lost track of the former housingand planning department chiefs, Nathan Leventhal .andRobert Wagner Jr. are both deputy mayors now, andboth have left CD behind them. I f this pattern continuesover the next few years, Koch's administrative payrollmay grow by leaps and bounds and each year a new crop

of potential deputy mayors will be left to struggle with ashrinking CD budget and a growing list of unmet commitments to New York City'S neighborhoods. 0

CITY LlMITS/April1980


8/24

WAITING FOR OSHDTACONSUMER CO-OP BANK IS OPEN

Washington-More than five years since the first legislation was introduced in Congress and some 20months after the law was enacted, the National Consumer Cooperative Bank has finally opened its doors.Newly appointed Bank President Carol Greenwaldbrought an unusual New York-style block party atmosphere to Washington when a large tent was erected and arag-time. band installed outside the bank's new officesfor the opening celebration on March 21.The bank staff, meanwhile, has moved quickly intoaction, reviewing its first loan applications,and by April7, 1980 the bank had committed its first loans.But while the bank moves ahead,its Office of SelfHelp Development and Technical Assistance-ofprimary concern to low income groups-has yet to getoff the ground. The Office was established by Congressto provide low interest loans, interest subsidies andequity-type "capital investment advances" to lowincome and new co-ops as well as technical assistance toco-ops of all kinds.Because the legislation requires the bank to make"market rate" loans, the low-interest component of theOffice is particularly critical as interest rates on conventionalloans reach record levels. Low income advocateshave real doubts as to whether the bank can meet itsstatutory goal of providing 35 per cent of its loans tolow income cooperatives unless#this low interest andcapital advance component is in place. The Office isnot expected to'begin operating before mid-summer.The major delay in starting the Office involves thenomination of its director. After months of delay, theWhite House withdrew the proposed nomination ofClifton Henry for the position, throwing open thenomination and confirmation process.

Some cooperative groups are concerned that withoutthe Office's lending operation in place the bank will besetting loan policies dealing only with established andmiddle income groups. This could make it difficult forlow income groups to get a positive response to theirloan applications. These groups have proposed that thebank delay its opening until the office is functioning aswell, but contervailing pressures to get the bank movingin time for this year's Congressional appropriationswere strong enough to defeat such suggestions.Another major concern for low income communitiesrelates to the proposed policies for the Office that wereissued by the Bank Board in December and approved atits March meeting. Despite extensive public commentsto the contrary at the nationwide hearings, the BankBoard weakened the basic orientation of the proposedCITY LlMITS/April1980

policies toward low income groups. Arguing that excessive emphasis on low income co-ops was divisive, theBoard chose to emphasize the Office's orientationtowards existing and new co-ops, not necessarily lowincome. In addition, earlier proposals to make 70 percent of the office's technical assistance available to lowincome groups were dropped.

8

Until recently when Greenwald took personal chargeof the office, its interim staff was operating in a kind of"twilight zone" without substantive leadership or legalauthority. Internal staff problems and resulting changeshave created tensions between the bank as a whole andthe Office.Because the funding for theOffice's technical assistance (approximately $2 million for Fiscal Year 1980) wasappropriated under Title I of the act, the Office has beenable to initiate its technical assistance program. Encouraging for community groups is the appointment ofErnesto Guttierrez, formerly associate director of theCatholic Charities Campaign for Human Development,as the director of the technical assistance division.Under his leadership the staff has compiled a roster ofsome 2,500 technical assistance "del iverers" to help coop groups with organizational and financial management and preparation of loan applications. But no definite policies have been established for the technicalassistance program, with priority being placed currentlyon making "emergency" technical assistance availableto existing co-op groups facing crisis situations.In addition, Fiscal Year 1981 funding for the bankisvulnerable to the budget cutting mood sweeping Congress. The original Carter Administration request of$175 million has been reduced to $132 million in therevised budget submitted to Congress in March.In the meantime, loan applications are available fromthe bank with a special checkoff for groups needinglow-interest assistance. Interested groups should applynow. The bank staff is processing all loan applications,for both low income and for other groups. Theintention is to complete all paperwork so that when theoffice does become functional, loans can be committedalmost immediately.Write the National Consumer Co-operative Bank,20001 S. St. NW, Washington D.C. 20009 or call 800-387-6030.The Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies in Washington has established a unit to monitor thebank and assist low income and community groups touse the lending institution. 0

Michael Freedberg


9/24

HUD PLANS STUDYOF IN REM HOUSING

HUD has decided to study the array of New York Cityhousing programs that are attempting to treat the thousands of buildings that have ended up in city ownership- a t a current cost of $118 million per year-as theresult of an unprecedented epidemic of abandonment byprivate owners.The two-year study is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the different housing programs in a way thatwill not only help New York City refine its efforts butalso aid local governments across the country wherehousing abandonment has become a problem.The research will attempt to assess how well the programs are improving housing conditions and meetingresidents' needs as an immediate goal and the likelihoodof longer-term success in transferring ownership of thebuildings to non-profit and for-profit groups.

A pre-selected group of non-profit organizations believed by HUD to have the interest and the ability tocarry out the research was invited to submit applications, although HUD is bound to consider proposalsfrom other groups. The deadline for applying was April22.At present, New York City reigns over a vast empireof 12,000 abandoned buildings. Of these, some 4,500buildings with 37,600 apartments are occupied. Thenumber of occupied units is expected to more thandouble by 1982. The city has seven programs and spendsmore than $82 million-a-year in federal CommunityDevelopment Block Grant funds alone to manage,maintain and in some cases, rehabilitate the buildings.Direct city management accounts for about twothirds of the 37,600 occupied units. The remaining thirdare in one of six programs that employ private (nonprofit and for-profit) groups to manage and repair thebuildings and prepare them for eventual sale to a rangeof possible buyers. These are called Alternative Management programs, and four of the six are less than twoyears old.Although the design of the study is left to the indivi-dual applicant, a 39-page description by HUD of theproject calls for (1) an analysis of how the city runs thevarious programs, (2) an evaluation of how effective theprograms are by looking at such factors as residentsatisfaction, the cost of upgrading the buildings, rentlevels in relation to other measures, effectiveness ofmanagement and the role of self help, (3) a projection ofthe future viability of the buildings and their continuingmanagement and maintenance needs.According to the HUD outline, the research is intended to help the city find out whether the managementprograms are successfully improving the housing atprices low and moderate income families can afford;

what criteria should be used in assigning buildings todifferent management and sales programs; in whatkinds of neighborhoods and under what circumstancesdo the programs operate most effectively; whether management by community and tenant groups is feasibleand cost effective and what kinds of training programsare required; what neighborhood, tenant and buildingcharacteristics affect the long-term prospects for financial viability of the structures and what criteria shouldbe used to choose the appropria te form of ownership; towhat extent are the alternative programs successful inpreparing the properties for sale.The HUD Request for Applications does not specify aprogram budget ceiling, but it is believed to be in therange of $300,000 to $350,000 for the two-year study. 0

9

ENERGY GRANTA grants program to develop appropriate technologyprojects is being offered by Region II of the U.S. Department of Energy to individuals, community groupsand small businesses. The program includes idea development grants of up to $10,000, and product/systemdevelopment and demonstration grants of up to$50,000.The grants are to encourage the development of smallscale, easily operable and energy efficient projects.Proposals should address local needs and employ localmaterials and labor.Applications are available from Toby Sanchez at

A.N.H.D, 674-7610, or directly from Region II, U.S.Dept. of Energy, 26 Federal Plaza, N.Y. Deadline forapplications is May 20, 1980.

SELF -HELP DEVELOPMENTHUD has announced a July 15, 1980 deadline for applications for the second cycle of the NeighborhoodSelf-Help Development Project Grants . In addition, applications must be submitted to the A-95 clearinghouse,the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, forreview by June 5, 1980. The grant program is for projects for which there has been some preliminary planning, and eligible projects include energy conservation,weatherization, neighborhood initiated housing rehab,

among others. To receive the application kit call 202/755-7971 . The first cycle ended on March 21 .The annual conference of the New York City Housingand Community Development Coalition will be held atthe Harlem State Office Building in Manhattan.For details about the date contact the Pratt Center

at 636-3489.



10/24

Advertisement.

JOB REFERRAL NETWORKThe Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers announces the availability of a new service for bothjob-seekers and employers. The ANHD Job Development Service will maintain a file of resumes and makereferrals to housing organizations and private industryprofessional positions, clerical positions, and a widevariety of skilled and unskilled jobs. Individuals areinvited to make applications and/or submit resumes.The Job Development Service is also asking employers for notification of upcoming vacancies. Applicantscan be pre-screened to employers' specifications.There is no charge to either the job-seekers or theemployers for these services.Address all communications to: ANHD Jo b Development Service, li S East 23rd Street, 8th floor, New York,NY 10010; or call (212) 674-7610.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING PROGRAMExecutive Director wanted to develop neighborhoodhousing program in East Flatbush, Brooklyn. Previoushousing and tenant organizing experience desired. Responsibilities: grantsmanship; staff supervision; knowledge of city housing programs and agencies; negotiationwith public agencies, owners, developers, financial institutions. Brooklyn resident preferred. For inquiriescontact Eileen Murray at 469-9495. Send resumes to:Dorothy Ganz - PresidentErasmus Neighborhood Federation

c/o Neighborhood Stabilization Prognlm2211 Church Avenue, Room 209Brooklyn, NY 11226 .Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity EmployerClassified

Community Organizers-Neighborhood based organization seeksstaf f to work with area residents; bi-lingualism preferred. For moreinformation, call or send resume to:NMIC#21601 W. 181st St.New York. N.Y. 10033(212) 568-9166

Merchant Organizer to work with small businessmen on neighborhood commercial revitalization program. Applicant should have aB.A. in Business and/or comparable organizing experience. Mustspeak fluent Spanish & English. Submit resume to Michael RochfordSt. Nicholas, N.P. & H.R. Corp., 11-29 Catherine St. Bklyn NY11211. ' ,I f You Are In Housing . . .Think about advertising yourproduct/services in CITY LIMITS.Call 674-7610CITY LIMITS/April 1980 10

NEW PUBLICATIONSThe Homesteader's Handbook, an illustrated guide

to aid tenants in managing their own buildings, has beenpublished by the Urban Homesteading AssistanceBoard.The 117 -page manual instructs tenants on how to setup a budget, establish a rent policy, determine operatingcosts, formulate repair priorities, draw up leases, fix upvacant apartments, deal with non-payment problemsand perform a variety of other tasks related to selfmanagement.The guide provides tips on how to save moneythrough energy conservation and self-help labor. It alsolists city agencies and organizations capable of providing assistance to the tenant-managers.The handbook comes with sample building management forms.

It is available for $6 plus postage from: UHAB, 1047Amsterdam Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10025 or call749-0602.Neighborhood Oriented Programs of the FederalGovernment is a compendium of funding and technicalassistance resources for neighborhood organizationspublished by the Office of Neighborhoods, VoluntaryAssociations and Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.Tenants Rights for Better Housing is a free publication of the New York State Department of StateDivision of Economic Opportunity, 162 WashingtonAve., Albany, N.Y. 12231.The Michigan Task Force on Consumer Cooperativeshas published a Report to Governor William G.Milliken. The report contains several suggestions forpromoting development of housing cooperatives for low

and moderate income people, and recommendations toencourage the growth and development of cooperativehousing in Michigan. For copies of the report, contact:Consumer Cooperative Task Force, Bureau of Community Services, State Secondary Complex, Box 30015Lansing Michigan 48909. . ,

The Multifamily Urban Homesteading Bulletincovers progress made in Chicago, Boston, Oakland,Cleveland, Hartford and Springfield in the self-help restoration of multi-unit structures acquired by homes ~ e a d e r s at nominal cost, and owned by them at completIon. Contact: "The Bulletin," c/o The Urban homesteading Assistance Board, 1047 Amsterdam AvenueNew York, NY 10025, to be added to the mailing liSt.'o


11/24

Housing Budget continuedto lose as much as $100 million of its portion of NewYork state's allotment. Direct revenue sharing to thecities remains in place, through which New York Cityexpects to receive $300 million.

The federal government uses two systems to calculatebudgets. Outlays, used here, refer to the actual amountof dollars that the U.S. Treasury spent or is projected tospend for a given program.Approval by Congress of the $92 million cut in Community Development funds would mean a loss to NewYork City of approximately $5.5 million, according tothe city's legislative office in Washington. The city hasanticipated receiving $259 million for 1981, or CD Year6. Nearly 90 per cent of the proposed cut in CD is froma fund to close out the old urban renewal program." I f we lost $300,000 we're in trouble," a City Planning Department official observed. According to theplanning agency, applications for 4,340 projects total ."ling more than $1 billion have been submitted to the cityfor CD 6, which begins next September. Some of theprojects may qualify for and be funded through thecity's capital budget, but even so the CD budget is fartoo small to meet the needs of bona fide, eligibleprojects, officials say. HPD alone is asking for $247million next year.In absorbing the possible cut, if the city were to targetagencies that have the poorest track record in spendingtheir CD funds, the likely victims would be the Office ofEconomic Development, which spent 0.3 per cent of itsfunds through CD Year 4; the Department of Parks, 25

per cent; the New York City Housing Authority, 29 percent and the Sanitation Department, 35 per cent.In addition to the proposed cuts for next year, theCarter budget wants to take about $21 million awayfrom the current CD year and $14 million from Section312 loans. I t would also drop the volume of Section 235housing from 25,000 units to 18,000 units this year andleave it at 18,000 units next year. Left alone for themoment is the Urban Development Action Grant Program, set at $365 million in 1981, up from $180 millionthis year.Revenue sharing funds are spent as discretionarytreasury monies and are not earmarked for any particular area. In an effort to ease the effect on large citieswith the elimination of revenue sharing to the states,Carter proposed a total of $500 million for states whichhave supplied large amounts of aid to local governments. Although deemed unlikely to pass, that movewould restore $72 million to New York City. 0

11

CETA continuedwell be without some of its traditional supporters. Suchgroups as the U.S . Conference of Mayors are busyscrambling for their own funds and, CETA proponentsfear, could be persuaded to forfeit CETA in order torecoup other losses. "The mayors are all too upsetabout losing General Revenue Sharing to think muchabout CETA," said Poulard. "That's their sacred cow.GRS is very flexible, you can mix it up any way youwant-not so with CETA, it's a real hassle for them ."

At this point almost $900 million remains unspent inCETA funds in fiscal year 1980. That money may wellremain unspent, and be considered an expenditure ratebelow the authorized level.CETA Title VI was initially enacted as countercyclicalaid, designed to increase in times of high unemployment. But despite an administration estimate of unemployment running at 7.4 per cent next year, the"trigger" mechanism in CETA will remain unreleased.When' unemployment passes 4 per cent, PSE funds aresupposed to cover 20 per cent of the unemployed pastthat mark. At the January, 1980 rate of 6.2 per cent thiswould mean 400,000 jobs. But as proposals stand now,only 130,000 to 150,000 jobs will be provided in 1981.

Locally in New York City, community organizationsin the Title VI program suffered a 24 per cent cut at thestart of 1980 and are soon expected to receive an additional 8 to 11 per cent cut. The CETA VI Coalition inNew York has been involved in a continuous strugglewith its prime sponsor, the city Department of Employment to fill job slots that have been vacant for manymonths. Verbal approval of a plan which would allowthe non-profit sponsors to hire directly for open positions has been received by the city from the Departmentof Labor, and is expected to be implemented shortly.One breakdown of the national CETA cuts showsNew York City losing $25 million in Title VI funding.This may spell increased competition between the community organizations and the city for the remainingjobs, as both draw on the Title VI pool for workers. Anumber of groups, including the National Urban Coalition, have urged that a mandatory set-aside of Title VIslots be created for community based organizations.Another possible victim of the balanced budget maybe the administration's self-described "major piece ofdomestic legislation," the Youth Employment andDemonstration Projects Act, which came beforeCongress for hearings just two weeks before the balanced budget was announced. Thought to be dead afterit failed to gain support on Capitol Hill, the programmay yet have life, as the administration has let it beknown it still intends to push the legislation. The youthinitiative would combine three present CETA titles andadd a major remedial education element. 0



12/24

FAIR HOUSING CONTRACTDISPUTE RAISES CITY POLICYQUESTIONS

by Tom RobbinsFair housing-a battle supposed to have been wagedand won in the 1950's and 60's-remains an unrealizedgoal in New York City. Despite federal, state and locallegislation, recent studies show that racial discrimination in housing is still a major problem, with many of itsvictims unassisted and much of its cause unaddressed.Now, a dispute between the city and a federallyfunded agency has, according to one official involved,"crystallized" the problems that remain in shaping aneffective strategy to ensure equal opportunity in thehousing market to minority New Yorkers.Charging that the Open Housing Center, recipient of a

$230,000 contract in 1979-80 to assist housing discrimination victims, failed to furnish sufficient detail for adequate evaluation of its performance, the city department of Housing Preservation and Development hasheld up approval of a full contract renewal for theCenter in 1980-81.The Center has spurned an HPD offer of a fivemonth contract at a 30 per cent budget reduction. Thecity, the Center insists, is in violation of its federalcommitment by blocking full funding, and has also beenvague and contradictory in its objections to OHC's performance. The Center is presentlY awaiting the resultsof an in-depth study of its work by HPD, as well as thefindings of an inter-agency task force on fair housingstrategy on which HPD will base its decision whether ornot to re-fund the agency.Looming behind the dispute is the over-all questionraised by many civil rights activists of the depth of thecity's commitment to an effective strategy for fairhousing, as well as the suspicions of a political backlashof a class action discrimination law suit lodged againstStarrett City by the Center last December.

In that suit, OHC, along ~ i t h two other organizations, charged on behalf of nine black persons that Starrett City was using a racially exclusionary quota designed to keep the almost 6,000 unit complex mostlywhite. HPD has adamantly denied that the Starrett litigation has had any bearing on its present dissatisfactionwith OHC's performance. But fair housing advocatescontacted by City Limits have asserted that the Center'sproblems are direct fallout from the suit.The program's funding cut comes at a time when thecity has been under steady prodding by both the federalgovernment and private groups to develop a more concrete and effective fair housing strategy. A 1977 federalHousing and Urban Development department monitor-CITY LlMITS/April1980 12

ing review of city policy found that "a vacuum existsconcerning . . . fair housing strategies." HUD requiredthe city to establish a system to ensure that federal fairhousing legislation be reflected in city policies. WhileHUD's August 1979 acceptance letter of the city's Community Development Block Grant funds applicationnoted improvement in fair housing policies, it alsocalled for further refinement and the creation of aHUD-city task force to address the problem. Thatgroup is presently meeting, though according to city andHUD members, it has yet to formalize any recommendations.Last January, a resolution of the Tri-State RegionalPlanning Commission called on the city to provide ahigher level of funding of fair housing efforts in its CDprogram. Racial ImbalanceA study released last summer by the Regional PlanAssociation found that blacks are confined to less thanone a half per cent of the available residential land inthe greater metropolitan area. Moreover, the study said,little of the region's racial imbalance could be attribute9 .to income differences. Racial discrimination, not economics, it said, is the culprit.This has translated into a situation in New York City,according to the city's 1979 Housing Assistance Plan,where two boroughs, Queens and Staten Island, havewhite majorities of over eighty and ninety per cent,respectively, and in the three other boroughs, distinctlines of racial demarcation exist in many communitydistricts.Beyond the statistics, last summer's rash of crossburning incidents dramatically underscored the racialproblems minorities still encounter when attempting tomove into largely white areas .

" I f anything," said Phyllis Spiro, who headedOHC's CD-funded fair housing project, "housing discrimination has accelerated. What you've got now is


13/24

quotas in 'free choice' housing and closed neighborhoods. Blacks and Hispanics are paying twice. Whitesalready have housing mobility and the lion's share ofthe developments," she said, "while minorities arelocked into ghetto neighborhoods and limited in accessto new, improved housing. ""As abandonment and neighborhood deterioration

has increased," noted Joan Thompson of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, a federally funded projectadministered by the City Commission on HumanRights, "people have been left with fewer options. Thepie is a lot smaller. As a result there is infinitely more,different kinds of racial housing discrimination goingon. For one thing realtors are much more sophisticatedthese days. Rather than slamming the door in someone'sface, they have learned how to 'steer'. People are stillhesitant to come forth and complain."Since 1968, when passage of the federal Civil RightsAct extended and improved previous legislation, it hasbeen illegal to refuse to sell or rent to anyone on thebasis of race in any private residential property. City "and state laws complement the federal legislation, andin recent years additional laws have prohibited the racial"steering" of renters or buyers.Housing discrimination victims have a number ofoptions open to them in New York City. Federal, stateand city agencies exist to hear and act on complaints.While enforcement powers differ from agency toagency, HUD, which acts as federal watchdog overhousing discrimination, is limited to conciliation, whereas both state and city can issue restraining orders as wellas cease and desist edicts. In addition, private individuals may sue in federal court under Title VIII of thefederal Fair Housing Law.Fewer ComplaintsBut despite this legal machinery, the number ofhousing complaints does not appear to be keeping pacewith the discrimination which exists. All three government agencies report heavy slippage in the number ofcomplaints filed and sustained. A total of III housingcomplaints were successfully resolved by all threeagencies in New York City in 1978, a steep drop fromthe average of 183 per year recorded between 1973 and1977.Some of that slippage can be attributed to budget andstaff cuts in the city and state agencies, which havetraditionally handled the bulk of local complaints. TheNew York State Division of Human Rights 1978 annualreport described the effect of inflation and budgetreductions as forcing a "drastic curtailment" in operation. Similarly, cuts at the City Commission on Human.Rights have caused the agency to "die a slow death ofattr ition" according to one former worker there.

The most powerful remedies to discrimination victims,however, are the decisions handed down by federaljudges who hear Title VIII suits brought by individuals.

The courts can award damages, which neither the statenor the city is empowered to do.But despite this seemingly wide array of legal andjudicial recourse, many minorities perceive the systemas "futile and ineffective" according to the RegionalPlan Association study. The figures of declining complaints seem to buttress that assessment. While federal

. judgments are potentially effective and rewarding, theyare costly as well. Few individuals on their own, said theRPA, can carry the burden of court costs, and publicdefenders who take on such cases are few and haveheavy caseloads.The Open Housing Center has attempted to intervenein what is often a complicated and burdensome legalprocess by working directly with people who feel theyhave encountered housing bias."It's critical to have someone in the complainant'scorner," said Phyllis Spiro. "The government agenciesare limited to enforcement, they can't sit down with thevictim of discrimination and help explain to them howto-build a better case, or where to seek out housing."Attempting to help fill the "vacuum" described inHUD's monitoring review of city fair housing efforts,OHC submitted its proposal for Community Development funding in 1978. New CD regulations issued byHUD in March, 1978, which called for the provision offair housing counselling services gave further encouragement to their proposal. "We realized the city had anobligation to provide fair housing services," said OHCDirector Betty Hoeber, "and we knew we could do a lotmore with city backing."In existence since 1964, OHC had long been an organization to which city and state agencies referred complainants for help in building evidence. In addition,OHC had to its credit two major Title VIII decisionswon against the Lefrak and Trump realty organizations, both of which led to widescale access for minorities to their numerous buildings and properties.Omitted in the city's CD application, it was not untilHoeber fired off an angry mailgram to then HUD Secretary Patricia Harris protesting their omission that OHCwas accepted by the city. Further delays led to lit contractwhich did not begin until March, 1979, six months aftermoney for the CD year became available.

Public OutreachWith funds in hand, OHC undertook a broad publicprogram via media spots and community meetings,informing minorities and single mothers that antidiscrimination enforcement existed and that the Centerwas available to help. This publicity was seen as a majorcomponent of the Center's work, as neither city norstate agencies have done direct outreach for many years.Complainants were represented before governmentagencies, and, if necessary, provided with free legalservice to file complaints in federal court. Also, callers

13 CITY LIM ITS/Apri I 1980


14/24

to the Center's 24 hour hotline were counselled on howto know when they are being discriminted against andwhere to look for housing, frequently in projects andareas that are mostly white and do not publicizevacancies except to a limited audience."When we got the funding," said Spiro, "one of our

prime desires was to go into federal court and getdamages under Title VIII." During its first funded year,OHC went into federal court 13 times on behalf ofclients. One of those court visits was for the class actionStarrett suit. "At this point," noted Spiro, "we'rewondering wether or not we did too well. "

"The Starrett suit was the culmination of years ofcomplaints," said Spiro. Since the huge Brooklyn housing complex's opening in 1974 more than fifty complaints were filed by OHC on behalf of minorities whowere placed on waiting lists while whites applying wereimmediately placed in apartments."We felt our clients had a right to a final determination on the discrimination encountered there," said

OHC general counsel Karene Freeman. The suit's legalchallenge, that affirmative marketing plans offered bygovernment subsidized developments cannot be turnedinto strict quotas, has already raised controversy, and issure to bring more once trial begins. Just what react ionthe suit may have stirred in city government is difficultto determine, ~ l t h o u g h Hoeber believes "without thesuit we would have b e e l l . . ~ - a p p r o v e d without trouble."Funds for the OHC project had already been includedin the city's 1980-81 Community Development application and approved by HUD. B\}t, because of the timelag in OHC's first year contract, second year fundingwas not scheduled to begin until last March. In November, 1979, Hoeber and Spiro met with HP D AssistantCommissioner for Equal Opportunity Laila Long towork out a new budget and contract, as well as todevelop a proposal for 1981-82. With Long's assistance,funds were re-arranged so that the project could hire apart-time housing counsellor and plans made to request$70,000 additional the following year so that a fullcounseling component could be added.In December, OHC, along with the MetropolitanCouncil of the N.A.A.C.P. and the Columbia University Law School Fair Housing Clinic, announced theirsuit against Starrett .

"By January," said Hoeber, "we were calling HPDto find out what was happening with our contract andwe were told it was 'in typing'. But at the end of themonth, the Center was informed that the city did notintend to renew because a broad fair housing strategywas being devised and it could not be sure whether ornot OHC would fit into it. In a later conversation withHPD Deputy Commissioner Robert Davis, Hoebersays, she was told that there was insufficient information available on which to base a decision to renew.CITY LlMITS/April1980 14

OHC and HPD tell entirely different versions of theproject's monitoring between March and December lastyear. According to OHC, problems about inadequatedetail were never raised by Long or anyone else at HPDuntil January. For its part, HPD insists that Long held anumber of conversations with Hoeber during the firstnine months of the contract when repeated requestswere made for improved data, but that it was neverforthcoming to HPD's satisfaction. Neither version canbe verified, as HPD says it never put its complaint intowriting.Long declined to be interviewed as to why HPDapproved a contract and an additional year's proposalin November. HPD spokeswoman Martha Gershun explained, "The planning process has to go on. The decision to place OHC in the CD VI application, and toprepare for its 80-81 cont,ract was taken before evalua-, tion of the Center's work was ,made." In order that theCenter's work not come to a precipitous en'd, saidGershun, HPD offered the five month extension lastFebruary.

It is difficult to separate the two strands of HPD'sobjections to OHC's refunding. While the inter-agencytask force which is charged with developing an improved fair housing strategy is meeting, evaluation isalso underway of the Center's record during itscontract. But what fair housing advocates outside OHCand the city find puzzling is just how that strategy isbeing shaped, and what was wrong in OHC's performance."It's pretty clear to me," said Paul Davidoff of theSuburban Action Institute, an organization with a long

history of fair housing work, "that there isn't any cityfair housing strategy right now, at least not an affirmative plan as called for by HUD." OHC, said Davidoff,"i s known and admired for their work."Larry Grosberg, who heads the Columbia Fair Housing Clinic which is currently working with the CityCommission on Human Rights on its backlog of cases,expressed similar scepticism about the city's strategy."It's a meaningless policy statement," he said of theHousing Assistance Plan's fair housing scheme. "TheOpen Housing Center has been in the forefront of thiskind of work for years," said Grosberg. "Their use ofads to inform people, as well as counselling people toseek out housing, addresses the fundamental questionof whether blacks arid others are aware of wherehousing exsits."Neither Grosberg nor Davidoff said he had been contacted for suggestions concerning improvements in thecity's efforts. Despite the HAP plan's description offair housing strategy being devised by the heads of thecity's housing and planning departments in consultationwith the City Commission on Human Rights, an officialof CCHR told City Limits that no policy suggestionshave been requested of the Commission, and that a de-


15/24

tailed recommendation paper submitted to the HousingPolicy Board last year had been rejected withoutcomment. According to HPD, the CCHR is not takingpart in the present HUD-city task force either.Frank Tor:res, HUD area Fair Housing officer who ison the task force, said that HUD had been puzzled thatthe city had not included CCHR's enforcement capacityin its 1979 HAP plan. " I t may have been an oversight,"he said, "but the city has to look at what it is doing, andthen OHC will fall into place. I f you don't fund OHCyou will have a vacuum again," Torres said. "We don'tthink it makes any ~ i f f e r e n c e who does fair housingcounselling, as along as it's done. I f it's not OHC, thenwe have to know what's going to take its place ."According to OHC, the timing of what they insist wasa change of attitude on HPD's part makes the Starrettsuit particularly suspect as the cause of the city's displeasure. In recent years at least two prominent HPDofficials have left for executive positions at Starrett.Former Deputy Commissioner Robert Rosenberg is nowGeneral Manager at Starrett, and former Deputy Commissioner Peter Josephs also now works for the international building corporation. "I have to assume theLetter con tinuedhomesteaders ranging in age from 20 to 60. In October/November 1978, after many of us had already begun thehomesteading process, we submitted our applications tobecome part of HPD's Direct Loan, Sweat-Equityhomesteading program.

For over a year now, the city has had tenant profilesand architectural plans for the renovation of 532, 533,535 and 537 East 6th St. Not working drawings; justfloor plans, which it took HPD a full half-year to provide guidelines for and pass through their initial approval stage. We are now "i n the pipeline" and .it's dark.

Since this preliminary approval, A Better Way hasbeen waiting for a Letter of Commitment from HPDtowards the ultimate turning over of these buildings tothe homesteaders. This letter can come only after theprocess known as ULURP (Uniform Land Use ReviewProcedure) has begun, a process by which NYC acceptsthe transfer of title of city-owned property to individuals or cooperatives. This can begin only after HPD'sEngineering Department provides a cost and feasibilityestimate. Six months ago a city engineer surveyed thebuildings for this purpose. The cost-out has remainedon the "back-burner" without even a pilot light under it .However, it is not inefficiency or inflation we are fighting. It is clear abandonmen.t. First the buildings wereabandoned. Then the city offered hope, and now it isabandoning even hope"We continue to work on tQe buildings-ra ising fundsfor minor roofing repairs, winterizing, and the firststeps in rehabilitation. Still, we can barely proceed

city is unhappy about the suit," Rosenberg told CityLimits. "They've done many things to make it a viablecommunity. The Mayor was just out there for our fifthbirthday party last fall."HPD has promised a decision on the OHC contractby May 15th. Should the decision be against them, saidHoeber, the city has agreed to allocate funding to allow

them to "close up shop." A decision to re-fund theagency will entail some discussion on the scope of thework that OHC will be allowed to pursue, as the proposed partial contract which the Center rejected calledfor a sharp reduction in counseling, and more stringentreporting requirements to HPD when the Centerinitiates class action suits.For the time being, while the city deliberates, theOpen Housing Center is without funding, and hasdropped its outreach. campaign and cut back on allcounseling and representation. Civil Rights advocatesare wondering what the present controversy says aboutthe city's commitment to fair housing. " I t shouldn'trea:liy be surprising," said Paul Davidoff. "When wasthe last time you heard the Mayor calling for strongeraffirmative action in this city?" 0without the city's stamp. We have the full support ofour local community board (#3) and the 6th Street A toB Block Association which has already petitioned onour behalf. Our project and others like ours needsupport. Sincerely,The homesteaders of 532, 533, 535, 537 East 6th Street.To the Editor:I read with interest Tom Robbins' account of the 417East 52nd Street rent strike in the March issue. .The story was especially upsetting to me because in1971-1972 I had helped the tenants of 565 Crown Streetin Brooklyn, also owned by Milton Kessler, organize topressure Kessler to make repairs and provide essentialservices. As with 417 East 52nd, 565 Crown was a structurally sound building in need of major upgrading dueto years of owner neglect. As with the East Flatbushbuilding, the Crown Heights tenants ultimately commenced a rent strike after unsuccessfully negotiating with Kessler.Kessler's reaction then was remarkably similar to hismore recent effort. He used every vicious tactic in thebook. He tried illegal evictions, threats, verbal and physical attacks on the tenants. He offered rent strike leaders money to move out. He frequently called in the police. He reported public assistance recipients to DSS. Hereported an African exchange student to the Immigration Service.The results were depressingly similar to the East Flatbush building. The tenants were jerked around in Housing Court (then called Landlord and TenantCourt) which adjourned the matter time after time andrefused to heed the tenants' attorney's request to impose

continued on page 2215 CITY LlMITS/April1980


16/24

///...... /,I ..... ./ ......\

VILLAGE CENTER REDEVROPMENTPORT CHEmR, I'oEW YORK

Displacement continuedalition of local agencies and residents, filed a complaintwith the federal Economic Development Administrationover what ABC called exclusion by the Village of minorities in the preparation of a $932,000 public works proposal. A Citizens Advisory Committee named by themayor and approved by the Board was found to begrossly under-representative of the minority communitylast year and was reconstructed under orders from theCounty.While activists say the board has a history ofopposing new housing and has rejected projects forimproving the South End for the lower income peoplewho live there, the Village can .point to an unusuallylarge stock of 420 public housing units built between1950 and 1966."The Board has not been responsive to the South Endcommunity," said Bill James, a community leader and22-year resident of Port Chester. Others use less diplomatic language. "The Trustees don't give a damn. Theywould just as soon do the economic development andget rid of the people." said community organizer TomSanzillo.He and other community representatives say the residents of the redevelopment area are frightened over theuncertainty of their future. Landlords, they assert, areraising rents and withdrawing services in anticipation ofCITY LlMITS/April1980

the takeover of their properties by the Village.The issue of relocation raises questions about theclarity and strength of federal anti-displacementpolicies. Although local community groups are clamoring for a "relocation plan," Village housing officialspoint out correctly that there is no federal requirementfor such a plan .However, since the Village is using federal CD fundsto acquire property, those who are displaced fall underthe protection of two laws. Under the Uniform Relocation Act, the Village cannot force anyone to moveunless replacement housing that is decent, safe, s a n i ~ tary, reasonably convenient and affordable is available.The Village must inform the affected families aboutrelocation benefits. Counseling services to ease therelocation process must be provided. In addition, theUniform Act requires the Village to pay movingexpenses and up to $4,000 per renter household to helpmeet the increased cost of the replacement dwelling. Atotal of $31,734.33 in relocation benefits has been paid

to 14 families and three businesses as of March 31,according to the housing office.The second realm of protection is an ambiguouslyworded regulation of the Community Developmentprogram that says where CD funds result in displacement, the local government must devise a strategydescribing how it will "mitigate . . . adverse effects" andassist people to remain in their neighborhoods. There isno general agreement on what that means.Opponents of the current redevelopment plan arguethat the Village has never developed a meaningfulstrategy. Housing officials respond that several targets,including a shifting mix of new construction, substantialand moderate rehabilitation, Section 8 existing housingsubsidies, Public Housing vacancies and small propertyrehabilitation have evolved over the years . Little hasbeen built, however.The Village's current position, according to PortChester Development Director Thomas Hourin, is thatthe existing housing supply is capable of absorbing theadditional 30 families that will be displaced between nowand the spring of 1981. After that, he agreed, additionalnew or rehabilitated units will be needed in order tocarryon the redevelopment. " I f you are talking aboutthe next step in the redevelopment program, we have tohave replacement housing," Hourin told City Limits."I am in full agreement that the Village has to take amore active position in providing the housing stock, andthe effort has to be accelerated. "There are a number of signs that government reviewagencies that approved this year's CD grant for PortChester will be taking a much closer look at the displacement issue in the next round.Lawrence Salley, director of community developmentfor Westchester County, said recently that none of PortChester's third year grant, if approved by HUD, will bereleased by the county until the Village has provided a

16


17/24

more detailed strategy for addressing the housing needsof the displaced families. In addition, he said, his o!Jrceis inspecting the condition of all of the h o u s i n ~ wherefamilies already moved out by the redevelopment areliving.And Bette Segal, an official of the Tri-State RegionalPlanning Commission, which reviews applications forfederal funds, said, "We will be looking for a plan" titisyear. "We asked last year for a relocation plan. Weacted in good faith, and we felt we would have a planbefore this. The Village has not lived up to their agreement."Additional pressure on the Board of Trustees to take.a stronger lead in planning for the additional new andrehabilitated housing has come from the Citizens Advisory Committee and the local newspaper.The investment of public funds-such as the case ofPort Chester-is only one, and probably the smallest,cause of displacement of low and moderate incomepeople. A larger cause that is less subject to publiccontrol is displacement by private investment. Butequally harmful, however, is the displacing impact ofdisinvestment, i.e. abandonment, all of which leavespolicy makers grappling with a huge dilemma that onehousing expert has likened to "dancing on the edge of aknife."

In a two-part report issued in 1979, HUD said theamount of displacement caused by federal programssubject to the Uniform Relocation Act is relativelysmall. In Fiscal Year 1977, $123.5 million was paid for19,000 residential claimants under the act with anadditional 18,000 families awaiting relocation, a sizabledrop over previous years.HUD estimated that more than 500,000 householdsper year were displaced between 1974 and 1976 as theresult of private and public activity.

In a recent survey of 31 U.S. cities, a CommunityLegal Services Inc. task force on community development found substantial displacement in 25. In 18 ofthose 25, the local governments acknowledged that substantial displacement was a problem. Only 14 of the 25had developed anti-displacement strategies, the surveysaid, and only two of those, Chicago and Minneapolis,has what could be called comprehensive strategies.Among cities with displacement problems that haveno anti-displacement strategy at all are Jackson, Miss.,Austin, Texas; Savannah, Georgia; New Bedford,Mass.; and Cincinnati, Ohio, the survey said,concluding;

"Thus, HUD is giving little attention to the displacement problem, and we must conclude that it is noteffectively implementing the 1977 amendments to theCDBG program," the task force said.In its displacement report, HUD said it had adoptedas a general goal a policy that no person should be displaced as a direct result of a HUD or HUD-assisted pro-

gram unless an affordable, decent, safe and sanitaryreplacement dwelling is available. I t said an effortshould be made to minimize displacement in connectionwith federal programs and that where such displacementis unavoidable, appropriate relocation assistance shouldbe provided.

HUD officials say that including a broader range ofprograms under the requirement of relocation benefitsis the best approach to minimizing displacement. Othersbelieve the agency could take stronger measures to prevent displacement and insure that federal programs aredesigned for the benefit of the present as well as futureresidents of low and moderate income neighborhoods

"M y view is that we will never stop displacement aslong as it is a secondary objective," said CushingDolbeare, director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition in Washington. "What should be done isput an end to displacement first and have everything elsefollow."Last November, a National 1'leighborhood PlatformConvention in Louisville, Kentucky adopted a "grassroots, national agenda for the 1980s" that advocated"residential stability" as a major goal.

" I t is our conviction that human beings cannotachieve their fullest potential under the constant threatof displacement," Milton Kotler, executive director ofthe National Association of Neighborhoods, told aCongressional subcommittee in March at a hearing onthe reauthorization of the Housing and Community Development Act. "T o most fully develop our citizens andour nation, residential security must be seen as a humanright, except under conditions of particular urgency.Because of the language of the Act, this fundamentalright can now be regularly violated. "The national neighborhood platform urged Congressto change the focus of the law from one of relocationand spatial deconcentration to one of residential stability. I t also recommends that approval of CD and UrbanDevelopment Action Grant applications be conditionedon the development and implementation of effectivedisplacement prevention plans.Legislation introduced by Rep. Parren Mitchell,Democrat of Baltimore, would set stiffer anti-displacement standards and require CD applicants to analyzethe causes and estimate the scale of displacement anddevise a strategy for ending it a:s part of their proposalfor funds.Other legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Sasser, Democrat of Tennessee, would set up one agency to establisha single uniform set of relocation regulations, instead ofthe existing "inconsistent, inequitable and confusing"array of guidelines currently administered by 13 federalagenices. The bill would also extend coverage ofrelocation benefits to any of those displaced by anyagency with the power to acquire property and wouldincrease payments to keep pace with inflation.

17 CITY LlMITS/ApriI1980


18/24

Elsie Sistrunk and two of her children in the apartment at 31 Willow Street where they were "temporarily" relocated from a dangerousbuilding, now boarded up, across the street.

For many different reasons, a number of proposals tocreate new and rehabilitated housing in Port Chesterhave collapsed in recent years. One plan to rehabilitate78 units for low income families kicked around for threeyears, during which time the figure fluctuated as thedeveloper lost land options. The project finally diedafter HUD said the cost was too high and the developerwas unable to obtain financing. Village and Countyofficials acknowledge privately that the plan was a"loser. "

Another plan to build and rehabilitate 128 units ofsenior citizen housing on the so-called Kingsport site raninto trouble at HUD because it did not include familyunits. That project still seems to be the Village's best betat the moment if the Trustees 'can agree on a location tocreate additional family housing. A developer iscurrently studying the feasibility of a site along the WestSide of South Main Street in the redevelopment area. I fthat does not work, the Village is practically back tosquare one.

This is a critiCal period of time for Port Chester'sfuture. Most observers agree that the redevelopmentwith all of the economic benefits it is expected to bring-depends on the willingness of the Village to make astrong show of support to provide the housing that willbe needed by the displaced families. A green light todaywould still mean a two-year wait before the hous ing wasCITY L1MITS/ApriI1980 18

available.But years of polarization and lack of communicationbetween the Board and the lower income populationhave created a hostile and suspicious atmosphere that is

obviously no t conducive to the accommodation thatmany see as necessary for solving the hous ing problem."There has to be an understanding on both sides ofthe fence," said one knowledgeable observer. "The

Board has to understand that they have to replace theunits they reduce the housing stock by. I f the villagedoes not come up with the replacement housing, it isfinished at HUD . But the advocacy groups have torealize that they cannot stop the project dead in itstracks. Who will that be serving?"There is inexperience on both sides, partially because there is no development history here for people toget used to dealing with each other. Instead, there is too

much grandstanding that is not followed up by negotiations." 0PLANNERSNETWORKA Planners Network regional conference is scheduled

for May 10 at Avery Hall, Columbia University, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The purpose is to discuss the formation of a union of progressive planners and to considerprogram proposals. For further information contactBob Beauregard, (201) 932-4053 .


19/24


20/24

POOR HOUSING FOR MENTALLY DISABLEDHARMS 'COMMUNITY LIVING' POLICY

Part IIThis report examines how the ,diminishing supply and often wretched conditions of low-cost housing have

sharply complicated the adjustment of a large segment of the estimated 60,000 former mental patients who havebeen released from psychiatric iktitutions into communities since 1965 in New York State. It was written byEllen Baxter and Kim Hopper of the Institute for Social Welfare Research of the Communi ty Service Society.An expanded version of their .report appears in the current issue of Health/PAC Bulletin.

SROs-The "SRO phenomenon" as it has beencalled-characterized as "the conspicuous clustering ofdeviant single people in specific buildings"-had itsorigins in the housing shortage produced by the wartimemigration of workers and servicemen in the forties.Landlords suddenly found it profitable to convert tenements into single-room occupancy hotels. The postwareconomic boom attracted families as well, who huddledin cramped quarters while breadwinners attempted togain some measure of financial security.Today, SRO residents, paying around $150/month,live in tiny rooms and share bathroom and kitchen facilities at the end of the hall. Some officials talk as thoughit were planned that way, to accord with the needs of thetenants. According to the National Executive Board onSROs: kitchens and private bathrooms areoften not considered necessary bymany older people who have never hadthem. Heat, security and cleanlinessare much more important to the quality of life of tenants thaIf room size oreven private bathrooms.The present reality is that SRO tenants exist at themercy of SRO landlords who consider heat, security,cleanliness, room size and private bathrooms only interms of their interest in collecting maximum rent andmaintaining a high occupancy tate. Conditions are, withrare exception, severely wanting. The following newspaper description is not atypical:The halls and stairways are dimly lit,unswept, littered with debris and fallenplaster. Throughout the halls, there's

the stink of toilets overflowing withpaper, feces and urine. Some of thetoilets haven't worked in months. Electrical wires are exposed where plasterhas been knocked out of the walls.Doors to the rooms have been broken,patched with boards. Locks have beengouged.Robberies and assaults are common, most of themnever reported. Obviously, the more defenseless are theeasiest prey. One hotel on the Upper West Side was citedCITY LIM ITS/Apri I 1980

for over 250 violations of the City Health Code and itsowner fined $37,500; it remains in operation while thecase is in litigation.The figures of ex-patients in SROs range from to,OOOto 20,000 with the greatest concentrations on the UpperWest Side and Murray Hill areas. The Department ofSocial Services has provided o n - ~ i t e assistal}ce to tenantsof SROs for several years, including hot lunclt programs, recreational and rehabilitation programs staffedby case workers and part-time physicians and nurses.But the great majority of SROs have no supportive programs. In the past, managers agreed to have programsin hopes of getting more referrals and hence a higheroccupancy rate. Now empty units are scarce, and therooms in which the programs operate could be rentedout.Several forces have exacerbated the conditions forSRO residents. The City'S 1-51 program grants generaltax abatements (which total approximately $40 millionannually) to developers who convert SROs jnto middle/upper class residential housing-clearly the more profitable real estate holding. This has led to the closing ofseveral SROs and dislocation of their residents. Harrassment of tenants by owners eager to empty theirbuildings for conversion has included the use of dogsand sawed-off shotguns at early morning hours; someSROs have been emptied over a weekend. Tenants,especially disabled ones, rarely exercise their legal rightsto prevent such harrassment. In addition to the number

20


21/24

of SROs that have closed, o thers have raised their pricesabove the designated lower-priced hotel level.PPHAs-Another substantial number of dischargedpsychiatric patients, approximately 6,650, reside in the

state's notorious private proprietary homes for adults,with the greatest concentration in the New York Citymetropolitan area. An investigative report by theDeputy Attorney General (March, 1979) exposed thepervasiveness ofunhealthy, unsanitary, and unsafeliving conditions, poor nutrition, failure to provide even minimal servicesand recreational programs, deficienciesrelating to medical care and t h ~ administration of medication and numerousviolations of local buildings, fire andsafety codes.

The questionable circumstances around severaldeaths of PPHA residents and numerous suicidesunderscore the extreme precariousness of their livingconditions.Adult home residents are entitled to $444 per monththrough supplemental security income payments, ofwhich all but an $18 to $38 personal allowance goes tothe adult home. The minimal income of the adult homeindustry in the State has been estimated at $8.4 millionmonthly. "Activity programs" range from the well-intended but infantilizing to the downright ludicrous. Onecase manager reported to us a particularly poignant instance in which she was trying to recruit for a sewing

group women who spent 40 years in the sweatshopsas garment workers.Tbe SbeIters-The Men's Shelter located on theBowery provides meals, showers, clothing and medicalcare to approximately 10,000 men annually. The StateDepartment of Social Services licenses and funds 50 percent of the Shelter's operating costs; the City matchesthis amount. A study in 1976 based on 1,235 men provided with sleeping accomodations on a given nightfound that 30 per cent of them had previous psychiatrichospitalization. This is usually not the "planned"destiny of discharged patients. The supervisor of theShelter 's psychiatric unit has been quoted as saying,

Most of the men don't come directlyfrom the State hospital . . . usually community plans are made for them, butthey fall apart . . . Either they arethrown out of their SRO, their welfarehas stopped or they never followedthrough with referrals to a clinic.The Shelter serves three meals a day to approximately1,500 men and dispenses 800 lodging vouchers which areredeemable in one of the Bowery lodging (flop) housesunder contract with the Men's Shelter. A state authorized liquor store on the corner has a steady clientele.During the winter, 1,200 men seek lodging each night.

21

When the Shelter exhausts its supply of vouchers, the remaining men are permitted to sleep on a concrete floorin the "big room" at the Shelter. Once the "big room"is filled to capacity, the men are turned back into thestreet. Presently, upwards of 200 men are being turnedaway every night.A recent city report concluded that the Shelter "resembles nothing so much as a 19th century asylum."Communities are justifiably outraged when theirstreets are turned into running sewers because theShelter can only supply 2 toilets for the 500 men who eatthere. They are understandably upset when men wandertheir streets aimlessly all day, because the flophousesthey sleep in at night throw them out at 7-8 in the morning and will not allow them back in until late afternoon.But neither of these concerns has to do with the disabilities of the ex-inmate or wino. They have to do with adeeper, structural absurdity: the circumstances underwhich such people find themselves struggling to survive.

Propos

Documents

City Limits Magazine, April 1980 Issue