A More Perfect Union: Transforming the Accent Mark into a Historical Stroke
398
A MORE PERFECT UNIÓN Transforming the Accent Mark into a Historical Stroke CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012 Jessica Kisner Troy Hallisey Chris Jones Aubrey Murdock Charles Wirene
-
Upload
chris-m-jones -
Category
Documents
-
view
129 -
download
2
description
Based on research and field investigations in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, the report envisions the alternative acquisition of property through the leveraging of heritage
Transcript of A More Perfect Union: Transforming the Accent Mark into a Historical Stroke
A MORE PERFECT UNIÓNTransforming the Accent Mark into a Historical Stroke
CITYZENDesign and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
Jessica KisnerTroy HalliseyChris Jones
Aubrey MurdockCharles Wirene
table of contents
4 Final Report 8 Section 1: wk. 9.9.12 54 Section 2: wk. 9.16.12 108 Section 3: wk. 9.23.12 124 Section 4: wk. 9.30.12 146 Section 5: wk. 10.7.12 174 Section 6: wk. 10.14.12 240 Section 7: wk. 10.21.12 314 Section 8: wk. 10.28.12 358 Section 9: wks. 11.4.12-11.25.12 390 Section 10: wks. 12.2.12-12.16.12
AN INTRODUCTION
The inquiry into alternative methods of property acquisition in the 21st century represents a modern iteration of unión-formation that is emblematically displayed on the back of the US one dollar bill denomination. On the reverse (or back) side of the Great Seal of the United States, in its beak, an eagle clutches a scroll bearing the motto, E Pluribus Unum (“Out of Many, One”). Immigrants scattered among the 13 British colonies established a new order of the ages (Novus Ordo Seclorum) in order to live as a free and sovereign People. This theme is not lost on the Mexican people of Puebla either; its coat of arms bears the following motto, “Unidos…in time, in effort, in justice, and in hope.” In the 21st century, immigrants (this time from the global south) are calling for the establishment of an even more perfect order of this age through the formation of La Unión. As a transnational organization, La Unión envisions itself as a vocal advocate of public education, immigration reform, and environmental justice.
Linkages to unión-formation for the acquisition of property can be detected at the urban level as well. The founding of the first cooperative in the United States by a unión of sixteen Finnish families is instructive for La Unión’s own acquisition of collective space. This heritage approach also enjoins La Unión to the history of Sunset Park to be able to capture heritage-related funding.
CITYZENJ. KisnerT. HalliseyC. JonesA. MurdockC. Wirene
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
4
METHODOLOGY
The five co-laborers of Cityzen were brought together by a shared attentiveness to heritage designation/protection and its implications for property acquisition. A parallel research process composed of interlocking circles that would constrict and more tightly define our research over time was envisioned as a guide to our investigation. Research on heritage designations, community land trusts, and non-profit organizations yielded three salient arguments. The first was the creation of the first cooperative in the United States by the Finnish Home Building Association- how would today’s immigrant groups replicate its success? The second was the federal recognition of Sunset Park as a historical district- how would residency in the Sunset Park Historical district support the acquisition of property? The third was grant funding paired to heritage designation- how would La Unión capture this funding? Field study, group conferencing, and meetings with Professor Robles-Duran and Professor Angelini enabled the distillation of a tripartite strategy for the utilization of heritage to acquire space.
APPROACHES
First prongCooperatives serve as an exemplar for what collective space can look like; their disruptive nature makes this clear. Because residents own the building collectively, the property is not for sale. The shares from the sweat equity could be sold and transfer but there is some regulations from the board of directors. The Alku and Alku Toinen Finnish Co-ops in Sunset Park offer a striking example of its effectiveness.
Second prongThe establishment of Sunset Park as a federal district lends strong support to La Unión’ s acquisition of property; the non-profit organization, the Dupont Park Conservancy, is instructive. Situated in the Dupont Park Historical District in Washington, DC, the Conservancy successfully leveraged its mission to “promote the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the district” and Dupont Park’s heritage designation to raise $100,000 for the restoration of four historic buffalo sculptures.
Third prongHeritage-related funding from city, state, and national sources is available for acquiring/maintaining space. New York State’s Environmental Protection Fund support the acquisition of property while the city’s Ventures Fund provides financial support for the maintenance of heritage sites. In addition, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsors its own National Trust Preservation Fund for the maintenance of heritage site.
5
OUTCOMES As La Unión considers its next steps, the following recommendations are worth emphasizing:
1. Expansion of the organization’s platform to include historic preservation,
2. Creation of administrative positionsv devoted to the location, acquisition, and conversion of property, and
3. Evocation of Hispanic culture in the Sunset Park Historical District through relevant cultural nomenclature (i.e. “La Plaza”/Plaza)
In the final analysis, the acquisition of property through alternative methods is hardly alternative at all; approaches that challenge the status quo inform our country’s pursuit of a “more perfect unión.” La Union’s intervention is a timely reminder of America’s roots in unión-formation and the indispensable role of the People in safeguarding it, and Sunset Park as an ark of protection for its architectural, maritime, and cultural heritage. Amid this terrestrial vessel called Earth, the title sequence of Star Trek may be uttered with urban fluency:
“Space…the final frontier. This is the voyage of [La Unión]. Its ongoing mission: to explore new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
6
1./// Wk. 9.9.12I. Reading DiagramII. Process SketchesIII. Report #1: Resources • Heritage • Community Land
Trusts • Non-Proft
OrganizationsIV. Books/Websites
/// ArticlesI. “What is it?” – Community
Land TrustsII. “Resale Formula
Comparison”
Explanation of the DiagramInitial research immediately began show linkages with heritage, nonprofits, Marx and La Unión. The connection with CLTs is still a bit vague. In particular, the strongest overlap (the darkest pink) should be continued futher as well as strengthening our CLT research.
9
Reading Diagram
Limits to Capital, Chapter 8, “Fixed Capital.” David Harvey
Marx
Harvey Diagram
CLT
Mumford-Neolithic
Nonprofit
HeritageLa Unión
NYRP
596 Acres
Group 2
General
Localized
Lim
its
to C
ap
ital –
Ch
ap
ter
8 “
Fix
ed
Cap
ital”
(C
ircu
it D
iag
ram
of
Cap
ital)
Tech
no
log
y —
“o
rgan
s o
f h
um
an
w
ill o
ve
r n
atu
re”
Skill
Lab
or
Lab
or
Cir
cu
lati
ng
C
ap
ital
Valu
eF
ixe
d C
ap
ital
Valu
e
Me
tho
d
Accu
mu
lati
on
Su
rplu
s
Pro
ce
ss o
f P
rod
ucti
on
Cir
cu
lati
on
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
“A S
ocia
l P
roce
ss”
= V
alu
eB
ala
nce
be
twe
en
Fix
ed
an
d C
ircu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
Sp
ecia
l fo
rms
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital C
ircu
lati
on
Th
e C
on
sum
pti
on
Fu
nd
Th
e B
uilt
Envir
on
me
nt
for
P
rod
ucti
on
, E
xch
an
ge
an
d C
on
sum
pti
on
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ph
ysi
cal C
hara
cte
rist
ics
(lo
cal)
Mark
et
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
(glo
bal)
Cir
c. C
ap
.
Cu
rre
nt
Co
nd
itio
nTe
ch
no
log
y
Cir
cu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
“Raw
mate
rials
au
xilia
ry m
a-
teri
als
mate
rials
on
han
d”
Lab
or
Po
we
r
Mo
tio
n —>
Meth
od
—>
Mate
rial — >
Ho
w d
oes
this
pro
cess
of
accu
mu
lati
on
occu
r?
Fix
ed
cap
ital is
a t
ech
no
log
y u
sed
in
th
e p
rocess
of
pro
du
cti
on
of
co
mm
od
itie
s to
cre
ate
a s
up
lus
valu
e (
pro
fit)
.
Th
e “
tru
e v
alu
e”
of
fixed
cap
ital is
alw
ays
in a
“st
ate
of
flu
x”
an
d d
ep
en
den
t o
n t
he s
imu
ltan
eit
y o
f th
e a
bo
ve.
Ho
w d
oes
it w
ork
?
Beg
inn
ing
of
Lif
e
Main
ten
en
ce (n
o v
alu
e)
En
d o
f L
ife
Init
ial U
se
Valu
eS
urp
lus
Valu
e
If...
Th
en
...+
+ +— >
+
= =
=
Co
nst
an
t C
ap
ital
Vari
ab
le C
ap
ital
“Pla
nt
an
d e
qu
ipm
en
t p
hysi
cal
infr
ast
ructu
res
of
pro
du
cti
on
”
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
is a
“le
ver”
New
er
Tech
no
log
y
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Du
rab
ilit
yE
fficic
ien
cy
Rate
of
Tra
nsf
er
to C
irc. C
ap
.R
ate
of
Tech
. C
han
ge
Du
rab
ilit
y
ag
ain
st
co
mp
itit
ion
Ave
rag
e
effi
cie
ncy r
ela
-ti
ve
to
mark
et
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Re
pla
ce
me
nt
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ag
e
Tra
nsf
er
of
Valu
e b
y O
utp
ut
ove
r T
ime
De
pre
cia
tio
n
Str
aig
ht-
line
dep
recia
tio
n is
fals
e.
Fo
rces
of
Mark
et
Co
mp
eti
tio
n (
ob
sole
sen
ce
no
valu
e)
$ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$$
$$
Ou
tpu
t o
ve
r ti
me
Fix
ed
cap
ital m
ust
be “
in u
se”
for
co
nvers
ion
to
cir
c. c
ap
ital an
d t
o a
ch
eiv
e s
urp
lus
valu
e. R
eq
uir
es
a c
ert
ain
am
ou
nt
of
lab
or
that
is n
ot
imm
ed
iate
ly
pro
du
cti
ve. R
eq
uir
es
“ho
ard
ing
to
en
sure
bala
nce.
Wh
at
are
th
e
co
nd
itio
ns
for
the
form
ati
on
im
bala
nce
an
d c
risi
s?
Imb
ala
nce
Bala
nce
Su
rplu
sC
risi
s
Dir
ect
Ap
pro
pri
ati
on
-
alt
ers
th
e u
se s
o it
has
mo
re v
alu
e(a
dap
ati
ve
re
use
)
Ove
r accu
mu
lati
on
Cir
c. C
ap
pro
ble
ms
(lab
or, b
reakd
ow
n, e
tc.)
Cir
c. C
ap
ital
Over
accu
mu
lati
on
of
fixed
cap
ital is
po
ssib
le
as
lon
g a
s in
vest
men
t in
fixed
cap
ital g
row
s in
p
rop
ort
ion
un
til en
d o
f lif
e.
All
loan
ed
cap
ital,
wh
eth
er
fixed
or
cir
cu
late
d is
“alw
ays
a f
orm
of
mo
ney c
ap
ital”
becau
se it
is
retu
rned
in
th
e f
orm
of
an
nu
ity.
Wh
at
are
th
e c
on
dit
ion
s fo
r th
e f
orm
ati
on
of
bala
nce a
nd
su
rplu
s?
Pla
nn
ed
Ob
sole
sen
ce
at
en
d o
f life
of
fixe
d c
ap
ital.
If p
lan
ned
ob
sole
sen
ce
beco
mes
imp
oss
ible
du
e t
o
barr
iers
th
en
im
bala
nce o
ccu
rs
Cre
dit
Syst
em
can
he
lp p
reve
nt
imb
ala
nce
Larg
e s
cale
/hig
h
du
rab
ilit
y fi
xe
d
cap
ital
“In
de
pe
nd
en
t”
natu
red
fixe
d c
ap
ital
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Co
mm
od
ity
“In
stru
me
nt
of
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n”
“wo
rkin
g
pe
rio
d”
barr
ier
ind
ire
ct
role
in
p
rod
-u
cti
on
slo
w
retu
rn o
f in
ve
st-
me
nt
exp
en
-si
ve
u
pfr
on
t co
sts
Inve
sto
rs -
lo
an
s in
th
e f
orm
of
cir
c. cap
ital
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Th
rou
gh
th
e p
rocess
, th
e fi
xed
cap
ital valu
e is
tran
sferr
ed
in
to
cir
cu
lati
ng
cap
ital.
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Bu
ilt-
in o
bso
lese
nce
Se
co
nd
han
d m
ark
et
valu
e
aff
ecti
ng
/aff
tecte
d b
y t
he
valu
e in
th
e fi
rst
mark
et
Park
s, S
idew
alk
s(n
ot
Fix
es
Cap
ital, b
ut
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n)
Lo
co
mo
tive
s, A
uto
mo
bile
s(N
ot
Exch
an
ge, b
ut
Fix
ed
)
Ind
eb
ted
ne
ss d
ue
to
cre
dit
p
urc
hase
s
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n h
as
ram
ifica-
tio
ns
for
the
“re
pro
du
cti
on
o
f la
bo
r p
ow
er”
by lo
we
rin
g
co
sts
an
d r
ais
ing
pro
fits
Po
ssib
le t
o
still
in
dir
ectl
y
aff
ect
the
cir
cu
lati
on
Ho
w d
oes
all
of
this
aff
ect
ou
r p
hysi
cal
surr
ou
nd
ing
s?
“Fix
ed
”“I
mm
ovab
le”
“Th
e b
uilt
envir
on
men
t h
as
to b
e r
eg
ard
ed
, th
en
, as
a g
eo
gra
ph
ically
ord
ere
d, c
om
ple
x, c
om
po
site
co
mm
od
ity.” T
he
co
mm
od
ificati
on
of
lan
d h
as
led
to
th
e
ab
ilit
y inve
st in
th
e “
new
” w
hile
als
o r
ein
ve
st-
ing
in
th
e r
esa
le o
f th
e “
old
” an
d m
akin
g t
he
co
mp
osi
te a
part
of
the
pro
ce
ss.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
10
Lim
its
to C
ap
ital –
Ch
ap
ter
8 “
Fix
ed
Cap
ital”
(C
ircu
it D
iag
ram
of
Cap
ital)
Tech
no
log
y —
“o
rgan
s o
f h
um
an
w
ill o
ve
r n
atu
re”
Skill
Lab
or
Lab
or
Cir
cu
lati
ng
C
ap
ital
Valu
eF
ixe
d C
ap
ital
Valu
e
Me
tho
d
Accu
mu
lati
on
Su
rplu
s
Pro
ce
ss o
f P
rod
ucti
on
Cir
cu
lati
on
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
“A S
ocia
l P
roce
ss”
= V
alu
eB
ala
nce
be
twe
en
Fix
ed
an
d C
ircu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
Sp
ecia
l fo
rms
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital C
ircu
lati
on
Th
e C
on
sum
pti
on
Fu
nd
Th
e B
uilt
Envir
on
me
nt
for
P
rod
ucti
on
, E
xch
an
ge
an
d C
on
sum
pti
on
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ph
ysi
cal C
hara
cte
rist
ics
(lo
cal)
Mark
et
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
(glo
bal)
Cir
c. C
ap
.
Cu
rre
nt
Co
nd
itio
nTe
ch
no
log
y
Cir
cu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
“Raw
mate
rials
au
xilia
ry m
a-
teri
als
mate
rials
on
han
d”
Lab
or
Po
we
r
Mo
tio
n —>
Meth
od
—>
Mate
rial — >
Ho
w d
oes
this
pro
cess
of
accu
mu
lati
on
occu
r?
Fix
ed
cap
ital is
a t
ech
no
log
y u
sed
in
th
e p
rocess
of
pro
du
cti
on
of
co
mm
od
itie
s to
cre
ate
a s
up
lus
valu
e (
pro
fit)
.
Th
e “
tru
e v
alu
e”
of
fixed
cap
ital is
alw
ays
in a
“st
ate
of
flu
x”
an
d d
ep
en
den
t o
n t
he s
imu
ltan
eit
y o
f th
e a
bo
ve.
Ho
w d
oes
it w
ork
?
Beg
inn
ing
of
Lif
e
Main
ten
en
ce (n
o v
alu
e)
En
d o
f L
ife
Init
ial U
se
Valu
eS
urp
lus
Valu
e
If...
Th
en
...+
+ +— >
+
= =
=
Co
nst
an
t C
ap
ital
Vari
ab
le C
ap
ital
“Pla
nt
an
d e
qu
ipm
en
t p
hysi
cal
infr
ast
ructu
res
of
pro
du
cti
on
”
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
is a
“le
ver”
New
er
Tech
no
log
y
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Du
rab
ilit
yE
fficic
ien
cy
Rate
of
Tra
nsf
er
to C
irc. C
ap
.R
ate
of
Tech
. C
han
ge
Du
rab
ilit
y
ag
ain
st
co
mp
itit
ion
Ave
rag
e
effi
cie
ncy r
ela
-ti
ve
to
mark
et
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Re
pla
ce
me
nt
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ag
e
Tra
nsf
er
of
Valu
e b
y O
utp
ut
ove
r T
ime
De
pre
cia
tio
n
Str
aig
ht-
line
dep
recia
tio
n is
fals
e.
Fo
rces
of
Mark
et
Co
mp
eti
tio
n (
ob
sole
sen
ce
no
valu
e)
$ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$$
$$
Ou
tpu
t o
ve
r ti
me
Fix
ed
cap
ital m
ust
be “
in u
se”
for
co
nvers
ion
to
cir
c. c
ap
ital an
d t
o a
ch
eiv
e s
urp
lus
valu
e. R
eq
uir
es
a c
ert
ain
am
ou
nt
of
lab
or
that
is n
ot
imm
ed
iate
ly
pro
du
cti
ve. R
eq
uir
es
“ho
ard
ing
to
en
sure
bala
nce.
Wh
at
are
th
e
co
nd
itio
ns
for
the
form
ati
on
im
bala
nce
an
d c
risi
s?
Imb
ala
nce
Bala
nce
Su
rplu
sC
risi
s
Dir
ect
Ap
pro
pri
ati
on
-
alt
ers
th
e u
se s
o it
has
mo
re v
alu
e(a
dap
ati
ve
re
use
)
Ove
r accu
mu
lati
on
Cir
c. C
ap
pro
ble
ms
(lab
or, b
reakd
ow
n, e
tc.)
Cir
c. C
ap
ital
Over
accu
mu
lati
on
of
fixed
cap
ital is
po
ssib
le
as
lon
g a
s in
vest
men
t in
fixed
cap
ital g
row
s in
p
rop
ort
ion
un
til en
d o
f lif
e.
All
loan
ed
cap
ital,
wh
eth
er
fixed
or
cir
cu
late
d is
“alw
ays
a f
orm
of
mo
ney c
ap
ital”
becau
se it
is
retu
rned
in
th
e f
orm
of
an
nu
ity.
Wh
at
are
th
e c
on
dit
ion
s fo
r th
e f
orm
ati
on
of
bala
nce a
nd
su
rplu
s?
Pla
nn
ed
Ob
sole
sen
ce
at
en
d o
f life
of
fixe
d c
ap
ital.
If p
lan
ned
ob
sole
sen
ce
beco
mes
imp
oss
ible
du
e t
o
barr
iers
th
en
im
bala
nce o
ccu
rs
Cre
dit
Syst
em
can
he
lp p
reve
nt
imb
ala
nce
Larg
e s
cale
/hig
h
du
rab
ilit
y fi
xe
d
cap
ital
“In
de
pe
nd
en
t”
natu
red
fixe
d c
ap
ital
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Co
mm
od
ity
“In
stru
me
nt
of
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n”
“wo
rkin
g
pe
rio
d”
barr
ier
ind
ire
ct
role
in
p
rod
-u
cti
on
slo
w
retu
rn o
f in
ve
st-
me
nt
exp
en
-si
ve
u
pfr
on
t co
sts
Inve
sto
rs -
lo
an
s in
th
e f
orm
of
cir
c. cap
ital
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Th
rou
gh
th
e p
rocess
, th
e fi
xed
cap
ital valu
e is
tran
sferr
ed
in
to
cir
cu
lati
ng
cap
ital.
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Bu
ilt-
in o
bso
lese
nce
Se
co
nd
han
d m
ark
et
valu
e
aff
ecti
ng
/aff
tecte
d b
y t
he
valu
e in
th
e fi
rst
mark
et
Park
s, S
idew
alk
s(n
ot
Fix
es
Cap
ital, b
ut
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n)
Lo
co
mo
tive
s, A
uto
mo
bile
s(N
ot
Exch
an
ge, b
ut
Fix
ed
)
Ind
eb
ted
ne
ss d
ue
to
cre
dit
p
urc
hase
s
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n h
as
ram
ifica-
tio
ns
for
the
“re
pro
du
cti
on
o
f la
bo
r p
ow
er”
by lo
we
rin
g
co
sts
an
d r
ais
ing
pro
fits
Po
ssib
le t
o
still
in
dir
ectl
y
aff
ect
the
cir
cu
lati
on
Ho
w d
oes
all
of
this
aff
ect
ou
r p
hysi
cal
surr
ou
nd
ing
s?
“Fix
ed
”“I
mm
ovab
le”
“Th
e b
uilt
envir
on
men
t h
as
to b
e r
eg
ard
ed
, th
en
, as
a g
eo
gra
ph
ically
ord
ere
d, c
om
ple
x, c
om
po
site
co
mm
od
ity.” T
he
co
mm
od
ificati
on
of
lan
d h
as
led
to
th
e
ab
ilit
y inve
st in
th
e “
new
” w
hile
als
o r
ein
ve
st-
ing
in
th
e r
esa
le o
f th
e “
old
” an
d m
akin
g t
he
co
mp
osi
te a
part
of
the
pro
ce
ss.
11
Lim
its
to C
ap
ital –
Ch
ap
ter
8 “
Fix
ed
Cap
ital”
(C
ircu
it D
iag
ram
of
Cap
ital)
Tech
no
log
y —
“o
rgan
s o
f h
um
an
w
ill o
ve
r n
atu
re”
Skill
Lab
or
Lab
or
Cir
cu
lati
ng
C
ap
ital
Valu
eF
ixe
d C
ap
ital
Valu
e
Me
tho
d
Accu
mu
lati
on
Su
rplu
s
Pro
ce
ss o
f P
rod
ucti
on
Cir
cu
lati
on
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
“A S
ocia
l P
roce
ss”
= V
alu
eB
ala
nce
be
twe
en
Fix
ed
an
d C
ircu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
Sp
ecia
l fo
rms
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital C
ircu
lati
on
Th
e C
on
sum
pti
on
Fu
nd
Th
e B
uilt
Envir
on
me
nt
for
P
rod
ucti
on
, E
xch
an
ge
an
d C
on
sum
pti
on
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ph
ysi
cal C
hara
cte
rist
ics
(lo
cal)
Mark
et
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
(glo
bal)
Cir
c. C
ap
.
Cu
rre
nt
Co
nd
itio
nTe
ch
no
log
y
Cir
cu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
“Raw
mate
rials
au
xilia
ry m
a-
teri
als
mate
rials
on
han
d”
Lab
or
Po
we
r
Mo
tio
n —>
Meth
od
—>
Mate
rial — >
Ho
w d
oes
this
pro
cess
of
accu
mu
lati
on
occu
r?
Fix
ed
cap
ital is
a t
ech
no
log
y u
sed
in
th
e p
rocess
of
pro
du
cti
on
of
co
mm
od
itie
s to
cre
ate
a s
up
lus
valu
e (
pro
fit)
.
Th
e “
tru
e v
alu
e”
of
fixed
cap
ital is
alw
ays
in a
“st
ate
of
flu
x”
an
d d
ep
en
den
t o
n t
he s
imu
ltan
eit
y o
f th
e a
bo
ve.
Ho
w d
oes
it w
ork
?
Beg
inn
ing
of
Lif
e
Main
ten
en
ce (n
o v
alu
e)
En
d o
f L
ife
Init
ial U
se
Valu
eS
urp
lus
Valu
e
If...
Th
en
...+
+ +— >
+
= =
=
Co
nst
an
t C
ap
ital
Vari
ab
le C
ap
ital
“Pla
nt
an
d e
qu
ipm
en
t p
hysi
cal
infr
ast
ructu
res
of
pro
du
cti
on
”
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
is a
“le
ver”
New
er
Tech
no
log
y
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Du
rab
ilit
yE
fficic
ien
cy
Rate
of
Tra
nsf
er
to C
irc. C
ap
.R
ate
of
Tech
. C
han
ge
Du
rab
ilit
y
ag
ain
st
co
mp
itit
ion
Ave
rag
e
effi
cie
ncy r
ela
-ti
ve
to
mark
et
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Re
pla
ce
me
nt
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ag
e
Tra
nsf
er
of
Valu
e b
y O
utp
ut
ove
r T
ime
De
pre
cia
tio
n
Str
aig
ht-
line
dep
recia
tio
n is
fals
e.
Fo
rces
of
Mark
et
Co
mp
eti
tio
n (
ob
sole
sen
ce
no
valu
e)
$ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$$
$$
Ou
tpu
t o
ve
r ti
me
Fix
ed
cap
ital m
ust
be “
in u
se”
for
co
nvers
ion
to
cir
c. c
ap
ital an
d t
o a
ch
eiv
e s
urp
lus
valu
e. R
eq
uir
es
a c
ert
ain
am
ou
nt
of
lab
or
that
is n
ot
imm
ed
iate
ly
pro
du
cti
ve. R
eq
uir
es
“ho
ard
ing
to
en
sure
bala
nce.
Wh
at
are
th
e
co
nd
itio
ns
for
the
form
ati
on
im
bala
nce
an
d c
risi
s?
Imb
ala
nce
Bala
nce
Su
rplu
sC
risi
s
Dir
ect
Ap
pro
pri
ati
on
-
alt
ers
th
e u
se s
o it
has
mo
re v
alu
e(a
dap
ati
ve
re
use
)
Ove
r accu
mu
lati
on
Cir
c. C
ap
pro
ble
ms
(lab
or, b
reakd
ow
n, e
tc.)
Cir
c. C
ap
ital
Over
accu
mu
lati
on
of
fixed
cap
ital is
po
ssib
le
as
lon
g a
s in
vest
men
t in
fixed
cap
ital g
row
s in
p
rop
ort
ion
un
til en
d o
f lif
e.
All
loan
ed
cap
ital,
wh
eth
er
fixed
or
cir
cu
late
d is
“alw
ays
a f
orm
of
mo
ney c
ap
ital”
becau
se it
is
retu
rned
in
th
e f
orm
of
an
nu
ity.
Wh
at
are
th
e c
on
dit
ion
s fo
r th
e f
orm
ati
on
of
bala
nce a
nd
su
rplu
s?
Pla
nn
ed
Ob
sole
sen
ce
at
en
d o
f life
of
fixe
d c
ap
ital.
If p
lan
ned
ob
sole
sen
ce
beco
mes
imp
oss
ible
du
e t
o
barr
iers
th
en
im
bala
nce o
ccu
rs
Cre
dit
Syst
em
can
he
lp p
reve
nt
imb
ala
nce
Larg
e s
cale
/hig
h
du
rab
ilit
y fi
xe
d
cap
ital
“In
de
pe
nd
en
t”
natu
red
fixe
d c
ap
ital
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Co
mm
od
ity
“In
stru
me
nt
of
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n”
“wo
rkin
g
pe
rio
d”
barr
ier
ind
ire
ct
role
in
p
rod
-u
cti
on
slo
w
retu
rn o
f in
ve
st-
me
nt
exp
en
-si
ve
u
pfr
on
t co
sts
Inve
sto
rs -
lo
an
s in
th
e f
orm
of
cir
c. cap
ital
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Th
rou
gh
th
e p
rocess
, th
e fi
xed
cap
ital valu
e is
tran
sferr
ed
in
to
cir
cu
lati
ng
cap
ital.
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Bu
ilt-
in o
bso
lese
nce
Se
co
nd
han
d m
ark
et
valu
e
aff
ecti
ng
/aff
tecte
d b
y t
he
valu
e in
th
e fi
rst
mark
et
Park
s, S
idew
alk
s(n
ot
Fix
es
Cap
ital, b
ut
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n)
Lo
co
mo
tive
s, A
uto
mo
bile
s(N
ot
Exch
an
ge, b
ut
Fix
ed
)
Ind
eb
ted
ne
ss d
ue
to
cre
dit
p
urc
hase
s
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n h
as
ram
ifica-
tio
ns
for
the
“re
pro
du
cti
on
o
f la
bo
r p
ow
er”
by lo
we
rin
g
co
sts
an
d r
ais
ing
pro
fits
Po
ssib
le t
o
still
in
dir
ectl
y
aff
ect
the
cir
cu
lati
on
Ho
w d
oes
all
of
this
aff
ect
ou
r p
hysi
cal
surr
ou
nd
ing
s?
“Fix
ed
”“I
mm
ovab
le”
“Th
e b
uilt
envir
on
men
t h
as
to b
e r
eg
ard
ed
, th
en
, as
a g
eo
gra
ph
ically
ord
ere
d, c
om
ple
x, c
om
po
site
co
mm
od
ity.” T
he
co
mm
od
ificati
on
of
lan
d h
as
led
to
th
e
ab
ilit
y inve
st in
th
e “
new
” w
hile
als
o r
ein
ve
st-
ing
in
th
e r
esa
le o
f th
e “
old
” an
d m
akin
g t
he
co
mp
osi
te a
part
of
the
pro
ce
ss.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
12
Lim
its
to C
ap
ital –
Ch
ap
ter
8 “
Fix
ed
Cap
ital”
(C
ircu
it D
iag
ram
of
Cap
ital)
Tech
no
log
y —
“o
rgan
s o
f h
um
an
w
ill o
ve
r n
atu
re”
Skill
Lab
or
Lab
or
Cir
cu
lati
ng
C
ap
ital
Valu
eF
ixe
d C
ap
ital
Valu
e
Me
tho
d
Accu
mu
lati
on
Su
rplu
s
Pro
ce
ss o
f P
rod
ucti
on
Cir
cu
lati
on
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
“A S
ocia
l P
roce
ss”
= V
alu
eB
ala
nce
be
twe
en
Fix
ed
an
d C
ircu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
Sp
ecia
l fo
rms
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital C
ircu
lati
on
Th
e C
on
sum
pti
on
Fu
nd
Th
e B
uilt
Envir
on
me
nt
for
P
rod
ucti
on
, E
xch
an
ge
an
d C
on
sum
pti
on
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ph
ysi
cal C
hara
cte
rist
ics
(lo
cal)
Mark
et
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
(glo
bal)
Cir
c. C
ap
.
Cu
rre
nt
Co
nd
itio
nTe
ch
no
log
y
Cir
cu
lati
ng
Cap
ital
“Raw
mate
rials
au
xilia
ry m
a-
teri
als
mate
rials
on
han
d”
Lab
or
Po
we
r
Mo
tio
n —>
Meth
od
—>
Mate
rial — >
Ho
w d
oes
this
pro
cess
of
accu
mu
lati
on
occu
r?
Fix
ed
cap
ital is
a t
ech
no
log
y u
sed
in
th
e p
rocess
of
pro
du
cti
on
of
co
mm
od
itie
s to
cre
ate
a s
up
lus
valu
e (
pro
fit)
.
Th
e “
tru
e v
alu
e”
of
fixed
cap
ital is
alw
ays
in a
“st
ate
of
flu
x”
an
d d
ep
en
den
t o
n t
he s
imu
ltan
eit
y o
f th
e a
bo
ve.
Ho
w d
oes
it w
ork
?
Beg
inn
ing
of
Lif
e
Main
ten
en
ce (n
o v
alu
e)
En
d o
f L
ife
Init
ial U
se
Valu
eS
urp
lus
Valu
e
If...
Th
en
...+
+ +— >
+
= =
=
Co
nst
an
t C
ap
ital
Vari
ab
le C
ap
ital
“Pla
nt
an
d e
qu
ipm
en
t p
hysi
cal
infr
ast
ructu
res
of
pro
du
cti
on
”
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
is a
“le
ver”
New
er
Tech
no
log
y
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Du
rab
ilit
yE
fficic
ien
cy
Rate
of
Tra
nsf
er
to C
irc. C
ap
.R
ate
of
Tech
. C
han
ge
Du
rab
ilit
y
ag
ain
st
co
mp
itit
ion
Ave
rag
e
effi
cie
ncy r
ela
-ti
ve
to
mark
et
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Re
pla
ce
me
nt
of
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Ag
e
Tra
nsf
er
of
Valu
e b
y O
utp
ut
ove
r T
ime
De
pre
cia
tio
n
Str
aig
ht-
line
dep
recia
tio
n is
fals
e.
Fo
rces
of
Mark
et
Co
mp
eti
tio
n (
ob
sole
sen
ce
no
valu
e)
$ $
$ $
$ $
$$
$$
$$
Ou
tpu
t o
ve
r ti
me
Fix
ed
cap
ital m
ust
be “
in u
se”
for
co
nvers
ion
to
cir
c. c
ap
ital an
d t
o a
ch
eiv
e s
urp
lus
valu
e. R
eq
uir
es
a c
ert
ain
am
ou
nt
of
lab
or
that
is n
ot
imm
ed
iate
ly
pro
du
cti
ve. R
eq
uir
es
“ho
ard
ing
to
en
sure
bala
nce.
Wh
at
are
th
e
co
nd
itio
ns
for
the
form
ati
on
im
bala
nce
an
d c
risi
s?
Imb
ala
nce
Bala
nce
Su
rplu
sC
risi
s
Dir
ect
Ap
pro
pri
ati
on
-
alt
ers
th
e u
se s
o it
has
mo
re v
alu
e(a
dap
ati
ve
re
use
)
Ove
r accu
mu
lati
on
Cir
c. C
ap
pro
ble
ms
(lab
or, b
reakd
ow
n, e
tc.)
Cir
c. C
ap
ital
Over
accu
mu
lati
on
of
fixed
cap
ital is
po
ssib
le
as
lon
g a
s in
vest
men
t in
fixed
cap
ital g
row
s in
p
rop
ort
ion
un
til en
d o
f lif
e.
All
loan
ed
cap
ital,
wh
eth
er
fixed
or
cir
cu
late
d is
“alw
ays
a f
orm
of
mo
ney c
ap
ital”
becau
se it
is
retu
rned
in
th
e f
orm
of
an
nu
ity.
Wh
at
are
th
e c
on
dit
ion
s fo
r th
e f
orm
ati
on
of
bala
nce a
nd
su
rplu
s?
Pla
nn
ed
Ob
sole
sen
ce
at
en
d o
f life
of
fixe
d c
ap
ital.
If p
lan
ned
ob
sole
sen
ce
beco
mes
imp
oss
ible
du
e t
o
barr
iers
th
en
im
bala
nce o
ccu
rs
Cre
dit
Syst
em
can
he
lp p
reve
nt
imb
ala
nce
Larg
e s
cale
/hig
h
du
rab
ilit
y fi
xe
d
cap
ital
“In
de
pe
nd
en
t”
natu
red
fixe
d c
ap
ital
Fix
ed
Cap
ital
Co
mm
od
ity
“In
stru
me
nt
of
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n”
“wo
rkin
g
pe
rio
d”
barr
ier
ind
ire
ct
role
in
p
rod
-u
cti
on
slo
w
retu
rn o
f in
ve
st-
me
nt
exp
en
-si
ve
u
pfr
on
t co
sts
Inve
sto
rs -
lo
an
s in
th
e f
orm
of
cir
c. cap
ital
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Th
rou
gh
th
e p
rocess
, th
e fi
xed
cap
ital valu
e is
tran
sferr
ed
in
to
cir
cu
lati
ng
cap
ital.
ch
an
ge
in
use
to
no
n-p
rod
ucti
on
co
mm
od
ity
(take
n o
ut
of
cir
cu
lati
on
)
Bu
ilt-
in o
bso
lese
nce
Se
co
nd
han
d m
ark
et
valu
e
aff
ecti
ng
/aff
tecte
d b
y t
he
valu
e in
th
e fi
rst
mark
et
Park
s, S
idew
alk
s(n
ot
Fix
es
Cap
ital, b
ut
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n)
Lo
co
mo
tive
s, A
uto
mo
bile
s(N
ot
Exch
an
ge, b
ut
Fix
ed
)
Ind
eb
ted
ne
ss d
ue
to
cre
dit
p
urc
hase
s
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n h
as
ram
ifica-
tio
ns
for
the
“re
pro
du
cti
on
o
f la
bo
r p
ow
er”
by lo
we
rin
g
co
sts
an
d r
ais
ing
pro
fits
Po
ssib
le t
o
still
in
dir
ectl
y
aff
ect
the
cir
cu
lati
on
Ho
w d
oes
all
of
this
aff
ect
ou
r p
hysi
cal
surr
ou
nd
ing
s?
“Fix
ed
”“I
mm
ovab
le”
“Th
e b
uilt
envir
on
men
t h
as
to b
e r
eg
ard
ed
, th
en
, as
a g
eo
gra
ph
ically
ord
ere
d, c
om
ple
x, c
om
po
site
co
mm
od
ity.” T
he
co
mm
od
ificati
on
of
lan
d h
as
led
to
th
e
ab
ilit
y inve
st in
th
e “
new
” w
hile
als
o r
ein
ve
st-
ing
in
th
e r
esa
le o
f th
e “
old
” an
d m
akin
g t
he
co
mp
osi
te a
part
of
the
pro
ce
ss.
13
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
14
15
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
16
17
Urban Forensics #1: Redefining Common Property Report #1: Resources In the first approximation of our parallel investigations we decided to focus on where we can begin to find the information for each of our topics. HERITAGE: 1. UNESCO World Heritage List- http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (Accessed on 9/7/2012)- This site lists 962 properties as having “outstanding universal value.” The site provides the criteria for selection. This criteria is found in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Among the guidelines 10 points, the criteria most relevant to our project:
#2: “To exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design”
2. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission- http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml (Accessed on 9/7/2012)- This site defines a landmark as “a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.” 3. United States National Landmark Program- http://www.nps.gov/nhl/ (Accessed on 9/7/2012- This site identifies a landmark as a “site of an event that had a significant impact on American history overall.” COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (CLT): 1. Sites- http://www.burlingtonassociates.com/#!/home: This site is a national consulting cooperative in Vermont. They have an archive on different books, movies, articles in CLT.
a. Introduction to Community Land Trusts: Equitable and Sustainable Community Development [a QuickTime movie] – Michael Brown
b. Origins and Evolutions of the Community Land Trust in the United States – John Davis c. The Diverse World of CLTs, Chapter 1 of Starting a CLT: Organizational and Operational
Choices – John Davis d. Rationale, Chapter 2 of Starting a CLT: Organizational and Operational Choices – John
Davis e. Introducing the CLT, Chapter 1 of The City/CLT Partnership – John Davis and Rick
Jacobus f. Community Land Trusts: The Developer That Doesn’t Go Away – John Davis g. Key Characteristics of Community Land Trusts, Rationale and Variations – John Davis h. Democracy Collaborative Interview with John Emmeus Davis (April 2011) i. Frequently Asked Questions About CLTs
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
18
j. Cheaper Together: How Neighbors Invest in Community – Miriam Axel-Lute, John Emmeus Davis and Harold Simon, Yes (Summer 2012)
k. Affordable Homeownership – Ryan Sherriff, Urban Land (September 2009) l. Community Land Trusts: An Alternative Approach to Affordable Homeownership and
Neighborhood Revitalization m. Market Wise Community, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Volume 3, Issue 1, July
2012
http://www.cltnetwork.org: The National Community Land Trust Network. This site has information about the history of the CLT in the United States. It provides help to different existing CLT and has information on how to make a CLT. It also has a directory of the different organizations that work with CLT in the city of New York:
Organizations in NY: Cooper Square Community Land Trust 59-61 East 4th Street, 3rd FloorNew York, NY 10003212-477-5340http://coopersquare.org HOPE Community Inc. 174 East 104th StreetNew York, NY 10029212-860-8821www.hopeci.org RAIN Community Land Trust 336 East 4th Street, 2BNew York, NY 10009
2. Books- The Community Land Trust Handbook, authored by the Institute for Community Economics and published by Rodale Press in 1982. The City-CLT Partnership: Municipal Support for Community Land Trusts, authored by John Emmeus Davis and Rick Jacobus and published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2008. 3. Law- Section 212, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 4. Earlier examples- Garden Movement (U.K) Single tax communities (USA). First Prototype in the USA 1969 Southern civil right movements Grandam Villages (India) Moshav (Jewish National Fund) NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) legal relationships with property seems similar to that of for profit companies, notable differences are modes of funding / access and their tax-exempt eligibility. Article on incorporating in NYS http://www.dos.ny.gov/forms/corporations/1511-f-l_instructions.pdf The terms of tax-exemption eligibility are dependent upon each state’s policies.
19
New York City’s NPO Property Tax Exemption o http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_non_profit.shtml
There are organizations out there to help with different aspects of NPO property acquisition and management, alternative to classic purchase and rental. There are also many grants and public funds to help NPOs.
NYS Homes & Community Renewal Office - list of programs accessible to organizations in NYS, great list of 14 programs & descriptions
o http://www.nyshcr.org/AboutUs/Offices/CommunityRenewal/ NYS Dept of Enviro Conservation - cost share grants
o http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5285.html
Non-Profit Centers Network http://www.nonprofitcenters.org/ News, tools and resources, key issues.
Article on issues NPOs have with development projects o http://www.nonprofitcenters.org/uploads/tx_ncndb/8ece270128.pdf
Talking with community groups will be a great source of actual NPO experiences and relationships with property.
Talking with 596acres & NYRP as well as others, specifically with spaces such as o Sustainable South Bronx, http://www.ssbx.org/ o Build it Green NYC!, http://www.builditgreen.org/ o Solar 1, http://www.solar1.org/
LOCALIZED RESEARCH: La Union, 596 Acres, and New York Restoration Project all have an online presence, in varying degrees. The websites are an interesting indicator of the scope and target audience of each organization. While the websites and supporting materials provide surface knowledge of the organizations, it is understood that field work will be the only way to gather in-depth information. La Union:
“La Unión is an organization of people of the global south working to advance the social, economic, and cultural rights of the communities where we now live and the communities we left behind. The 600 members of La Unión are predominantly from the Mixteca region of Mexico and immigrants from across Latin America. La Unión is based in the neighborhood of Sunset Park, Brooklyn; one of New York City’s largest Mexican immigrant neighborhoods.” http://la-union.org/
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
20
Staff: o Leticia Alanis, Executive Director o Isabel Herrera, Outreach Coordinator o Ollín Rodriguez, Community Organizer o Cinthya Santos, Community Organizer
La Union is a member led organization “How we work”: http://la-union.org/our-work/how-we-work/
This is a great page to better understand the organization’s mission and initiative, including: o Educational Programs o Membership development o Civic Participation o Youth Action Program o Community Garden o Cultural Programs o Research Projects o Community Organizing o Youth Summer Camps
La Union’s link to a report on the reality of Mexican-American Students in New York City’s public schools: http://la-union.org/research/
Funders: o North Star Fund o The New York Immigration Coalition o New York Foundation o Union Square Awards
Contact Information: o Office Location: 6025 6th Ave. Room 221, Brooklyn, NY 11220 o Phone: 718-630-8903
596 Acres:
596 Acres identifies government-owned vacant lots, creates signage to inform communities, provides information and education to communities interested in claiming lots for community projects.
596 Acres Website: http://596acres.org/ Some of the information available: o Map of publicly owned lots and instructional slideshows o Archive of print materials o List of and links to “success stories” o Events: http://596acres.org/en/events/ o Resources
Organization “Team”: http://596acres.org/en/about/596-acres-team/ o Our point of contact: Paula Z. Segal (Studio collaborator)
Funding: o One team member “seeks funding” for the group (economy of the organization) o Funding Page: http://596acres.org/en/about/funders/ o Used ioby (In Our Back Yard) which is similar to Kickstarter for environmental projects o Fundraising Events
21
Other information: o 596 Acres Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/596Acres o New York Times, article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/nyregion/a-plan-to-
turn-brooklyns-unused-acres-green.html?pagewanted=all This article provides a narrative regarding:
Organization Founders Involved individuals Select sites
This Article is interesting and informative on a surface level. Good for a short introduction to each of the above.
New York Restoration Project: Website: http://www.nyrp.org/About/Contact_Us Organization Contact Information:
New York Restoration Project 254 West 31st Street 10th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-333-2552 Fax: 212-333-3886 E-mail: [email protected]
Board of Trustees: http://www.nyrp.org/About/Board_and_Staff This organization has a huge staff: http://www.nyrp.org/About/Board_and_Staff/Staff This is a nonprofit organization
There are multiple sources of funding for this organization, including: o One time donation o Membership, “Bette’s Garden Club,” “The Buds”- paid memberships o “Monthly Giving Green Team” o Donations to fund specific projects:
Parks and Community Gardens Environmental Education Million Trees NYC
o Corporate Partnership o Gala Events
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
22
Books/Websites:
1. The Community Land Trust Handbook, authored by the Institute for Community Economics and published by Rodale Press in 1982.
2. The City-CLT Partnership: Municipal Support for Community Land Trusts, authored by John Emmeus Davis and Rick Jacobus and published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2008.
3. http://www.burlingtonassociates.com/#!/home: This site has a variety of books, movies, that talk about CLT:
a. Introduction to Community Land Trusts: Equitable and Sustainable Community Development [a QuickTime movie] – Michael Brownb. Origins and Evolutions of the Community Land Trust in the United States – John Davisc. The Diverse World of CLTs, Chapter 1 of Starting a CLT: Organizational and Operational Choices – John Davisd. Rationale, Chapter 2 of Starting a CLT: Organizational and Operational Choices – John Davise. Introducing the CLT, Chapter 1 of The City/CLT Partnership – John Davis and Rick Jacobus DEF: a community land trust is a nonprofit organization formed to hold titles of land to preserve its long-term availability for affordable housing and other community uses. f. Community Land Trusts: The Developer That Doesn’t Go Away – John Davisg. Key Characteristics of Community Land Trusts, Rationale and Variations – John Davish. Democracy Collaborative Interview with John Emmeus Davis (April 2011)i. Frequently Asked Questions About CLTsj. Cheaper Together: How Neighbors Invest in Community – Miriam Axel-Lute, John Emmeus Davis and Harold Simon, Yes (Summer 2012)k. Affordable Homeownership – Ryan Sherriff, Urban Land (September 2009)l. Community Land Trusts: An Alternative Approach to Affordable Homeownership and Neighborhood Revitalization – m. Market Wise Community, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Volume 3, Issue 1, July 2012
3.) http://www.cltnetwork.org
23
1. What is a community land trust?A community land trust (CLT) is a private non-profit community organization that safeguards land in order to provide affordable housing opportunities. CLTs buy and hold land permanently, preventing market factors from causing prices to rise. CLTs build and sell affordably-priced homes to families with limited incomes— the CLT keeps the price of homes affordable by separating the price of the house from the cost of the land. When a family decides to sell a CLT home, the home is resold at an affordable price to another homebuyer with a limited income. The goal of CLTs is to balance the needs of homeowners to build equity and gain stability in their lives with the needs of the community to preserve affordable home ownership opportunities for future generations.
CLTs across the country share certain basic characteristics. Here are five:
● Dual Ownership: Ownership of land is separated from ownership of homes located on the land. A long-term land lease defines the arrangement between a CLT and leaseholders who own their homes and other improvements. The land trust offers leaseholders security, privacy, stability, and a legacy for their heirs.
● Permanent Affordability of Housing: CLTs protect affordability for future residents by ensuring the affordable resale of homes and other improvements on their land. Shared-appreciation provisions in the ground lease agreement offer homeowners a fair return on their investment while protecting the community's investment of public and private resources (funds as well as skills) that go into creating a CLT and making housing affordable.
● Commitment to Local Control: CLTs provide greater local control over land and housing ownership, giving community members a greater say in land-use decision-making. Community land trusts are community based and democratically controlled, so the community residents -- the members -- decide how the land trust is run.
● Flexibility: The CLT model is flexible. In addition to affordable housing, community land trusts may make land available for community gardens, playgrounds, parks, local businesses and other community services.
● An Active Land Acquisition and Development Program: CLTs are committed to an ongoing acquisition and development program that seeks to meet diverse community needs, continuing to grow the stock of homes and land whose affordability is permanently protected. 4.) Article: http://plannersweb.com/1996/07/community-land-trusts-an-introduction/5.) Harper, David (2007) article: https://docs.google.com/a/newschool.edu/file/d/0B1wQ6T5I3eBVYTIwNTg5Y2YtZGM0NS00ZjRlLWIwNTktMTU0MzBhMmE0NzAw/edit?hl=en
Law:
1. section 212, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
12 Sec. 212. Community Housing Production Set-Aside. 2. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136895/k.7746/
Community_Land_Trusts.htm SEE PDF ON FILEDEF: A community land trust (CLT) is a private, nonprofit corporation created to provide secure, affordable access to land and housing for community members. In particular, CLTs attempt to meet the needs of those least served by the prevailing market. Community land trusts help communities to:
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
24
● Gain control over local land use and reduce absentee ownership ● Provide affordable housing for lower income community residents ● Promote resident ownership and control of housing ● Keep housing affordable for future residents ● Capture the value of public investment for long-term community benefit ● Build a strong base for community action
Community land trusts are distinguished from other nonprofit housing and organizations in two ways: (1) how they separate the ownership of land and housing, and (2) how they are structured and controlled. These two distinctive features contribute to the effectiveness of the CLT model as a tool for dealing with the problems of gentrification.
Federal housing programs provide for CLTsThe 1992 Housing and Community Development Act makes specific provision for CLT funding under the federal HOME program (which provides block grants to municipalities and states to be used for affordable housing programs in their jurisdictions). The Act defines CLTs as “community housing development organizations” (CHDOs) under the HOME program, thus qualifying them for additional project funding, operating support, and technical assistance.
Ownership of Land and Housing The CLT's distinctive approach to ownership involves permanent CLT ownership of land. It is usually leased to low- and moderate-income households. The land may also be used for affordable rental housing and other purposes.
● Acquiring Land for the Community . CLTs can acquire vacant land and develop housing or other structures on it. At other times, CLTs acquire land and buildings together. In both cases, CLTs treat land and buildings differently. The land is held permanently by the land trust so that it will benefit the community. Buildings (known as improvements) can be owned by those who use them.
● Homeownership on Community Land . Buildings on CLT land may serve different needs, but, when possible, CLTs help people to own their own homes on this land. When a CLT sells homes, it leases the underlying land to the homeowners through a long-term (usually 99-year), renewable lease, which gives the residents and their descendants the right to use the land for as long as they wish to live there.
● Still Affordable for the Next Homeowners . When CLT homeowners decide to move out of their homes, they can sell them. However, the land lease requires that the home be sold either back to the CLT or to another low-income household for an affordable price.
Organizational Structure CLTs create a pool of permanently affordable owner-occupied housing in gentrifying communities where the cost of housing is otherwise being driven beyond the means of local residents.The organizational structure of the CLT involves an open membership. It includes both residents who occupy CLT housing and other local residents who have an interest in the CLT's activities (as neighbors, as potential future occupants of CLT homes, or as citizens concerned with the availability of affordable housing in the community).
● Membership organization . CLTs are usually organized as "membership corporations," with boards of directors elected by the members. Usually there are two groups of voting members. One group is made up of all the people who live in CLT homes (or use CLT land in other ways). The other group is made up of other people in the community (including neighbors of CLT residents).
● Board structure . Usually the CLT board of directors includes those representing resident members, non-CLT residents, and broader community interests. In this way, control of the organization is balanced to protect both the residents and the community as a whole.
The CLT is a balanced vehicle for local residents who want to gain greater control over local land use and development.
Last Updated: June 2001
25
Sec. 213. Housing Education and Organizational Support for Community Land Trusts.
(a) COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS.— Section 233 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12773) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``, including community land trusts,´´ after ``organizations´´;(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(6) COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS.— Organizational support, technical assistance, education, training, and continuing support under this subsection may be made available to community land trusts (as such term is defined in subsection (f)) and to community groups for the establishment of community land trusts.´´; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY LAND TRUST.— For purposes of this section,
the term ``community land trust´´ means a community housing development organization (except that the requirements under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 104(6) shall not apply for purposes of this subsection)—
``(1) that is not sponsored by a for-profit organization;``(2) that is established to carry out the activities under paragraph (3);``(3) that— ``(A) acquires parcels of land, held in perpetuity, primarily for conveyance under
long-term ground leases;``(B) transfers ownership of any structural improvements located on such leased
parcels to the lessees; and``(C) retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement
at a price determined by formula that is designed to ensure that the improvement remains affordable to low- and moderate-income families in perpetuity;
``(4) whose corporate membership that is open to any adult resident of a particular geographic area specified in the bylaws of the organization; and
``(5) whose board of directors— ``(A) includes a majority of members who are elected by the corporate
membership; and``(B) is composed of equal numbers of (i) lessees pursuant to paragraph (3)(B),
(ii) corporate members who are not lessees, and (iii) any other category of persons described in the bylaws of the organization.´´.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
26
Characters:
1. Ralph Borsodi (initiated with the project idea)2. Robert Swann (iniciated with the project idea)3. John Davis (author of many CLT books)
Earlier examples: Garden Movement (U.K)Single tax communities (USA). First Prototype in the USA 1969 Southern civil right movements Grandam Villages (India)Moshav (Jewish National Fund) Organizations in NY:Cooper Square Community Land Trust59-61 East 4th Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10003 212-477-5340 http://coopersquare.org HOPE Community Inc.174 East 104th Street New York, NY 10029 212-860-8821 www.hopeci.org RAIN Community Land Trust336 East 4th Street, 2B New York, NY 10009
27
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
28
What is it? A community land trust (CLT) is a private, nonprofit corporation created to provide secure, affordable access to land and housing for community members. In particular, CLTs attempt to meet the needs of those least served by the prevailing market. Community land trusts help communities to:
Gain control over local land use and reduce absentee ownership Provide affordable housing for lower income community residents Promote resident ownership and control of housing Keep housing affordable for future residents Capture the value of public investment for long-term community benefit Build a strong base for community action
Community land trusts are distinguished from other nonprofit housing and organizations in two ways: (1) how they separate the ownership of land and housing, and (2) how they are structured and controlled. These two distinctive features contribute to the effectiveness of the CLT model as a tool for dealing with the problems of gentrification.
Ownership of Land and Housing
The CLT's distinctive approach to ownership involves permanent CLT ownership of land. It is usually leased to low- and moderate-income households. The land may also be used for affordable rental housing and other purposes.
Acquiring Land for the Community . CLTs can acquire vacant land and develop housing or other structures on it. At other times, CLTs acquire land and buildings together. In both cases, CLTs treat land and buildings differently. The land is held permanently by the land trust so that it will benefit the community. Buildings (known as improvements) can be owned by those who use them.
Homeownership on Community Land . Buildings on CLT land may serve different needs, but, when possible, CLTs help people to own their own homes on this land. When a CLT sells homes, it leases the underlying land to the homeowners through a long-term (usually 99-year), renewable lease, which gives the residents and their descendants the right to use the land for as long as they wish to live there.
Still Affordable for the Next Homeowners . When CLT homeowners decide to move out of their homes, they can sell them. However, the land lease requires that the home be sold either back to the CLT or to another low-income household for an affordable price.
Organizational Structure
CLTs create a pool of permanently affordable owner-occupied housing in gentrifying communities where the cost of housing is otherwise being driven beyond the means of local residents. The organizational structure of the CLT involves an open membership. It includes both residents who occupy CLT housing and other local residents who have an interest in the CLT's activities (as neighbors, as potential future occupants of CLT homes, or as citizens concerned with the availability of affordable housing in the community).
Membership organization . CLTs are usually organized as "membership corporations," with boards of directors elected by the members. Usually there are two groups of voting members. One group is made up of all the people who live in CLT homes (or use CLT land in other ways). The other group is made up of other people in the community (including neighbors of CLT residents).
Board structure . Usually the CLT board of directors includes those representing resident members, non-CLT residents, and broader community interests. In this way, control of the organization is balanced to protect both the residents and the community as a whole.
29
The CLT is a balanced vehicle for local residents who want to gain greater control over local land use and development.
Why Use is? Even in disinvested neighborhoods, concern about gentrification may be a major factor in the choice of the CLT model. For low-income communities suffering from disinvestments, the primary goals are to sustain owner-occupancy and prevent a return to absentee ownership. For communities where property values are rising, as in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Burlington , Vermont , the primary goal is to limit resale prices so the homes will continue to be affordable for lower income households.
CLTs can provide affordability protections in growing communities: In many communities today, population growth and economic investment are driving up real estate prices so that fewer low- and modest-income workers can afford to buy homes or rent in the communities where they work. Limited public funds are available to subsidize housing costs for lower income households, but the gap between the amount of subsidy needed and the amount of subsidy available continues to widen as housing costs soar. To address this problem, community land trusts are being developed in a growing number of communities - in expanding metropolitan areas from Cleveland, Ohio to Portland, Oregon ; in university communities from State College, Pennsylvania, to Boulder, Colorado; and in expensive resort communities from the Florida Keys to the San Juan Islands of Washington State . These CLTs control housing costs by permanently limiting land costs and "locking in" subsidies so that they benefit one homeowner after another and do not need to be repeated each time a home is sold.
CLTs can build community control in disinvested neighborhoods. As homeownership declines, older buildings are likely to be bought by absentee investors who allow the buildings to deteriorate while charging high rents. The rent paid to these absentee owners leaves the community. It is not saved by the residents, not spent in local stores, and not used to improve the housing or the community. When residents organize themselves to improve their neighborhood, the absentee owners then benefit from increased property values. Through a CLT, however, residents can capture the value they create to benefit their own community . When residents of Boston 's Dudley Street neighborhood organized to rebuild their community, they established a CLT so they would not lose control of what they worked to build. Their slogan was "Take a Stand, Own the Land."
CLTs provide flexible community development options Many land uses are possible- from facilities for community services such as food banks, Legal Aid, Technology Centers , to local businesses, parks, and plazas, to gardening and fuel wood production in the case of some rural CLTs.
Communities at both ends of the economic spectrum have established CLTs. Today a number of CLTs are being developed in areas characterized by new investment and rapid growth, where there is strong demand for housing and rapidly rising real estate prices. These include both large metropolitan areas such as Portland , Oregon , where
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
30
an ambitious citywide CLT is being launched, and many smaller areas of active economic growth. The Burlington , Vermont CLT has preserved more than 500 units of permanently affordable housing. CLTs also reflect a noteworthy trend toward CLT development in prosperous university towns.
CLTs facilitate affordable housing
Rochester, Minnesota features a new CLT, with funding from the Mayo Clinic, among other sources, that expects to develop hundreds of units of new housing. In Boulder, Colorado, an active CLT program is building permanently affordable units in a community characterized by tightly controlled growth and extremely expensive housing.
In many resort communities, the development of vacation and retirement homes on highly desirable but limited land is pricing local people out of the housing market. A dramatic example exists in Wyoming , where the Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust is producing permanently affordable homeownership units in a community with an extreme scarcity of developable private land. Much of the workforce is forced to commute long distances from outside the area. Another place where limited land supply increases the value of land trusts are island communities.
Communities characterized by high-priced housing markets and gentrification are not the only ones that have organized CLTs to address their problems. CLTs have been established in low-income neighborhoods that have suffered from disinvestment, absentee ownership, and the physical deterioration that results from these trends. In these situations the most immediate goals involve fighting absentee ownership, promoting homeownership for lower income residents and improving the physical condition of neighborhoods. The CLT model gives such communities long-term control over new or rehabilitated homeownership units, assuring that when the units are resold they will not revert to absentee ownership and deteriorate once again. These efforts stand in marked contrasts to public redevelopment efforts that utilize eminent domain to funnel land and housing into university or private commercial enterprises that frequently displace longtime residents.
CLTs relevant in diverse applications
Dudley Neighbors, Inc., holds all of the land redeveloped as a result of the organizing and planning efforts of Bostons Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. The Durham Community Land Trustees developed a community-controlled organizing and redevelopment effort in a low-income neighborhood adjacent to upscale areas around Duke University. In the District of Columbia, New Columbia Community Land Trust has worked for a
decade to develop affordable resident controlled housing in areas of northwest Washington where qentrification interminqles with disinvestments.
Environmental concerns can also inspire the development of land trusts. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, activists in the Sawmill Neighborhood struggled for a decade to eliminate the industrial pollution that was undermining the health of their working class community. When the community won the opportunity to control the redevelopment of 27 acres of previously industrial land adjacent to their neighborhood, they formed a community land trust to make sure that the affordable housing they developed would remain affordable for low-income residents. Economic development opportunities created on this land benefit local residents.
How to use it?
31
Determining Geographic Scope
How a CLT's territory is defined is shaped by the immediate interests of its founders, the location and nature of community housing needs, the location of project opportunities, and the roles and service areas of other housing and community development organizations in the general area. There is a wide variation in the geographic scope of CLT programs. Some serve entire metropolitan areas, often including surrounding suburbs. Others serve particular neighborhoods. Each type has a somewhat different character, and places different emphases on the two aspects of the model.
The larger scale CLTs create and preserve an adequate supply of affordable housing within the large areas they serve. The location of this housing within the area tends to be determined by the location of the best opportunities for affordable housing development within the larger area. Such organizations are often the products of initiatives by local governments and major institutions within the areas they serve. Geographically diverse memberships reduce the ability of any one neighborhood to control its land. These organizations' primary emphasis is on the model's approach to ownership as a means of preserving a supply of affordable housing. They tend to operate on a macro level to address problems of gentrification.
Neighborhood-based CLTs tend to reflect the grassroots concerns of particular communities . They naturally have a more narrowly focused, block-by-block concern with the ways in which their own neighborhoods are developed and with the effects of this development on existing residents. They tend to operate on a micro level, acquiring specific properties on particular blocks to preserve a certain number of units of affordable housing while preventing the displacement of their residents.
These two types of CLT operation are not mutually exclusive. Some CLTs have combined strategies to improve a specific neighborhood (without displacing its lower income residents) while expanding a citywide or county-wide pool of permanently affordable housing. The CLT model is a flexible tool that can manage the long-term effects of development within a community.
Land Acquisition for the Community Use
In most cases, CLTs acquire property in the same ways as do other nonprofit organizations. As tax-exempt organizations, they sometimes receive gifts of property from individuals or corporations and often acquire city or county-owned property from local governments. But in many cases, they purchase property in the open market - often with the help of funding from public sources. A few CLTs, like the one in Albuquerque, have launched their programs with the development of a single large parcel of land. Most have acquired many smaller properties, one at a time, throughout a neighborhood or city or rural area. The CLT treats land and buildings differently. Sometimes CLTs buy undeveloped land and arrange to have new homes built on it; sometimes they buy land and buildings together. CLT land is held permanently - never sold - so that it can always be used in the community's best interest. Buildings on CLT land may be owned by the residents.
Use
CLTs serve inner-city neighborhoods, small cities, clusters of towns, and rural areas. A CLT working in a small city neighborhood may be the sole local housing group, though it may collaborate with citywide and regional organizations. Other CLTs, serving larger geographical areas, work closely with a variety of local organizations. CLTs may develop housing themselves or may hold land beneath housing produced by other non-profit (and sometimes for-profit) developers. It is possible for CLTs to provide any type of housing for which there is a need in the local community and for which there is an opportunity to create permanent affordability for lower income households.
A CLT may build new homes, rehabilitate older homes, or acquire existing housing that needs little or no
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
32
renovation. Some CLTs have bought mobile home parks to provide long-term security for mobile home owners. In addition to providing affordable housing, CLTs may make land available for community gardens,
playgrounds, economic development activities, or open space, and may provide land and facilities for a variety of community services.
In rural areas, CLTs may hold land for gardens, farming, timber and firewood, and may hold conservation easements to protect open space and ecologically fragile areas.
A CLT can work with various ownership structures for multi-family buildings. To ensure long-term affordability:
the CLT itself may own and manage a building as rental housing; another nonprofit may own it, or the residents may own it as a cooperative or as condominiums.
CLTs can provide a variety of training opportunities and other services to first-time homeowners, and can provide crucial support if homeowners face unexpected home repairs or financial problems. In these cases the CLT can often help residents to find a practical solution, and may help to make necessary financial arrangements. The CLT provides access to land and housing for people who are otherwise priced out of the housing market. Some CLT homes provide rental housing, but, when possible, the CLT helps people to purchase homes on affordable terms. The land beneath the homes is then leased to the homeowners through a long-term (usually 99-year) renewable lease. Residents and their descendants can maintain their housing indefinitely.
Can CLT homes he inherited?
Yes, the home is an asset that can be deeded. When a home is inherited, most CLTs allow the heirs to live in the home if they are (1) children of the deceased owner, (2) have already lived in the home for a period of time, or (3) qualify as low or moderate-income households. Heirs who do not intend to live in the home may sell it, in accordance with the resale restrictions, and receive the proceeds from the sale.
When CLT homeowners decide to move, they can sell their homes. The land lease agreement gives the CLT the right to buy each home back for an amount determined limited by the CLT's resale formula. Each CLT designs its own resale formula - to give homeowners a fair return for their investment, while keeping the price affordable for other lower income people.
Ownership
The land lease requires that owners live in their homes as their primary residences. When homes are resold, the lease ensures that the new owners will also be residents - not absentee owners. CLT homeowners and their descendants have a right to occupy and use the leased land for as long as they wish, provided that they abide by the terms of the land lease. These terms place some limitations on the resale of the home- preventing resale to a household that does not qualify as low or moderate income, and limiting the sales price to keep it affordable. The lease lays out a "resale formula" that determines the maximum allowable price. Each CLT - given its own goals and local circumstances - designs its own resale formula to set maximum prices that are as fair as possible to the seller while staying affordable for the next buyer. There are several types, but the majority of CLTs use what are called "appraisal-based" formulas. These formulas set the maximum price as the sum of what the seller paid for the home in the first place plus a certain percentage of any increase in market value (as measured by appraisals). Variations on these and other types of formulas are possible. It is wise to examine the
33
possibilities before deciding on a formula.
Is it fair to restrict resale prices for lower income CLT homeowners when higher income conventional homeowners can sell for market-rate prices?
Most CLI home purchasers are not able to buy decent homes through conventional channels. CLTs provide advantages over renting — long-term security, a chance to build substantial assets through affordable monthly payments, and the opportunity to leave these benefits to their children.
The ground lease requires that owners continue to live in the home as their primary residence. If owners want or need to move away permanently, they must sell the home. The lease does not allow them to continue as absentee owners. Subleasing is permitted only for limited periods with the consent of the CLT.
Key Players Technical Assistance Providers
Most Community Land Trusts require a considerable amount of financial and technical assistance to ensure success, particularly in their early stages. It is a challenging process, to align political forces, secure financing, develop organizational capacity, and attract homeowners. For many years, the Institute for Community Economics (ICE), the organization that founded the CLT model in the 1960s, provided technical assistance, financial services and advocacy for the CLT movement.
The National Community Land Trust Network has now taken the place of ICE as the national CLT intermediary. Incorporated in 2006, the network is a coalition of Community Land Trusts and other organizations that work collaboratively to advocate and advance the CLT movement. The network is the primary source of informational materials and technical assistance for the growing national community land trust movement. It holds an annual CLT conference, provides extensive resources on its website, and actively advocates for CLTs in public policy and legislative forums. The network plans to expand its technical assistance offerings in 2010.
Lending Assistance ICE is a Community Development Financial Intermediary (CDFI) and operates a Revolving Loan Fund that provides project financing to CLTs and other community organizations. RLF loans most often finance land acquisition or improvement and acquisition, construction, or the rehabilitation of housing. The amount, terms, rate of interest, and repayment schedules are negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Since 1979, ICE it has loaned more than $44 million to nonprofits in 30 states, representing more than 445 loans and 4500 housing units.
Relationships with Governments and Other Organizations
How do CLTs relate to other housing organizations? Many CLTs are initiated through the sponsorship of other organizations, or emerge out of other organizations as in the case of Albuquerque 's Sawmill CLT. Most CLTs cooperate with the efforts of other organizations in their community. Burlington CLT, for instance, works closely with a network of organizations that address the area's housing and community development needs. In a number of communities, CLTs have acquired housing, or the land beneath housing, that was built or rehabilitated by nonprofit and commercial developers.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
34
Do local governments support CLTs?
It is common for CLTs to work in cooperation with local governments in meeting present and future community needs. A growing number of public officials recognize that CLTs can play an important role as stewards of community resources and that property and funds allocated to a CLT can benefit not only present community residents but future residents as well. A number of states and municipalities have allocated Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds, as well as other available resources, to CLT programs. Some have allocated city-owned land.
Challenges Challenges to the development of Community Land Trusts are diverse in different locations, but there are common considerations.
Countering Opposition
Community land trusts may face organized resistance from various political or ideological perspectives. While still in its infancy, the Burlington CLT faced organized opposition from a group of realtors and homeowners called Homeowners Against the Land Trust (HALT). Though a classic case of Not in My Back Yard opposition to any new development on vacant land, Claiming defense of private property rights, HALT accused BCLT of a "Communist plot." Several CLTs have experienced a different kind of resistance from the opposite end of the political spectrum, from well-intentioned advocates who worry that the land trust model denies low-income people return on their housing investment equal to others without resale restrictions. These opposing voices have not prevented CLTs from becoming a powerful force in their communities and gaining quite a lot of community support. Still, because sentiments in favor of "traditional" homeownership run deep, CLTs have found that education about the CLT's unique approach to private property must be an ongoing process.
Marketing CLT Homes
Recruiting potential homeowners, orienting them to the special features of the CLT model, and then persuading them to invest in a CLT home is a challenge for every CLT, especially those that are just getting started. This is a model where informed consent is essential; it does not lend itself to the "hard sell." CLTs work to ensure that prospective homebuyers know what they are getting and what they are giving up when they purchase a CLT home. Publicizing the CLT to prospective eligible homebuyers is an important task. Reaching out to other social service and nonprofit housing organizations is one way to achieve this. Another way is to provide services for the community at large. Burlington CLT offers homeownership workshops for the public in order to attract prospective homebuyers.
Cultural Context
Sometimes, a CLT needs to address cultural barriers to the concept of a land trust. Not owning the land under one's home can be a daunting prospect for anyone, even with the assurance of a 99-year lease, but for some communities the dual ownership aspect of the CLT can be especially worrisome. For Mexican-Americans who have experienced deceptive land agreements, for African-Americans not far removed from the reality of sharecropping, and for new immigrants who have dreamed of owning housing for the very first time, the CLT's permanent ownership of the underlying land can present a significant challenge to the successful marketing of a CLT's homes.
Words to the w ise "Particularly if there is a public investment in housing, I think we ought to be very careful as to where that investment flows. With the land trust model, that investment remains with the community and the long-term affordability of the housing is guaranteed." - Peter Clavelle, Mayor. Burlirton, Vermout
35
Working with Local Government
Since CLTs generally do not have the resources to compete in the market for high-priced land or to serve very low-income households without outside subsidies, they must look to local government for help. Most CLTs rely heavily on local government for the funds to develop their projects and, in some cases, for the funds to sustain their operations. Some cities and counties have been significant donors of land and buildings as well. There are constant challenges in working with the public sector:
City officials need to be educated on the structure and merits of a community land trust. In particular, cities with a history of subsidy recapture instead of subsidy retention must be persuaded of the merits of "locking" subsidies into an affordable housing project in order to lock in affordability, one generation after another.
A legal protocol and funding must be developed through which the city can transfer land, if that arrangement has been proposed.
The resistance of city agencies must be countered. In Albuquerque , the City's initial resistance to the community land trust was based on the City's lack of experience partnering with nonprofit developers and a concern that it might lose its investment. To meet the City's concerns about possible failure, the development contract provides for ownership of the land to revert to the City if the Sawmill CLT becomes defunct.
Maintaining the Mission
Portland 's CLT has experienced a different type of challenge in its work with the City. The City played a part in initiating PCLT, convinced that the community land trust could retain public subsidies for affordable housing and community development over the long term. The City has expressed interest in transferring many of its holdings to PCLT. For Mary Bradshaw, Executive Director of PCLT, this is a "double-edged sword." Some of the land the City would like to develop is for commercial purposes and is not explicitly intended to serve the CLT's target population of households earning under 80 percent of the Area Median Income. For PCLT, retaining the subsidy over time is very important, but an equally important goal is to honor community priorities and to serve community needs that may be different than those set by the City. Currently, PCLT is trying to convince the City to develop a small business incubator on a land trust parcel as opposed to a commercial development serving larger corporations.
Confronting the Market
While CLTs are able to take parcels of land out of the market, building perpetually affordable housing on them, their success is limited by the amount of housing they can acquire. In gentrifying areas, it is more difficult to acquire and develop land. In Burlington, the CLT's capacity is not sufficient to solve the problems in the current housing market. While housing prices have escalated, government funds for affordable housing have decreased and private funders are unable to subsidize these projects at the level previously supported by the government. The 32% increase in the price of a single-family home since 1990 has made it increasingly difficult for families who qualify for Vermont Housing and Conservation Fund grants to even find a home on which to spend the grant. The vacancy rate for rentals is currently hovering at 0.6% and half of the county's renters pay more than 30% of their annual incomes on housing. In Portland, PCLT feels fortunate to have received $400,000 from the Anti-Displacement program, but given the tight housing market, those funds will only help about a dozen families. Moving a family that makes below $50,000 into the position of purchasing a home is extremely difficult without a great deal of subsidy. PCLT also faces the problem of a severe shortage of land available for new development, a result of Portland 's urban growth boundary.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
36
Success Factors Combining Strategies
How do CLTs relate to limited equity housing co-ops? Co-op housing is owned by a corporation that is controlled by the people who live in the housing. Thus co-op residents do not own their homes individually, but each household owns a share in the corporation and has a proprietary lease to their own apartment. When a residents want to move away, they can sell their share - and their rights as co-op residents - to another buyer. In the case of limited-equity co-ops, the price for which shares can be sold is limited by the corporate bylaws to keep the housing affordable. (In market rate co-ops, shares can be sold for whatever the market will bear.) Some CLTs, like the Burlington CLT, CATCH ( Concord, New Hampshire), and the New Columbia CLT (Washington, DC) have developed limited equity housing co-ops on land leased from the CLT. These CLTs can provide important support services to the co-ops, and the land lease can help to ensure long-term affordability by requiring that restrictions on the sale of shares remain in place. How are CLTs different from conservation land trusts? Both CLTs and conservation land trusts control land use for the benefit of people in the future as well as the present, but they are primarily concerned with different types and uses of land. Conservation trusts are concerned with controlling rights to undeveloped land to preserve open space, ecologically fragile or unique environments, wilderness, or productive forest or agricultural land. CLTs, on the other hand, are mainly concerned with acquiring developed or developable land for specific community uses - particularly residential use. These concerns are not mutually exclusive, and some land trusts, notably in Vermont, combine these purposes, preserving some land in a natural state while leasing other land for development.
Financing In producing affordable housing, CLTs usually rely on the same resources as other affordable homeownership programs - including grants from government programs, contributions of property from both public and private sources, and volunteer labor. CLT projects do sometimes gain greater access to these resources because the CLT is able to extend their benefits for the long-term - not only for rental housing but for owner-occupied housing as well. In Vermont, both the City of Burlington and the State have adopted policies that provide subsidies only for housing that is permanently affordable.
Federal housing programs provide for CLTs The 1992 Housing and Community Development Act makes specific provision for CLT funding under the federal HOME program (which provides block grants to municipalities and states to be used for affordable housing programs in their jurisdictions). The Act defines CLTs as “community housing development organizations” (CHDOs) under the HOME program, thus qualifying them for additional project funding, operating support, and technical assistance.
Residents pay property taxes on their homes if they own them. CLTs usually pay taxes on their landholdings, with the cost usually covered by lease fees from those using the land. CLTs and their residents can request reduced property tax assessments based on the resale value of the home. This is determined by the CLT's resale formula rather than the market value of the property.
37
Mortgages without Land
CLTs have been able to negotiate mortgage agreements that address the basic concerns of lenders while protecting the CLT's long-term interest in the property. These agreements typically allow the CLT to take action to prevent foreclosure and the sale of the property on the open market. Such mortgages give the lender a claim on the borrower's house and leasehold interest. The CLT's fee interest in the land is not mortgaged. These "leasehold mortgages" have been insured by FHA, and have been purchased by Fannie Mae and a number of state housing finance agencies, as well as banks. CLT homebuyers have also received mortgage loans through the Rural Housing Services program of the federal Department of Agriculture.
Policy There are several key provisions that promote the developmental climate for community land trusts .
Priority Designation. Policy supportive of community land trusts prioritizes or requires permanent affordability. In qualifying for funding, donations of land, or other municipal concessions, community land trusts should have an advantage over affordable housing without resale restrictions, with resale restrictions that are forgiven over time or restrictions that expire in 20-30 years.
Retaining Full Value of the Subsidy. Policy and funding should be structured to require or at least reward subsidy retention in the housing itself rather than recapturing of subsidies with interest. In the latter scenario, the value of the subsidy is greatly diminished over time as the market appreciates. In contrast, CLT subsidy retention maintains affordability by removing the land from the equation and controlling the value of the improvements.
Programs in different political and economic environments vary in their choice of policy directions. Permanent affordability has been a scoring advantage in competing for Federal Home Loan Bank funds and CLTs have benefited from this priority. Community Development Block Grant and federal HOME funds have been primary sources of CLT financing. Both of these programs have often placed a strong emphasis on permanent affordability. Encouraging these funding programs to maintain permanent affordability and subsidy retention as program goals or requirements should be a high priority in public policy advocacy.
Reducing Debt . CLTs typically remove the entire cost of the underlying land from the selling price of housing and other improvements with long-term controls placed over value and use. To maximize long-term affordability, the community land trust should be enabled to acquire the land debt-free. This can be accomplished through grant funds as well as land donations. CLTs should be prioritized when municipalities mandate private developers to make land donations or develop affordable units in exchange for density bonuses, approvals and other local concessions.
Combining Strategies. As discussed in the section on housing cooperatives, placing co-ops on CLT land provides a safeguard to the co-op's permanent affordability because the CLT will monitor its resale restrictions and is a safeguard for co-op members because the CLT can support the co-op in providing long-term stewardship of the property. Developing rental or co-op housing through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program on land held by a CLT ensures permanent affordability and stewardship of the property over many generations rather than for the limited 15-year period required by the LIHTC program.
Tax Assessment. CLT-owned land and improvements on CLT land that have resale restrictions placed on them should be assessed and taxed based on their actual resale value, not on comparatives that are made up of properties whose resale price is not restricted.
Operating Support. Operating support-an issue for any nonprofit affordable housing developer-is crucial for community land trusts. At least three years of start up operating support is critical because the organization cannot generate developer's fees, property management income, or ground lease fees until it
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
38
has developed property. Because they take on the task of building membership and stewarding land over the long term, CLTs need a stable base of support to build organizational capacity for these multiple roles.
Case Study Sawmill Community Land Trust
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Background
In the Sawmill community, one of the oldest Hispanic neighborhoods in Albuquerque, New Mexico, it is not unusual to also find residents of Polish, Irish, German, and Native American descent. Sawmill contains a mix of industrial, commercial and residential land uses. The community was once home to the American Lumber Company, the largest industry in the state. Environmental problems stemming from a particleboard factory recently have plagued this close-knit neighborhood, where families have lived for generations. Some of the city officials and state representatives who supported the development of the Sawmill Community Land Trust are former residents or descendants of families from the neighborhood.
In the past decade, land costs have increased rapidly in Albuquerque, making it hard to develop and secure affordable housing opportunities for lower-income families. Sawmill is adjacent to Historic Old Town, one of the state's leading tourist attractions, and next to downtown Albuquerque . Property values in Sawmill have increased rapidly since 1995, where undeveloped land in the Sawmill neighborhood has risen from $1.05 per square foot to its current high of $4.10. A home that sold for $26,500 in 1981 cost $125,000 in 2000. "Today, in Albuquerque , you cannot buy an affordable house," says Max Ramirez, Board President of the Sawmill Advisory Council (SAC). Increases in land values and home prices accompanied vigorous investment activity in Sawmill. As Jessie G. Sais, Office Manager of the SCLT explained, "This pocket of poverty all of a sudden turned into a pocket of gold." Since 1996, new developments in the area include the 60,000 square foot commercial and retail Rio Grande Plaza ; two former industrial sites converted into wholesale businesses; an expanded Sheraton Hotel Convention Complex; and two new museums. Law offices, salons, and other small businesses began replacing entire blocks of single-family homes. "We originally got organized around a pollution issue," explained Debbie O'Malley, Executive Director of SCLT. "After having a couple of successes . . . we started to notice other issues." Community members began to rally in earnest to preserve their affordable housing.
Developing the Community Land Trust
Sawmill CLT was incorporated to protect the character of Sawmill in the face of encroaching development and ensure the continued affordability of a neighborhood of long-time citizens of Albuquerque. According to O'Malley, the community land trust was "the only tool we found that educated communities, kept land under community control, [and] empowered residents to do self-governance." The community land trust would allow local families to "age-in-place." As children become adults, they could afford to remain in the area if they chose, close to their families. Elderly people could comfortably remain in a familiar environment. SCLT, founded as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in 1996, replaced the Sawmill Community Development Corporation (CDC) as the development arm of the Sawmill Advisory Council (SAC), a grassroots organization formed in 1986 to counter pollution problems caused by a particleboard factory. SCLT contacted the Institute for
39
Community Economics, a national nonprofit organization considered the experts in developing community land trusts to assist them in preparing to respond the Request for Proposals to develop the project. When 27 acres of land became available for development, the neighborhood was concerned that the factory would expand and aggravate the problem. SAC convinced the city to buy the land to avert increased pollution. Initially, SAC did not plan to develop the land itself. Rather, the group reached an agreement with the city that any future development of the parcel required its input and approval. However, in the five years it took to rezone the land for residential use, SAC recognized a unique opportunity to develop perpetually affordable housing if it incorporated as a community land trust. During this interim period, the Sawmill CDC built seven infill affordable housing units elsewhere in Sawmill, demonstrating its capacity and gaining the trust of the community. Attractive, New Mexico vernacular-style homes assured the community that the work would be of quality.
The Sawmill CDC went forward to incorporate as a community land trust and developed a plan for the land through a four-day community charrette (where groups gather to review design alternatives for a particular project). With the help of students from the University of New Mexico Design and Planning Center , residents identified their vision for housing, commercial spaces, services, and open space.
Organizational Features
SCLT's mission developed to provide permanently affordable housing and job opportunities in a safe environment, primarily for residents earning up to 80 percent of the area median income.
After completing a comprehensive community visioning process, SCLT began to plan its multi-faceted community - Arbolera de Vida ("Orchard of Life"). The plan calls for 100 housing units, including single-family homes, townhouses and senior apartments, together with a plaza, park, community center, senior center, commercial space, and 17 acres of open space with bike and walking trails. To date, almost all of the 25 homes built in the first phase of development have been sold, ranging from $54,700 to $125,000. With an average appraised value of $125,000, each unit is subsidized at an average of $27,000. The SCLT resale formula gives the SCLT homeowner that wants to sell a fair return on investment while ensuring that the home is affordable to the next low- to moderate-income family. (See the Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives tool.) The term of Sawmill's renewable lease for the land is 99 years, and there is a $35 monthly administrative fee for each household. In addition to administrative fees, SCLT will accrue revenue from commercial rents and leases to cover operating and maintenance costs of the SCLT. When there is a surplus, funds will be used for community projects such as a community bank, a loan fund for small businesses and home repair, and a scholarship fund for local students. Financing for SCLT comes from a range of sources, including HOME and Federal Home Loan Bank dollars. In addition to providing the parcel of land - which was acquired through Community Development Block Grant funds - the city provides about half of SCLT's operating funds. The remainder is financed through grants. In addition to the City, SCLT partners with a CDC on homebuyer training; with YouthBuild to construct housing; and with other affordable housing developers in a citywide roundtable.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
40
Accomplishments
For Debbie O'Malley, the fact that SCLT has almost completely sold the Phase 1 houses to low income residents is the greatest achievement. "If you earn at least $19,000 a year, you can buy a house here," she says. Last year, Renati West was paying $700 a month for a public housing project unit half a mile from Arbolera de Vida. With a modest income from a full-time job, she could not afford to buy a house in the open market. She would not have been able to find a manageable mortgage or cover increasing property taxes. Through SCLT and a subsidy, West was able to purchase a house worth $104,000. A major challenge facing Albequerque homebuyers has been rising property taxes, which tripled between 1995 and 2000. SCLT negotiated an agreement with the tax assessor to make the land trust holdings tax exempt. Now, property taxes are assessed only on the building improvements and not on the land in the Arbolera de Vida project. "I knew a lot of people who were paying very high taxes," said West, "and thought I would never be able to own a house." Now, she lives in a home so attractive that "people think I've paid $150,000 to $200,000 for it!" Another accomplishment of SCLT is the diverse ethnic mix of Arbolera de Vida. The community is home to Hispanic, African-American, Native American and European descended families. While racial tensions sometimes surface in changing neighborhoods, in Arbolera de Vida this is less of a concern because it stems from the creation of new housing. "When we see each other," West claims, "we just see our neighbors." The development's amenities, such as the recently dedicated plaza and the 1.5-acre park now under construction, are not for SCLT homeowners only, but will serve the residents in the homes surrounding the land trust. Changes are apparent already, according to West. "We're a neighborhood now, not a subdivision."
Challenges
"It was no small feat to put [a community land trust] together," O'Malley emphasizes. First, city officials had to be educated on the structure and merits of a community land trust. Then, a legal protocol and funding had to be developed through which the city could transfer the land to SCLT. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were used because New Mexico is an "anti-donation" state: the city cannot give away property unless the funds through which it acquired the property specifically allow the transfer.
The city's initial resistance to the community land trust was based on a concern that it would lose its investment. Also, the city was hesitant to partner with a nonprofit organization. Ken Balizer, of Albuquerque 's Development Services Department, recalls: "I had to convince my bosses, the chief administrative officers and the mayor. They [worried] 'Can we really enter into a relationship with a neighborhood to plan for 27 acres in the middle of our city? What are people going to think? Is it going to work? Will we fall on our faces?'" To meet the city's concerns about possible failure, the development contract provides for ownership to revert to the city if SCLT fails or disbands. Residual tensions with the city reflect the difficulty of transforming a community organization, with its critical and advocacy roles, into a partner with a city government. "We have to continually massage those relationships," O'Malley acknowledges.
Another challenge SCLT faces-common to many community land trusts-is educating the community and assuring potential homebuyers that the community land trust model is a viable option for them. According to Renati West, there are a large number of eligible community members who do not know about SCLT.
41
A final challenge faced by SCLT is the cheaper competition from housing development in the suburbs. SCLT says that this challenge compels them to develop a quality product that rivals suburban homes and draws buyers to the city core. The Sierra Club recently cited SCLT as a "Smart Growth Success Story" in a 50-state survey of innovative initiatives that stem suburban sprawl.
Keys to Success
SCLT clearly would not exist if there had not been a strong working relationship with the City. Balizer notes, "Having a partnership between the City and a neighborhood organization to do a development of this magnitude has not been seen before in Albuquerque ." The combination of city's resources and SCLT's persistence won out. O'Malley explains, "You have to know where you're going, you have to be relentless. and you need to have an attitude that problems can be solved."
Another key to the success of this initiative, according to O'Malley, was the high level of community participation throughout the five-year planning period. "As a result of that, the neighborhood is very supportive of this project." Renati West said that unlike her experiences with other agencies in Albuquerque , she found that she could just walk into the SCLT office and immediately get assistance from staff. "They were always there for me." Today, there a strong sense of ownership among SCLT members like West, who regularly sing SCLT's praises in the community; and the SCLT Board of Directors is extremely active and supportive. Finally, the success of SCLT can be linked in part to its Hispanic residents, who already had a favorable view of community-owned land. Many residents view the land trust as they did Spanish Land Grants, which served the community by securing land and water rights. With the drive to control the land once again, people supported SCLT as a way to restore an old way of life. This is not the case, however, with new immigrants from Mexico, many of whom are arriving in Albuquerque and dream of participating in the traditional housing market, though it remains far beyond their reach.
Future Plans
SCLT is completing the first phase of its development plan - mainly housing units - and is beginning the second phase, with increased attention to community infrastructure, including a park, bike trails, a child and senior day-care center, and a community center. The final phase will include commercial development. In keeping with SCLT's mission to provide jobs as well as housing, potential commercial projects will be evaluated according to key criteria: employment opportunities, local ownership and/or management, hospitality to seniors and youth; and contribution to a sustainable regional economy.
In the future, SCLT hopes to acquire and develop other properties in Albuquerque . Currently, its bylaws restrict SCLT to a specific section of the city, but the goal is to eventually become citywide. Rather than confined to specific pockets, Debbie O'Malley says, "I think it'd be wonderful to have affordable housing everywhere in the city." In the meantime, Arbolera de Vida-once a vacant industrial site-is the first step to achieving that goal.
Portland Community Land Trust
Portland, Oregon
Background
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
42
Portland , Oregon has long been known as a progressive city, and it has been lauded for such innovative planning strategies as its urban growth boundary. Despite such energetic planning, Portland allowed several urban core neighborhoods to deteriorate through the 1970's and 1980's. These neighborhoods are mostly comprised of African-American, Latino, Southeast Asian residents, as well as immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Through the 1990's, Portland experienced enormous growth, causing real estate prices in prime neighborhoods to skyrocket. This growth coincided with a commitment from the City that Portland would be a "city without ghettos." This focused a significant revitalization initiative on its poorer northern neighborhoods. As urban renewal dollars flowed in, the residents experienced a dramatic rise in land values, due in part to the revitalization efforts but compounded by the decreasing availability of land within the confines of the urban growth boundary. Families with long histories in these neighborhoods started to be driven out by upwardly mobile, mostly white professionals who are willing to buy or rent their houses at tremendously high prices. North and Northeast Portland are now considered some of the least affordable neighborhoods with housing prices having doubled since 1990. The City of Portland, growing increasingly concerned about its lack of affordable housing, hired the consulting firm, Deloitte and Touche, to conduct a housing survey. The report noted the unavailability of homeownership opportunities for lower-income people, even those with stable work histories, steady incomes, and savings. While the city had been devoting sizable amounts of money to subsidizing homeownership, there were no long-term benefits to the wider community. Deloitte and Touche recommended a community land trust as a strategy to retain public subsidy and self-renewing affordability.
Development of the Community Land Trust
The Portland Community Land Trust (PCLT) was created in 1999 as an anti-displacement tool to provide stable, affordable homeownership in rapidly gentrifying Portland neighborhoods, mainly those within the new Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area (ICURA) in North and Northeast Portland . According to Mary Bradshaw, PCLT's Executive Director, the goal was to balance the intensive revitalization efforts with efforts to maintain affordability. "We specifically targeted our advocacy efforts to make sure that as this tax increment money comes in, it won't fuel displacement." PCLT targets potential homeowners in specific neighborhoods with family incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the area median income.
When the City issued its report recommending a community land trust, a number of affordable housing groups, as well as politicians and community residents responded favorably. Housing advocates proposed the establishment of a new organization to expand community land trusts throughout the city . The Institute for Community Economics (ICE) provided both technical assistance and start-up funding to the Portland CLT. The technical assistance ranged from basic organizational development to aiding the PCLT as it developed its programs. A $25,000 grant enabled PCLT to develop a land lease, rent office space and buy office equipment. ICE currently is aiding the PCLT in developing a multi-family homeownership model where current tenants can convert to homeownership either as a condominium or a co-op.
Organizational Features of PCLT
PCLT develops properties across the city in partnership with other community organizations. The largest, the 7.5 acre Rosemont Commons in North Portland, will provide 100 units of housing for low-income seniors; 18 large family units; 50 single-family homes (including ten Habitat for Humanity homes, for families at 30-60% of the area median income); seven other subsidized homes (for families at 60-80% of area median income); and 33 market rate units. A second site, under development by the Franciscan Enterprise in Northeast Portland, was acquired through the county. PCLT's buyer-initiated program, supported by a $400,000 grant from the city, is part of a $1.5 million Anti-
43
Displacement Program in ICURA. It qualifies low-income families to obtain mortgages to buy a house in one of several designated neighborhoods. The PCLT grant purchases the land beneath the house, it becomes part of the community land trust, and the homes become subject to a covenant limiting resale value to the accrued equity plus 25 percent of appreciated value. Several other community land trusts, including Burlington, Vermont, offer this kind of program that focuses more on outreach, counseling, and financing for prospective homeowners and less on the development of new properties. One participant in the Portland CLT is Percy Winters, one of many people experiencing the challenge of renting in Portland . He started looking for a house to buy in 1995, when his landlord wanted to occupy the property. Winters researched programs to help low-income families purchase homes, but found most of the programs unaffordable. When he came home in 1999 to his children crying by the landlord's newly posted "For Sale" sign, he became re-energized to find the recently established PCLT. Today, Winters is Vice Chair of the Board of Directors. "The reason I joined the board," he said, "is because a lot other programs bring some subsidy to the table, but not enough to bring the price down to [what people] can afford." Currently, he is looking for a home to purchase in his current neighborhood.
Accomplishments
When PCLT was created, it acknowledged Portland 's rich fabric of nonprofit housing developers and forged its role to act as a long-term land steward. PCLT is a young organization, but according to Jason Seivers, a PCLT Board member, "It has made a grand entry on to the stage of housing support groups in the city." The first 13 units will be completed by the end of 2001. Significant public support has been garnered. Bradshaw points out, "[We have been able] to coordinate some really diverse political opinions and get them all bought into a land trust here in Portland," points out Bradshaw. "[Support from the] City Council and the Mayor is a huge accomplishment because their agendas are diverse."
Landing Portland 's Anti-Displacement Program funds to capitalize its new buyer-initiated program, and getting Multnomah County to prioritize subsidy retention for tax foreclosed properties gives PCLT a significant foundation
Challenges
Cultural Context. One of the tasks that faced PCLT during its initial phase was engaging a diverse constituency of members and directors. A related challenge for PCLT is educating itself about the cultural barriers to the land trust concept that exist in different cultural communities. Mexican-Americans, for example, have learned from experience to view land agreements with caution. The ownership structure of community land trusts reminds some African-Americans of sharecropping. And, among new immigrants, the drive to achieve the "American Dream" of single-family homeownership has prevented some families from considering a type of ownership where the land will not belong to them.
Equity Tradeoffs. PCLT has invested substantial resources in educating housing advocates and the general public about the benefits of the community land trust model. Some nonprofit housing organizations resisted a community land trust because it did not build equity for low-income communities the way conventional homeownership strategies do. PCLT has mostly overcome the resistance by making the case that it is serving a population that would not have homeownership opportunity in the current conventional market. PCLT developed a resale formula that allows PCLT homeowners to accrue some equity while gaining stability in their housing and their neighborhoods. Bradshaw believes this raises an ongoing challenge. "We need to broaden this discussion," she asserts, "by mobilizing advocates for increased wages and better educational opportunities -[that's] why these people cannot afford housing in the first place."
City influence. Increasingly, the city has seen the community land trust as an answer to retaining economic
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
44
development subsidies in the long term and wants to transfer many of its holdings to PCLT, including commercial use properties. PCLT is negotiating with the city to develop a small business incubator as opposed to a commercial development serving larger corporations.
Land Values. A final challenge is simply the cost of providing housing for low-income families in PortlandThe Anti-Displacement program funds of $400,000-given the housing market in Portland -will only help about a dozen families. Helping a family with an income below $50,000 purchase a home requires significant subsidy, but PCLT is committed to the long-term investment.
Keys to Success
Support from the city and cooperation among other housing advocacy groups has been invaluable to PCLT. Seivers thinks it is due, in part, to a "more open-minded and progressive attitude here [in Portland ]." "PCLT developed its niche carefully, positioning itself as a cooperative partner with an ability to complement the work of existing organizations and not supplant their efforts.
PCLT's initial success is also based on its efforts to develop a strong organizational infrastructure. "When you're talking about entering into a 99-year renewable lease," says Bradshaw, "it needs to be with an organization that's going to be here. [We need to be financially stable and diversified and build strong members and a community base that make sure we go on into perpetuity. Who ever thinks about this stuff? With a land trust, you have to."
Burlington Community Land Trust: Creating Diverse Housing Opportunities
Burlington, Vermont
Background
One of the largest and most influential community land trusts in the United States is located in Burlington, Vermont, a university town of about 40,000 on the shores of Lake Champlain. For the past two decades, economic growth and progressive public policies, combined with an attractive New England setting, have made Burlington a desirable--and increasingly expensive--place to live. Despite being a pristine college town, Burlington is home to low-income residents living in decaying neighborhoods. In the early 1980s, the city embarked on a much-needed program to revitalize the waterfront neighborhoods, including the historic Old North End. In light of neighborhood improvements, and the fact that this area was very near Downtown Burlington, some community members began to worry that long-time residents would be displaced by gentrification. "We wanted to be able to revitalize those neighborhoods," says Brenda Torpy, Executive Director of the Burlington Community Land Trust (BCLT), "without making them unaffordable to the people who lived there."
Strategy and Rationale
Community activists proposed a land trust as a strategy to preserve affordable housing for current residents as well as for all future residents. Peter Clavelle, the Mayor of Burlington, explained the City's interest. "By supporting the CLT model, a number of things are done," he said. "One is taking the profit motive out of housing. The investment remains with the community and the long-term affordability of the housing is guaranteed." BCLT initially focused on revitalizing and creating affordable homes in the Old North End neighborhood, BCLT expanded into other neighborhoods. Realizing that housing problems are regional and that work in the suburbs is as crucial as in the urban core, BCLT has acquired properties throughout its county-wide service area. Since its establishment, BCLT's holdings have grown to nearly 500 units of housing and its membership has increased to more than 1000 people. Torpy explains that one goal of BCLT is to provide a wide range of housing options to meet
45
the diverse needs of the region's residents. "We have folks living in shelters; single-room occupancy; very affordable rentals; housing cooperatives; affordable condominiums throughout the city and county, and affordable single-family homes." BCLT housing co-operatives provide many families their first opportunity to purchase a single-family house, and the community land trust helps co-op members with this process. Additionally, BCLT has used the co-op model to reach specific groups, such as artists, who can benefit by living and working in former industrial buildings. While BCLT's initial focus was on affordable housing, it has expanded its activities to include comprehensive neighborhood revitalization. BCLT has cleaned up blighted properties, created a park, and provided facilities for a variety of community organizations such as a "food shelf" facility, legal aid, and a technology center. New projects include a community health center and the rehabilitation of a brownfield site. As do residents, community organizations either rent from BCLT or own their buildings on land leased from BCLT.
Developing the Community Land Trust
The Burlington Community Land Trust emerged out of meetings of citizens concerned about escalating home prices, city officials, and consultants from the Institute for Community Economics. BCLT's emergence and subsequent strength was in large part a function of the support it received from the Burlington city government -a newly-elected, progressive administration. The city provided a $200,000 seed grant to BCLT to get the land trust underway, and the city employees' pension fund set up a $1 million line of credit. Initially, property was acquired with the help of the city: one of BCLT's first parcels of land came from a developer who, it is said, agreed to donate land for six houses as part of his negotiations with the city. Since its initial stages, BCLT has been supported by a range of funders. For a time, BCLT used Community Development Block Grant funds to purchase land, until land became too expensive. Currently, single-family homes are often built with funds from Vermont's Housing and Conservation Trust Fund, which subsidizes their acquisition of land under homes that were purchased by lower-income households in the conventional real estate market. One participant in this program was Bob Robbins, the current Board President and a homeowner on BCLT land. In looking for a single-family home, he used a traditional realtor, located a house, and then purchased it with the help of a grant and a special mortgage through which the community land trust assumed ownership of the land. For him, this was a practical solution, since his family was looking to live in a relatively affluent neighborhood and "conventionally, we'd have no way of coming up with a down payment." For multi-family developments, BCLT uses Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, and Federal Home Loan Bank funds. The land trust also solicits individual donations for operations and non-housing projects. In addition to a close partnership with public entities, BCLT works in tandem with a network of community organizations such as the Lake Champlain Nonprofit Housing Development Corporation. BCLT also collaborates with groups in the fields of mental health, AIDS, family service, and homelessness.
Accomplishments
The massive revitalization efforts were visible when, according to Mary Houghton, BCLT's Finance Director, "people started complimenting us on paint jobs on properties that we didn't own. There's a sense in the community-I hear bankers and the Chamber saying this-that you can see a difference in the Old North End because of BCLT. We're very proud of that," says Torpy. In 1994, the Old North End was awarded Enterprise Zone status by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and BCLT played a lead role in implementing strategies for that program. The Old North End has been rehabilitated and preserved for "multi-generational" families as well as a new wave of refugees from Bosnia and Southeast Asia. BCLT has made an impact throughout the city by becoming one of Burlington's largest residential property owners.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
46
In turn, it has successfully served a population often ignored by traditional housing policy. Richard Kemp, a BCLT member, states, "Essentially, we were not supposed to succeed because we were dealing with single mothers, welfare mothers, moderate and low income people. And we're successful." A true measure of a community land trust's success is the extent to which low-income residents are able to stay in revitalized neighborhoods after resales occur. "We're old enough to have had a number of resales," explains Torpy, "and we've seen it work. The second time around we typically serve a lower income family and we don't need any additional government subsidy. At the same time, the seller is taking some equity with them.as well as experiencing all the tax benefits and security that homeownership offers." The efficacy of BCLT (and other Vermont CLTs) has led to a number of important state and local policy changes. Vermont adopted policies that provide subsidies only for housing that is perpetually affordable, resulting in federal CDBG and HOME funds going primarily to community land trusts. Additionally, Burlington voters passed a tax to support affordable housing, and much of that money flows through BCLT. Finally, an extremely important achievement for Vermont's community land trusts is that the Vermont Housing Finance Agency established a "Perpetually Affordable Housing Program" that provides reduced-rate mortgages for low-income purchasers of resale-restricted, perpetually affordable homes.
Challenges
The 32% increase in the price of a single-family home since 1990 has made it increasingly difficult for families who qualify for Vermont Housing and Conservation Fund grants to even find a home on which to spend the grant. The vacancy rate for rentals is currently hovering at 0.6%, with an estimated half of the county's renters paying more than 30% of their annual incomes on housing. BCLT's reach is not nearly enough to solve the problems in the current housing market. Houghton explains, "We can stabilize housing prices for our residents, but the larger market is skyrocketing; it's in a cycle we can't begin to keep up with." She continues, "It takes a huge amount of money." While housing prices have escalated, government funds for affordable housing have decreased and private funders still hesitate to support the community land trust's projects.
Keys to Success
A major factor in BCLT's success lies in their outreach investment to build a strong membership base. In addition to regular communications, trainings, and special events, BCLT offers low-interest loan pools for home improvements and a range of workshops for members. As a consequence, members develop a long term relationship with the organization and are willing to take on leadership positions. Additionally, BCLT's Homeownership Center, open to members as well as non-members, allows the organization to reach a broader cross-section of potential homebuyers and cultivate more community support. A final key to BCLT's success is sound financial management practices that garner critical support from banks and maximize cash flow. They have also enlisted creative strategies for subsidizing homebuyers and for developing new properties. For example, a partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has enabled families to use Section 8 vouchers to apply to mortgage payments and has allowed BCLT to buy several houses foreclosed by HUD to rehabilitate and sell.
Future Plans
In light of the current patterns of growth in Burlington, BCLT is starting to look region-wide for ways to pre-empt the rising costs and "stay ahead of the market," says Robbins. "We're starting to work on expanding into counties that are to the northwest, where basically the population is starting to move," adds Houghton. Fortunately, for BCLT, support among community residents has been steady throughout its history and continues to grow. And while gentrification set the stage for the emergence of BCLT, the challenge now is to raise the funds to develop enough properties that its impact can be felt not only within specific neighborhoods but within the entire region. As it
47
broadens its focus to a regional level, BCLT is fostering dialogue between smart growth advocates and affordable housing advocates, searching for ways to create perpetually affordable housing while staving off sprawl.
Resources Available from the Institute for Community Economics To order items from the following list, call ICE at (413) 746-8660, fax (413) 746-8862
The Community Land Trust Legal Manual This manual, prepared by ICE's community land trust legal task force, provides community land trusts and their lawyers with information about legal issues regarding organizational structure, separate ownership of land and buildings, ground leases, and equity limitation. Includes model documents. 240 pages, 1991. Revision due out in 2001. $100.00 ($50.00 for CLT Network members) Ç prices include revised edition when available.
Managing the Money Side: Financial Management for Community-Based Housing Organizations For CLTs and other community-based housing organizations, Managing the Money Side identifies the types of financial problems that can overwhelm an organization without an adequate accounting system. The manual then leads readers through the process of developing sound budgeting, accounting and reporting systems. Written for ICE by Kirby White and funded by Metropolitan Life Foundation. 136 pages, 1994. $50.00 first copy (discounts: $35.00 Ç Community Organizations; $25.00 Ç CLT Associates; $20.00 Ç CLT Affiliates) $20.00 for each additional copy
A Guide to Resident Selection and Education for Community Land Trusts From the initial step of reaching out to potential residents, to the selection process itself, to ongoing education and support for leaseholders, this guide will inform readers of the steps in an effective resident selection process. 61 pages, 1991. $8.00 ($6.50 for CLT Affiliates and Associates)
Community Land Trust Homeownership Program Manual By Burlington Community Land Trust. This technical assistance guide focuses on BCLT's "buyer-initiated" CLT homeownership program. It addresses legal, marketing and financing issues, qualification and education of homebuyers, resales, bargain sales, leaseholder services, and more. 81 pages, 1994. $22.50
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
48
Articles from ABA Journal of Affordable Housing, Focus: Long Term Affordability, Spring, 1992 This series of articles includes: Community Land Trusts and Ground Leases , by David Abromowitz, 3 pages; Cooperatives and Mutual Housing Associations, by David H. Kirkpatrick, 2 pages; Resale Restrictions and Leverage Controls, by Michael F. Keeley and Peter B. Manzo, 3 pages; and Long-Term Affordability and Tax Credits, by Jeffrey Kuta, 3 pages. $1.50 for the series of articles (includes postage)
The Burlington CLT as a Private Complement to Public Land and Housing Programs: A Policy Proposal By the Community and Economic Development Office, City of Burlington. Proposals for city programs to cooperate with and encourage the development of the BCLT. 12 pages, 1984. $2.50 (includes postage)
Video: Homes and Hands: Community Land Trusts in Action Produced by the Academy Award winning filmmakers of Women's Educational Media, in collaboration with ICE, Homes and Hands: Community Land Trusts in Action is a dynamic introduction to the community land trust (CLT) model. It features the stories of CLTs in Durham, North Carolina, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Burlington, Vermont. Homeowners, board members, CLT staff and local city officials tell their stories of how a CLT has made a difference in their communities. The video provides an excellent introduction to the CLT concept and how it addresses land and housing issues in diverse communities across the United States. Comes with a 23-page companion guide. This Guide available in English or Spanish. 1998. VHS format. $100.00 Institutions, $60.00, Community Organizations, $20.00, Developing CLTs, $10.00 , additional copies for CLT Associates and Affiliates
BROCHURE: Introducing Community Land Trusts A concise, compelling brochure introducing community land trusts, explaining the importance of community control of land and including a description of the essential features of CLTs, endorsements from people involved in CLTs, and stories of three successful CLTs. This is a useful tool for local CLT organizing and includes a space to fill in a local contact name. 1993. Also available in Spanish. 1999. $25.00 for 100 copies, $.20 each after 100 (ask for free sample)
The Community Land Trust Handbook The Handbook, prepared by ICE and published by Rodale Press, includes a description of the community land trust model and its theoretical basis, nine case studies of early CLTs, and practical advice on organizing, financing and developing a CLT. With pictures, illustrations and an easy-to-read format, this book is a key resource for anyone interested in CLTs. 228 pages, 1982. $7.00
49
Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood By John Emmeus Davis. This book examines the domestic property interests of people within urban neighborhoods and the organization. 32 pages. I999. $10.00
Of People and Land: Telling Our Stories, Building Homes, Creating Community By OPAL Community Land Trust. This book is a heartfelt portrait of 18 families and the community land trust that brought them together in one neighborhood Full color photos of the families, their neighborhood, Opal Commons, and their island home in Washington State 's San Juan Island . The narrative reveals the struggles and triumphs of individuals with no prior experience in non-profit housing. They form a group, define common goals, secure funding, build their first neighborhood of 18 homes, and go on to build a second neighborhood of 24 additional homes. During their first ten years, they form strong community bonds and create a successful organization. 32 pages. I999. $10.00
Joining the CLT Network
The CLT Network has two levels of membership.
CLT Network Affiliate Membership for approved CLTs. CLT Network Associate Membership for any group or individual who supports the CLT model. Applications for either level of membership are available from and should be returned to:
The CLT Network Steering Committee c/o The Institute for Community Economics 57 School Street Springfield MA 01105 -1331 (413) 746-8660 Fx (413) 746-8862
©
Bur
lingt
on A
ssoc
iate
s in
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent,
LLC
Res
ale
Form
ula
Com
pari
son
Item
ized
For
mul
as
Nar
rativ
e D
escr
iptio
n of
Item
ized
For
mul
a Sy
mbo
lic D
escr
iptio
n of
Item
ized
For
mul
a A
dvan
tage
s of
Item
ized
For
mul
as
Dis
adva
ntag
es
of It
emiz
ed F
orm
ulas
Ite
miz
ed fo
rmul
as a
djus
t the
orig
i-na
l pur
chas
e pr
ice
by a
ddin
g or
su
btra
ctin
g fa
ctor
s tha
t aff
ect t
he
valu
e of
the
owne
r's in
vest
men
t in
a ho
me
and
the
valu
e of
the
hom
e its
elf.
Fac
tors
incl
uded
in a
n ite
m-
ized
form
ula
vary
wid
ely
from
one
C
LT to
ano
ther
, but
com
mon
ly
incl
uded
are
: an
infla
tion
adju
st-
men
t; a
cred
it fo
r the
val
ue o
f lat
er
impr
ovem
ents
, a d
educ
tion
for
depr
ecia
tion
(if th
e ho
me
is n
ot
mai
ntai
ned)
, and
a p
enal
ty fo
r un-
usua
l dam
age.
V
AR
IATI
ON
S:
* T
here
is w
ide
varie
ty in
the
met
hod
and
inde
x us
ed to
adj
ust
fo
r inf
latio
n.
* T
here
is w
ide
varie
ty in
wha
t is
dee
med
a “
usef
ul”
impr
ovem
ent
a
nd in
how
the
valu
e of
impr
ovem
ents
is c
alcu
late
d.
* D
epre
ciat
ion
is so
met
imes
NO
T
incl
uded
as a
fact
or su
btra
ctin
g
v
alue
.
* P
ublic
and
priv
ate
subs
idie
s
so
met
imes
AR
E in
clud
ed a
s a
fa
ctor
subt
ract
ing
valu
e.
Purc
hase
pri
ce
+ (H
omeo
wne
r eq
uity
inve
sted
or
earn
ed to
dat
e
x i
nfla
tion
fact
or)
+ V
alue
of i
mpr
ovem
ents
add
ed
b
y ho
meo
wne
r
– D
epre
ciat
ion
– D
amag
e be
yond
nor
mal
wea
r
and
tear
__
____
____
___
= R
esal
e pr
ice
1. T
he e
quity
that
an
owne
r rec
eive
s is
tied
dire
ctly
to a
mea
sure
men
t of h
er p
er-
sona
l cho
ices
and
per
sona
l inv
estm
ent o
f tim
e an
d m
oney
. 2.
An
infla
tion
adju
stm
ent c
an p
reve
nt
the
deva
luat
ion
of th
e ow
ner's
ear
ned
equi
ty, w
hile
not
giv
ing
unfa
ir ad
vant
age
to a
hom
eow
ner w
ith a
smal
l am
ount
of
equi
ty in
a v
alua
ble
prop
erty
. 3.
A d
istin
ctio
n ca
n be
mad
e be
twee
n “u
sefu
l im
prov
emen
ts”
and
"lux
ury
im-
prov
emen
ts,"
with
onl
y th
e fo
rmer
add
-in
g to
the
resa
le p
rice.
4.
The
re is
an
ince
ntiv
e fo
r sou
nd
mai
nten
ance
and
repa
ir –
and
pena
lties
fo
r def
erre
d m
aint
enan
ce d
amag
e.
5. I
tem
ized
form
ulas
are
insu
late
d fr
om
the
mar
ket a
nd d
o no
t dep
end
upon
ap-
prai
sals
of m
arke
t val
ue.
They
avo
id th
e po
tent
ial d
iffic
ulty
of a
chie
ving
dep
end-
able
app
rais
als a
nd o
f sep
arat
ing
out t
he
mar
ket v
alue
of l
and
from
the
mar
ket
valu
e of
bui
ldin
gs.
6. B
ecau
se th
ey d
o no
t dep
end
on a
n ap
prai
sal o
f mar
ket v
alue
at t
he ti
me
of
resa
le, i
tem
ized
form
ulas
allo
w a
n ow
n-er
's po
tent
ial e
quity
to b
e ca
lcul
ated
and
re
porte
d fr
om y
ear t
o ye
ar.
1. D
epen
ding
on
the
inde
x of
infla
tion
that
is u
sed,
infla
tion
adju
stm
ents
can
pu
sh re
sale
pric
es b
eyon
d th
e re
ach
of
hous
ehol
ds w
hose
inco
mes
do
not k
eep
up w
ith in
flatio
n.
2. T
hese
form
ulas
requ
ire d
iffic
ult-t
o-de
scrib
e an
d di
ffic
ult-t
o-qu
antif
y di
stin
c-tio
ns b
etw
een
impr
ovem
ents
vs.
repa
irs,
usef
ul im
prov
emen
ts v
s. lu
xury
im-
prov
emen
ts, t
he v
alue
of m
ater
ials
vs.
the
valu
e of
labo
r.
3. T
he C
LT's
over
sigh
t rol
e in
revi
ewin
g an
d ap
prov
ing
prop
osed
impr
ovem
ents
–
and
in c
alcu
latin
g th
e va
lue
of th
ose
im-
prov
emen
ts --
can
dim
inis
h th
e ow
ner's
se
nse
of p
rivac
y an
d ca
n le
ad to
dis
pute
s be
twee
n th
e ow
ners
and
the
CLT
. 4.
An
accu
mul
atio
n of
impr
ovem
ents
ov
er a
n ex
tend
ed p
erio
d of
tim
e --
eve
n if
none
are
con
side
red
luxu
ries-
- can
pus
h th
e re
sale
pric
e be
yond
the
finan
cial
re
ach
of fu
ture
low
-inco
me
hom
ebuy
ers.
5.
If d
epre
ciat
ion
is a
fact
or, s
epar
ate
depr
ecia
tion
sche
dule
s mus
t be
adop
ted
for e
ach
maj
or sy
stem
in a
hou
se a
nd
reco
rds m
ust b
e ke
pt o
f on-
goin
g re
pair.
6.
The
val
uatio
n of
“un
usua
l” w
ear a
nd
tear
can
be
elus
ive
(and
con
tent
ious
). 7.
Ite
miz
ed fo
rmul
as m
ake
enor
mou
s de
man
ds o
n C
LT st
aff t
ime,
requ
iring
ex
tens
ive
reco
rd-k
eepi
ng a
nd p
erio
dic
calc
ulat
ions
of g
reat
com
plex
ity –
lots
of
mov
ing
parts
to tr
ack,
cou
nt, a
nd e
xpla
in.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
50
©
Bur
lingt
on A
ssoc
iate
s in
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent,
LLC
Res
ale
Form
ula
Com
pari
son
App
rais
al-b
ased
For
mul
as
Nar
rativ
e D
escr
iptio
n of
A
ppra
isal
-bas
ed F
orm
ula
Sym
bolic
Des
crip
tion
of
App
rais
al-b
ased
For
mul
a A
dvan
tage
s of
App
rais
al-b
ased
For
mul
as
Dis
adva
ntag
es
of A
ppra
isal
-bas
ed F
orm
ulas
A
ppra
isal
-bas
ed fo
rmul
as a
djus
t th
e or
igin
al p
urch
ase
pric
e of
a
CLT
hom
e by
add
ing
a ce
rtain
pe
rcen
tage
of a
ny in
crea
se in
the
hom
e’s m
arke
t val
ue, a
s mea
sure
d by
mar
ket a
ppra
isal
s at t
he ti
me
of
purc
hase
(App
rais
al1)
and
at t
he
time
of re
sale
(App
rais
al2)
. Th
e pe
rcen
tage
of t
his a
ppre
ciat
ed v
al-
ue a
lloca
ted
to th
e ho
meo
wne
r is
stip
ulat
ed in
the
form
ula
(25%
is
com
mon
, alth
ough
som
e C
LTs
allo
cate
a h
ighe
r per
cent
age)
. A
p-pr
aisa
ls a
re d
one
for t
he b
uild
ing
alon
e, n
ot fo
r the
com
bine
d va
lue
of th
e la
nd a
nd b
uild
ing.
V
AR
IATI
ON
S:
* S
ome
CLT
s hav
e ad
ded
a cr
edit
for l
ater
impr
ovem
ents
. *
Som
e C
LT’s
hav
e us
ed a
% th
at
in
crea
ses o
ver t
ime,
so th
at th
e
lo
nger
a h
omeo
wne
r sta
ys, t
he
m
ore
appr
ecia
tion
s/he
get
s
whe
n s/
he le
aves
. *
Som
e C
LTs a
ppra
ise
the
valu
e
o
f bot
h th
e la
nd a
nd b
uild
ing,
use
a ra
tio to
det
erm
ine
how
muc
h of
the
prop
erty
’s v
alue
is
o
wne
d by
the
hom
eow
ner,
and
the
appl
y a
% to
app
reci
atio
n.
Purc
hase
pri
ce
+ [(
App
rais
al2 –
App
rais
al1)
x
%]
____
____
____
=
Res
ale
pric
e
1. A
ppra
isal
-bas
ed fo
rmul
as a
re e
asy
to
expl
ain
and
easy
to u
nder
stan
d.
2. B
ecau
se th
ey re
ly o
n pr
ofes
sion
al a
p-pr
aisa
ls, u
tiliz
ing
stan
dard
tech
niqu
es fo
r ap
prai
sing
mar
ket v
alue
, the
se fo
rmul
as
do n
ot re
quire
CLT
staf
f to
mak
e di
ffi-
cult
and
pote
ntia
lly c
ontro
vers
ial a
sses
s-m
ents
of v
alue
. C
hanc
es fo
r con
flict
be-
twee
n ho
meo
wne
rs a
nd th
e C
LT a
re re
-du
ced.
3.
The
se fo
rmul
as a
void
the
diff
icul
ties
invo
lved
in d
istin
guis
hing
repa
irs fr
om
impr
ovem
ents
, in
asse
ssin
g th
e va
lue
of
impr
ovem
ents
, and
in g
augi
ng "
wea
r and
te
ar."
The
diff
icul
ty in
volv
ed in
infla
tion
adju
stm
ents
is a
lso
avoi
ded.
4.
The
re is
no
need
to in
trude
on
the
owne
r's p
rivac
y an
d se
nse
of o
wne
rshi
p to
app
rove
and
eva
luat
e im
prov
emen
ts.
5. T
hese
form
ulas
dis
cour
age
the
accu
-m
ulat
ion
of e
xpen
sive
impr
ovem
ents
ov
er ti
me
that
can
pus
h th
e re
sale
pric
e be
yond
the
reac
h of
futu
re lo
w-in
com
e ho
meb
uyer
s.
6. D
etai
led
reco
rd-k
eepi
ng a
nd fu
ssy
arith
met
ic a
re n
ot re
quire
d, re
lievi
ng
CLT
staf
f of b
urde
nsom
e ta
sks a
nd
avoi
ding
the
disp
utes
that
can
resu
lt fr
om
inad
equa
te o
r inc
ompl
ete
reco
rds.
1. A
ppra
isin
g re
al e
stat
e is
not
an
exac
t sc
ienc
e, p
artic
ular
ly w
hen
the
valu
e of
la
nd m
ust b
e di
stin
guis
hed
from
the
val-
ue o
f a b
uild
ing
loca
ted
on th
at la
nd.
2. T
hese
form
ulas
do
not a
llow
yea
r-to
-ye
ar m
easu
rem
ent o
f the
ow
ner's
equ
ity
(exc
ept f
or e
quity
bui
lt up
thro
ugh
debt
re
paym
ent)
unle
ss a
n ow
ner w
ants
to
bear
the
expe
nse
of p
erio
dic
appr
aisa
ls.
3. I
n a
rapi
dly
appr
ecia
ting
real
est
ate
mar
ket,
appr
aisa
l-bas
ed fo
rmul
as c
an
allo
w re
sale
pric
es to
rise
bey
ond
the
affo
rdab
ility
leve
l for
futu
re h
omeb
uyer
s if
the
perc
enta
ge o
f app
reci
atio
n al
loca
t-ed
to th
e pr
esen
t ow
ner i
s too
hig
h.
4. T
hese
form
ulas
do
not d
istin
guis
h be
twee
n va
lue
adde
d by
the
owne
r and
va
lue
adde
d by
mar
ket (
a fa
ctor
that
is
beyo
nd th
e ow
ner's
con
trol).
5.
In
a st
able
real
est
ate
mar
ket,
owne
rs
who
hav
e m
ade
subs
tant
ial i
mpr
ove-
men
ts w
ill re
capt
ure
only
a p
ortio
n of
w
hat t
hey
have
inve
sted
. Th
ere
is, t
here
-fo
re, a
dis
ince
ntiv
e fo
r mak
ing
impr
ove-
men
ts a
nd, p
erha
ps, f
or re
plac
emen
ts.
6. M
arke
t app
rais
als i
n an
app
reci
atin
g m
arke
t may
not
take
ade
quat
e ac
coun
t of
poor
repa
ir. T
hese
form
ulas
may
fail
to
enco
urag
e go
od m
aint
enan
ce.
51
©
Bur
lingt
on A
ssoc
iate
s in
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent,
LLC
Res
ale
Form
ula
Com
pari
son
Inde
xed
Form
ulas
Nar
rativ
e D
escr
iptio
n of
Inde
xed
Form
ula
Sym
bolic
Des
crip
tion
of In
dexe
d Fo
rmul
a A
dvan
tage
s of
Inde
xed
Form
ulas
D
isad
vant
ages
of
Inde
xed
Form
ulas
In
dexe
d fo
rmul
as a
djus
t the
orig
i-na
l pur
chas
e pr
ice
by a
pply
ing
a si
ngle
fact
or –
the
chan
ge in
a p
ar-
ticul
ar in
dex
betw
een
the
date
the
hom
eow
ner p
urch
ases
his
/her
ho
me
and
the
date
s/he
rese
lls th
at
hom
e. T
his i
ndex
, whi
ch is
spec
i-fie
d in
the
form
ula,
can
be
a m
eas-
ure
of in
com
es in
the
CLT
’s se
r-vi
ce a
rea
(e.g
., ch
ange
in m
edia
n in
com
e) o
r a m
easu
re o
f ris
ing
cost
s (e.
g., t
he C
PI fo
r hou
sing
).
Alth
ough
inde
xed
form
ulas
are
not
as
com
mon
as a
ppra
isal
-bas
ed
form
ulas
am
ong
CLT
s , th
ey a
re
quite
com
mon
am
ong
publ
ic p
ro-
gram
s tha
t sub
sidi
ze lo
w-in
com
e re
ntal
s and
low
-inco
me
hom
eow
n-er
ship
. In
dexe
d fo
rmul
as p
egge
d to
AM
I are
incr
easi
ngly
bei
ng
used
in ra
pidl
y ap
prec
iatin
g m
ar-
kets
V
AR
IATI
ON
S:
* T
here
is w
ide
varie
ty in
the
inde
x us
ed in
thes
e fo
rmul
as.
* S
ome
inde
xed
form
ulas
add
a c
redi
t for
late
r im
prov
emen
ts
m
ade
by th
e ho
meo
wne
r.
Purc
hase
pri
ce
x C
hang
e in
inde
x __
____
____
____
__
= R
esal
e pr
ice
1. I
f the
inde
x is
peg
ged
to th
e in
com
e of
pe
ople
for w
hom
the
CLT
is tr
ying
to
keep
hou
sing
aff
orda
ble,
thes
e fo
rmul
as
do a
goo
d jo
b en
surin
g th
at th
e re
sale
pr
ice
will
, ind
eed,
be
affo
rdab
le fo
r thi
s ta
rget
pop
ulat
ion
in th
e fu
ture
. 2.
Dep
endi
ng o
n th
e in
dex
used
, the
se
form
ulas
can
giv
e a
siza
ble
retu
rn to
ho
meo
wne
rs w
ho se
ll th
eir h
omes
, pro
-m
otin
g m
obili
ty fo
r low
-inco
me
peop
le.
3.
A fo
rmul
a th
at u
ses m
edia
n in
com
e as
its
inde
x fit
s eas
ily a
nd u
nder
stan
dabl
y in
to th
e gu
idel
ines
of m
ost f
eder
al a
nd
stat
e ho
usin
g su
bsid
y pr
ogra
ms,
elim
i-na
ting
the
need
for l
engt
hy n
egot
iatio
ns.
4. D
epen
ding
on
the
inde
x us
ed, t
he in
-fo
rmat
ion
need
ed to
cal
cula
te re
sale
pric
-es
is re
adily
ava
ilabl
e –
and
verif
iabl
e –
by h
omeo
wne
rs a
nd st
aff a
like.
5.
The
se fo
rmul
as a
re re
lativ
ely
sim
ple
and
com
preh
ensi
ble
and
do n
ot re
quire
ju
dgm
ents
by
CLT
staf
f or p
rofe
ssio
nal
appr
aise
rs.
Occ
asio
ns fo
r mis
unde
r-st
andi
ngs a
nd d
ispu
tes a
re m
inim
ized
. 6.
Adm
inis
tratio
n by
CLT
staf
f is s
im-
ple,
eas
y, a
nd in
expe
nsiv
e, re
quiri
ng n
ei-
ther
the
reco
rd-k
eepi
ng o
f ite
miz
ed fo
r-m
ulas
nor
the
mar
ket a
ppra
isal
s of a
p-pr
aisa
l-bas
ed fo
rmul
as.
1. E
very
thin
g hi
nges
on
choo
sing
the
“rig
ht”
inde
x. E
ven
med
ian
inco
me
can
prov
e to
be
the
“wro
ng”
inde
x, si
nce
low
-inco
me
peop
le o
ften
do n
ot b
enef
it fr
om e
cono
mic
tren
ds th
at in
crea
se m
e-di
an in
com
e fo
r an
SMSA
or a
cou
nty.
2.
An
inde
x th
at is
acc
urat
e in
trac
king
th
e in
com
e of
low
-inco
me
peop
le m
ay
still
fail
to k
eep
hous
ing
affo
rdab
le, b
e-ca
use
othe
r fac
tors
– m
ost n
otab
ly, i
n-cr
ease
s in
mor
tgag
e in
tere
st ra
tes –
aff
ect
the
hom
e’s a
ffor
dabi
lity.
3.
The
se fo
rmul
as d
o no
t dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
appr
ecia
ting
valu
e pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e ow
ner a
nd v
alue
pro
duce
d by
oth
er
fact
ors.
Som
e ow
ners
may
not
rece
ive
a re
ason
able
retu
rn o
n th
eir i
nves
tmen
t, w
hile
oth
ers m
ay b
enef
it ric
hly
from
ap-
prec
iatio
n th
ey d
id li
ttle
to p
rodu
ce.
4. T
hese
form
ulas
may
pro
vide
scan
t in
cent
ive
for r
epai
rs a
nd im
prov
emen
ts.
A c
hang
e in
the
inde
x gi
ves o
wne
rs a
n au
tom
atic
incr
ease
in p
rice,
eve
n fo
r a
poor
ly m
aint
aine
d, u
nim
prov
ed h
ome.
5.
The
se fo
rmul
as a
llow
shor
ter-
term
ow
ners
with
littl
e eq
uity
and
a la
rge
mor
tgag
e de
bt to
cap
ture
the
sam
e ap
pre-
ciat
ed v
alue
as l
onge
r-te
rm o
wne
rs w
ho
have
pai
d do
wn
thei
r mor
tgag
es.
This
m
ay e
ncou
rage
shor
ter o
ccup
ancy
.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
52
©
Bur
lingt
on A
ssoc
iate
s in
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent,
LLC
Res
ale
Form
ula
Com
pari
son
Mor
tgag
e-ba
sed
Form
ulas
Nar
rativ
e D
escr
iptio
n of
Mor
tgag
e-ba
sed
Form
ula
Sym
bolic
Des
crip
tion
of M
ortg
age-
base
d
Form
ula
Adv
anta
ges
of M
ortg
age-
base
d Fo
rmul
as
Dis
adva
ntag
es
of M
ortg
age-
base
d Fo
rmul
as
Mor
tgag
e-ba
sed
form
ulas
adj
ust
the
resa
le p
rice
base
d on
the
amou
nt o
f mor
tgag
e fin
anci
ng a
pu
rcha
ser o
f a g
iven
inco
me
leve
l w
ill b
e ab
le to
aff
ord
at th
e th
en-
curr
ent i
nter
est r
ate.
Fac
tors
that
m
ust b
e sp
ecifi
ed in
des
igni
ng a
m
ortg
age-
base
d fo
rmul
a m
ust i
n-cl
ude:
-
the
inco
me
leve
l for
whi
ch
the
hom
e m
ust b
e af
ford
a-bl
e -
wha
t is t
o be
incl
uded
in
mon
thly
hou
sing
cos
ts
- th
e fr
ont e
nd ra
tio a
lloca
-tio
n fo
r mon
thly
hou
sing
co
sts
- th
e pe
rcen
tage
of t
he re
-sa
le p
rice
that
is to
be
cove
red
by m
ortg
age
fi-na
ncin
g -
the
type
of m
ortg
age
(term
, fix
ed-r
ate,
etc
.) fo
r w
hich
mon
thly
pay
men
ts
are
to b
e ca
lcul
ated
at t
he
“cur
rent
inte
rest
rate
-
the
inde
x or
ben
chm
ark
that
will
be
used
to d
eter
-m
ine
the
exac
t “cu
rren
t in-
tere
st ra
te”
for t
he ty
pe o
f m
ortg
age
in q
uest
ion
for
the
time
in q
uest
ion.
Res
ale
pric
e =
pric
e af
ford
able
to h
ouse
hold
at
__%
of a
rea
med
ian
inco
me
a
djus
ted
for
fam
ily si
ze
assu
min
g th
e fo
llow
ing
cond
i-tio
ns:
h
ousi
ng c
osts
= p
rinc
ipal
,
in
tere
st, t
axes
, ins
uran
ce,
le
ase
fee
& a
ny H
OA
fees
__%
fron
t-en
d ra
tio
_
_% o
f res
ale
pric
e to
be
cov
ered
by
mor
tgag
e
at p
resc
ribe
d te
rms a
nd
r
equi
rem
ents
for
mor
tgag
e
(e.g
., 30
-yea
r te
rm, f
ixed
rat
e, e
tc.)
a
t “cu
rren
t int
eres
t rat
e”,
a
s def
ined
1. T
he m
ortg
age-
base
d fo
rmul
a is
the
only
form
ula
that
can
gua
rant
ee a
giv
en
leve
l of a
ffor
dabi
lity
at re
sale
to a
hou
se-
hold
at a
giv
en in
com
e le
vel –
rega
rdle
ss
of w
hat h
appe
ns to
inte
rest
rate
s, pr
oper
-ty
tax
leve
ls, i
ncre
ases
in m
arke
t val
ues
and
the
like.
2.
The
bas
ic p
rinci
ple
– to
mak
e su
re
each
succ
essi
ve b
uyer
has
mon
thly
hou
s-in
g co
sts a
t the
sam
e le
vel o
f aff
orda
bil-
ity –
is e
asy
to g
rasp
for h
omeb
uyer
s, m
ortg
age
lend
ers,
and
othe
rs d
irect
ly
invo
lved
in th
e bu
ying
and
selli
ng o
f ho
mes
.
1. T
hese
form
ulas
bas
e th
e re
sale
pric
e en
tirel
y on
wha
t wor
ks fo
r the
buy
er;
ther
efor
e, th
ese
form
ulas
are
less
like
ly
than
the
othe
rs to
giv
e th
e se
ller a
fair
retu
rn –
and
may
giv
e a
retu
rn th
at is
dr
amat
ical
ly u
nfai
r.
2. A
s the
se fo
rmul
as a
re b
ased
on
fact
ors
over
whi
ch th
e se
ller h
as n
o co
ntro
l, th
e pr
oces
s for
selli
ng te
nds t
o be
com
e di
s-to
rted.
If in
tere
st ra
tes a
re h
igh,
selle
rs
wou
ld b
e pe
naliz
ed –
pro
mpt
ing
them
to
dela
y se
lling
or t
empt
ing
them
to v
iola
te
occu
panc
y re
quire
men
ts.
3. M
ortg
age
lend
ers w
ould
hav
e re
ason
to
obj
ect t
o a
form
ula
that
cou
ld re
sult
in
a re
sale
pric
e lo
wer
than
the
amou
nt
owed
on
the
mor
tgag
e.
4. G
over
nmen
t fun
ding
age
ncie
s with
re
gula
tions
requ
iring
that
resa
le re
-st
rictio
ns a
llow
selle
r a “
fair
retu
rn”
may
lik
ely
not a
ppro
ve.
5. It
can
be
diff
icul
t to
esta
blis
h a
clea
r in
dex
or “
benc
hmar
k” to
det
erm
ine
the
“cur
rent
inte
rest
rate
”.
6. A
s the
resa
le p
rice
has n
o re
al b
asis
in
valu
e, th
ere
is li
ttle
mot
ivat
ion
for o
wne
r to
mak
e im
prov
emen
ts to
the
hom
e.
7. H
omeo
wne
rs a
re li
kely
to b
e un
fam
il-ia
r with
how
to c
alcu
late
resa
le p
rice
– po
tent
ially
cre
atin
g tru
st a
nd e
rodi
ng
hom
eow
ners
’ sen
se o
f con
trolli
ng th
eir
own
hom
es.
53
2./// Wk. 9.16.12I. Reading DiagramII. Report #2 • Community Gardens • CLTs/// ArticlesI. “An Introduction to
Community Land Trusts”II. “Community Land Trusts:
Protecting the Land Commons”
III. “Roots of the Community Land Trust Movement”
IV. “Community Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City”
Explanation of the DiagramThe key research finding this week was that all CLTs must be non-profit organizations. Additionally the visit to the Halsey Green Thumb community garden strengthened the localized connections between non-profits and and CLTs. Investigation was also made into the Cooper Square CLT and the darkest pink represents a new housing avenue to explore. The Marx diagram tied everything together by showing how they creak the circuit of capital.
55
Nonprofit
Reading Diagram
Capital Volume II, Ch. 1-4. Karl Marx
Marx Diagram
CLT
596 Acres
New York Restoration Project
Green Thumb
Cooper Square Land Trust
General
Localized
Halsey Garden in Bed-Stuy
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
56
We visited a 596 acres project in Bedstuy, Brooklyn on September 12, 2012, at 462 Halsey. At the garden we met with Kristin, one of two initiating members. Tia and Kristin contacted 596 acres after seeing a sign posted on a vacant neighborhood lot. 596 acres works as an intermediary between community members and the city to obtain empty plots for green spaces. Initially, they locate, virtually map, and identify empty lots in communities by posting informational signage (we did not find any vacant lots listed on their site in Sunset Park). They also help organize community members and educate them about the process of turning a vacant lot into a community green space.
596 Acres signage on vacant lot at Monroe & Tompkins
In this specific case, the vacant lot is owned by the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). Licenses for land use are coordinated through Green Thumb, an organization associated with the New York Parks Department. The majority of lots associated with Green Thumb have licenses for operation, but not land leases. Green Thumb has strict stipulations about land use and structures being built on the land. The plot receives 80 percent of funding through grants. In some instances they also receive funding for specific projects; their rainwater collection system and solar shelter were funded by the New York Restoration Project.
Rainwater collection and solar shelter and 462 Halsey’s sign.
462 Halsey is hoping to be folded into the Brooklyn Queens Land Trust (BQLT). We believe this would allow them more permanence on that plot. We plan to look further into the BQLT to see what connections it has to community land trusts or what differences exist between a CLT and a land trust. To first understand what a CLT is we decided to see how each organization
57
defines it. We looked at the National Community Land Trust Network1, an organization that provides support for the different CLT around the nation. They replaced the Institute for Economics, which was the founder of this concept. We also researched in a Davis and Jacobus book: Introducing CLT they define CLT2. We were also very interested in how the term is used for legal purposes, so we looked at the Housing Community Development Act of 1992, section 213. Finally, we looked at policylink.org, a legal webpage to see if it was treated the same way.3 We’ve found commonalities in the information we’ve gathered thus far and have unearthed topics that require further research. The following is a list of some interrogatives and doubts that have arisen:
1. All CLTs must be non-profit. Since we are also researching the non-profit theme, it is interesting how they overlap. We found a differentiation in Policy Link but would like to investigate more: Community land trusts are distinguished from other nonprofit housing and organizations in two ways: (1) how they separate the ownership of land and housing, and (2) how they are structured and controlled. These two distinctive features contribute to the effectiveness of the CLT model as a tool for dealing with the problems of gentrification.
2. There is a concept of private non-profit organization that we really want to understand. We want to understand the figure of private but at the same time communal. Also, keeping in mind that this concept is not mentioned in the legal definition or in the book, but did appear on the CLT Network and on policy.org.
3. CLTs are exclusively for housing purposes, but Davis and Jacobus state that CLTs can be adapted to “other community uses.” We would like to investigate further, the meaning of “other community uses.”
4. Many CLTs are inspired by the way property was treated by Native Americans and other indigenous groups. They are also inspired by Garden Movement (U.K); Single tax communities (USA; Grandam Villages (India); Moshav (Jewish National Fund). We would like to research and compare these projects.
1 http://www.cltnetwork.org 2 John Davis and Rick Jacobus, The City-CLT Partnership, Chapter 1: Introducing the CLT 3http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136895/k.7746/Community_Land_Trusts.htm.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
58
59
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
60
61
1
Roots of the Community Land Trust Movement Vicki Lindsay1
Community Land Trust houses are privately owned homes on community owned land. The Community Land Trust structure -- which uses a ground lease to define the rights and responsibilities of the individual as owner of the building, and the community as owner of the land – is a very practical and thoroughly tested means of ensuring perma-nent affordability. Real life examples of CLTs in action can be found in communities throughout the United States and in case profiles published by the Institute for Commu-nity Economics and others. Here, however, we will look at the philosophical, cultural and religious roots of the model.
The Community Land Trust model is based in the belief that land is not a commodity but a sacred inheritance to be shared by all. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and sup-port, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water”
This idea may sound new and strange, but it was the view shared by many sages of the American Revolution:
“Man did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to oc-cupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it …It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.” Tom Paine
“The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and live on.”Thomas Jefferson
It fact, this concept of land as a common inheritance has been the common and self-evident understanding of most cultures throughout most of human history. It is expressed in many religious and cultural traditions, including those that informed the Gandhian Movement, the relationship of indigenous peoples to the land, and books of the Bible.
* * * * *
In ancient India, as in much of the world, land was seen as a gift from nature to the in-habitants of the earth as a common heritage. First the hunting and gathering people, and later the shepherds took sustenance from the earth as the earth provided. References to
1 Vicki Lindsay was the founding director of the Wellspring Community Land Trust in Gloucester, MA (later renamed the Community Land Trust of Cape Ann). She also served for many years on the board of the Institute for Community Economics. This unpublished paper was written in 2001.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
62
2
land tenure in the Vedic texts, the foundation of Hindu spirituality, prohibit the deeding of land.
It was only at the onset of settled agriculture that the need for exclusive rights to the land arose. Even then, the use of land was the right of the one who had cleared it.
But once land rights moved from the community to individuals, land became vulnerable to takeover. As early as the time of Buddha, some absentee landlords living in cities had acquired large rural holdings which made them rich, and the people who worked them poor. The landlord system differed from region to region and evolved slowly over time. With the arrival of the British, the recording of deeds, and the landlord system, was for-malized. The Raj first settled into urban areas but gradually reached the remote, still tribal, regions. The only proof of land rights became the individual deed, something wholly counter to the tribal relationship to land; something which the “owner” couldn’t even read. Reform of the landlord system became a key goal of the independence move-ment, and of its most famous leader, Mahatma Gandhi.
After independence and Gandhi’s death, the principles of the Gandhian revolution were soon abandoned. Non-violence was replaced by violence-- by the armed struggle of the communists fighting for land reform and by the Indian Army repressing the communists. Gandhi’s vision of decentralized power was replaced by a drive for a strong central gov-ernment and progress towards an industrial economy.
Vinoba Bhave, Gandhi’s great disciple and spiritual successor, led the remnant non-violent movement. In 1951 he began a journey on foot into the troubled region of Telan-gana (now in Andhra Pradesh) to teach non-violence and to lead the communities in prayer.
He was greeted by a group of poor, landless harijans (Gandhi’s name, meaning “child of God”, those who had previously been known as “untouchables”). They told him that prayer meetings were all well and good, but that in order to feed their families they needed land, and in order to live in peace they needed to feed their families. Bhave knew that this was true, but he didn’t know how to help. He asked them how much land they needed. They answered that together they needed 80 acres.
That evening, during the prayer meeting, Bhave told the gathered villagers about his con-versation with the harijans. He asked whether anyone had more land than he needed, whether anyone could give land to the landless. Ram Chandra Reddy, a wealthy land-owner answered that yes, he had 100 acres of land to give. The response was so unex-pected that Bhave thought he must have misheard. He asked again, and the donor re-peated his willingness to give title to his excess land to those who had none. Bhave was stunned, and stunned again when the harijans replied with gratitude that they needed only 80 acres, and declined to accept more than they needed.
63
3
The Bhoodan (Gift of the Land) movement was launched The next day Bhave traveled to another village and again found landowners willing to give their land. In Telangana, the gifts averaged 200 acres per day. On the journey from Pavnar to Delhi, the average gift was 300 acres a day.
By the end of the first year Bhave had inspired the redistribution of tens of thousands of acres. Then, he began to hear disturbing news. Some of the new small landholders were already losing their land to creditors and others. While walking in Uttar Pradesh in May 1952, he arrived at the village of Mangrath. He shared this problem with the villagers and asked them what to do. Remembering that the Vedas recalled a time when individual ownership of land was forbidden, they decided to contribute all of the land of the village – not to individuals or families – but to the village as a whole for the benefit of all the villagers. This was the birth of the Gramdan (Gift of the Village) Movement. This guar-anteed that everyone had access to the land they needed, and the land was safe from loss by individual misfortune or misjudgment.
The Community Land Trust movement is the North American heir of the Gramdan move-ment and inspired by the same ideals. The commitment to nonviolence is evidenced by the fact that all of the parties – donors, stewards and residents are willing participants, moved by their own interests – whether they be spiritual, material, or both.
* * * * *
To indigenous people in all parts of the world land is sacred, and the people and the land are inseparable. A report on Philosophy of Land of Indigenous People, prepared by the World Council on Indigenous People states:
The land is the basis of our culture and the basis of our existence. The land is not ours to sell, it is only ours to honour, respect and protect for our children and our children’s children.
In the same report, Chief George Manuel, co-founder of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, is quoted:
This is not the land that can be speculated, bought, sold, mortgaged, claimed by one state, surrendered or counter-claimed by a king by whose grace and favor men must make their fortunes on this earth. The land from which our culture springs is like the water and the air, one and in-divisible. The land is our Mother Earth. The animals who grow on that land are our spiritual brothers.
Winona LaDuke, indigenous rights activist, former Green Party vice presidential candi-date, and Director of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, describes the White Earth Ojibway culture. (In the following quote she uses the term usufruct, which means, liter-ally “use of the fruits.” In law, one who possesses usufruct rights may reap all the bene-fits of the land though he does not own it, including occupancy, harvesting or hunting rights, with the condition the he must care for the land so that it is not harmed. Commu-
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
64
4
nity Land Trust home owners have usufruct rights to the land under and around their homes.):
The land is owned collectively, and we have family-based usufruct rights: each family has traditional areas in which it fishes and hunts. In our society a person harvests rice in one place, traps in another place, gets medicines in a third place, and picks berries in a fourth. These loca-tions depend on the ecosystem; they are not necessarily contiguous. In our language the words which describe the concept of land-ownership translate as "the land of the people", which doesn't imply that we own our land but that we belong to it.
When tribal lands are divided up into parcels and sold or allotted to individuals the rela-tionship of the individual to the whole is immediately disrupted, and over time, the poor-est families lose their land altogether. In White Earth, for example, the government “gave” each family an 80-acre allotment of traditional land. Taxes were assessed on each parcel, and when the family was unable to pay the taxes, the land was seized by the government.
Imposing the individual “land rights” of the dominant society radically undermines the indigenous culture. A key aspect of the world-wide effort for the self-determination of indigenous people is the demand for the right of each people to decide its own relation-ship to the land.
A report of the Word Council of Churches’ Program on Indigenous Rights concludes: To the majority of people in the dominant societies, land is viewed as a commodity, to be bought and sold for profit, fenced in, paved over, dug up….Land is a means to an end, a thing to be exploited….Contrast the view of land … of Indigenous peoples. The land is the unifying force in their lives – social, political, spiritual, cultural, economic – and to sepa-rate the people from their land is to deny their peoplehood.
* * * * *
In the Biblical time of the Patriarchs, there was no private ownership of land. As Tom Paine noted, in his essay Agrarian Justice:
Neither Abraham, Isaac, Joseph nor Job, so far as the history of the Bi-ble may be credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, they traveled with them from place to place…It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.
Neither did the Hebrew people own land when they were slaves in Egypt. During their 40- year passage through the desert, they passed through land belonging to no one. But, when they reached the border of Caanan, they entered a land where they would live as farmers. An agrarian economy requires security of tenure. The book of Leviticus defines
65
5
for the first time the law governing the relationship between people and land. The Torah contains three principles of just stewardship of land. First, there must be an initial just distribution of land. Second, recognizing that over time there will be a tendency for land to concentrate in the hands of the few, a restoring force must be put in place to return land to its original, just distribution. And third, the fundamental needs of the poor must overrule other rights and rules.
The book of Numbers describes the distribution of land to every tribe, subgroup and household. Scouts were sent out to survey the land and to define parcels of equal agricul-tural potential. The parcels were then assigned by a casting of lots. The modern terms “lot” and “allotment” derive from this division.)
Actually, agricultural lands were allotted to only eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Levites had responsibility for maintaining the temple and therefore lived in walled cities rather than on farm land. As they had no land of their own, the other tribes were to bring them a tithe of their harvests:
And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no al-lotment or inheritance of their own. At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 14:27-29)
The second principle is that this wide distribution should be maintained. Once the land was allotted, it belonged not to an individual but to a clan and to all of that clan’s descen-dants, never to be alienated. The Jubilee returns the land to its original owner, but this is a boon only under the assumption that the original distribution was a just one. (Of course the previous inhabitants of Canaan may have challenged the justice of the new distribu-tion of land.)
The celebrations of the Millennium in 2000 and the related call for the cancellation of international debt have helped to remind the modern world of the Biblical concept of the Jubilee Year. The 25th chapter of Leviticus calls for each seventh (Sabbath) day, and each seventh year, to be a time for rest – for people, for animals, and for the land. And then, after seven times seven years, the Bible calls for the 50th year to be a Jubilee, in which debts will be redeemed or forgiven, prisoners will be set free, and the land will be returned to its original owners.
Count off seven Sabbaths of years--seven times seven years--so that the seven Sabbaths of years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
66
6
to return to his family property and each to his own clan. (Leviticus25:8-10)
In the laws God gave to Moses, it is prohibited to sell land in perpetuity. The transfer of land, which is permitted, is not what we would call a sale at all. It is, instead, the leasing the land:
In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property. If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 25:13-17)
The people could not sell the land because they didn’t own it. The land belonged to God: The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Leviticus 25:23-24)
The people are tenants and the lease which governs the use of the land is the Torah.
The third stewardship principle is that private rights to the use of land are limited by the more basic human needs of access to sustenance. For example, farmers were instructed to leave a portion of their harvest standing in the field so that the poor or passing strang-ers could “glean” what remained. They could feed themselves without having to beg.
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus19:9-10)When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. (Deuteronomy 24:19-21)
It is not known to what extent the Jubilee year was actually practiced in ancient Israel, though it is clear that the law was never rescinded. A number of stories establish the con-tinued devotion to the law.
67
7
The importance of the Levitical laws of land stewardship to the CLT movement is the relationship between people and land which it evokes. In the poetic language of the Bi-ble, God is the creator of the land who has given it as a sacred gift – or more precisely, as a sacred loan – to his people, who may use it to sustain life. But they are required to use it justly, with special responsibilities toward those most in need.
* * * * *
Jesus’ ministry begins with the Jubilee proclamation from Isaiah, who in turn was quot-ing Leviticus.
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sab-bath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unroll-ing it, he found the place where it is written: The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. (Luke 4:16-17)
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quoted the Psalmist’s promise of land for the down-trodden, “the meek shall inherit the earth”, and declared that the laws of Moses were still binding.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Mathew 6:17-18)
Jesus didn’t revoke the Law, but in many cases he expanded the interpretation of it. Now forgiveness and redemption applied not only to debt, but to sin as well. The forgiveness of debts becomes a metaphor for the forgiveness of sin.
Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled." "You have judged correctly," Jesus said. (Luke 7:41-43)
The story of the prodigal son is the ultimate story of redemption, of return to the ancestral inheritance, welcomed by the grace of a father’s love.
Jesus’ prayer, as recorded in the Book of Matthew, asks “forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors”; that is, judge us by our fulfillment of our Jubilee obligations.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
68
8
* * * * * There is a thread which runs through all the years, through all the world. The earth is a sacred gift. People did not create it. No one can live without it. The use of the land is a universal inheritance which must be fairly shared. Sometimes it is in the common inter-est to grant exclusive access to some, but in such cases it must be remembered that the land is being borrowed from the others.
The Community Land Trust movement pursues a just distribution of land by offering home ownership opportunities to those who would otherwise be unable to buy a home. The ground lease itself provides the restoring force to maintain the just distribution. Rules which govern the home’s resale price and eligibility, guaranteed by the lease, en-sure that the home remains affordable for future generations and will be available to those who need it the most. Community ownership of the land, through the CLT, defends both the individual and the community from the threat of the loss of the beloved land.
The nature of the Community Land Trust is twofold. On the one hand it is a modern, practical, and efficient approach to affordable housing development, using a model of privately owned homes and community stewardship of land. It simultaneously serves the interests of individuals and community; buyers and sellers; government, workers, busi-nesses; and neighbors,.
On the other hand, the Community Land Trust is a great reminder of an ancient, universal but nearly forgotten wisdom: The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine.
69
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
70
71
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
72
73
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
74
75
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
76
Community Land Trusts and Low-Income
Multifamily Rental Housing:
The Case of Cooper Square, New York City
By Tom Angotti With the assistance of Cecilia Jagu
© 2007 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Working Paper
The findings and conclusions of this paper are not subject to detailed review and do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Please do not photocopy without permission of the Institute. Contact the Institute directly
with all questions or requests for permission. ([email protected])
Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP07TA1
77
About the Authors
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs & Planning at Hunter College, City University of New York, and Director of the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development. He is editor of Progressive Planning Magazine and Planning
Practice & Research, and Land Use columnist for www.gothamgazette.com. His book We Won’t Move is forthcoming from MIT Press, and he previously authored Housing in
Italy and Metropolis 2000. Tom Angotti Professor of Urban Affairs & Planning Hunter College/CUNY 695 Park Avenue New York, NY 10021 tel: 212/650-3130 [email protected] Cecilia Jagu is a student in the Masters in Urban Planning program at Hunter College, City University of New York. We would like to acknowledge the help we received from staff of the three CLTs we studied; the generosity and intellectual leadership of John Emmeus Davis; and the significant support of Rosalind Greenstein of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for this and many other CLT studies.
Abstract
Community land trusts have often promoted owner-occupied single-family housing in rural areas and small towns, but many CLTs have sizeable numbers of multifamily rental and cooperative units. As CLTs are engaged in a national dialogue about “scaling up” production, there is renewed interest in multifamily options in cities. This paper examines the costs and benefits of a multifamily project by the Cooper Square Community Land Trust in New York City. Comparisons are made with new construction and rehab projects of the Burlington Community Land Trust (Burlington, Vermont) and Northern California Land Trust (Berkeley, California). The Cooper Square CLT is a unique case that has so far not been studied. It provides low-income housing with guaranteed long-term affordability in a dense urban setting where gentrification is removing affordable units from the housing stock. Tenant and neighborhood organizing that started over four decades ago, which has resulted in a broad array of community-controlled land, has been a key to Cooper Square’s success, as has support from City government. Cooper Square uses City subsidies more effectively than other programs.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
78
Table of Contents
Introduction: Community Land Trusts and the Single Family Home 1
CLT’s and Multifamily Housing 2
THE COOPER SQUARE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 4
Burlington Community Land Trust (BCLT) 8
The Northern California Land Trust 8
Selected Projects for Comparison 9
Table I. Cooper Square and Comparison Projects 9
New Construction 10
Rehabilitation 10
Development and Financing Costs 11
Table II. Development Costs 11 Benefits to Households 13
Table III. Median Rents and Household Benefits 14
Table IV. Cooper Square CLT vs. Market Rents 14
Figure I. Cooper Square vs. Market Rents 15
Affordability 15
Table V. Area Median Incomes and CLT Rents 16
Operating and Maintenance Costs 16
Table VI. Operating and Maintenance Costs 17
Effective Use of Public Subsidies 17
Conclusions: Community Land and Low-Income Multifamily Housing 21
Bibliography 24
79
1
Community Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case
of Cooper Square, New York City
Introduction: Community Land Trusts and the Single Family Home
Judging from the promotional literature and websites of Community Land Trusts (CLTs) across the nation, it might appear that the highest priority for community-based housing developers is single family owner-occupied housing. The earliest CLTs started in rural areas, small towns and cities where single family homes are the most common housing type because land is relatively inexpensive. Among the approximately 160 land trusts in the U.S., affordable homeownership has been one of the major objectives, if not the main objective. CLTs provide unique opportunities for first-time homebuyers with modest incomes, preserve affordability when homeowners sell, and maximize the benefits of public subsidies (Davis & Demetrowitz, 2003; Burlington Associates, 2005). On the other hand, public subsidies for the development of affordable homeownership through conventional means usually benefit only the first homeowners, and there are few guarantees of long-term affordability. In such cases in which there are little or no resale restrictions, turnovers may have an added effect of contributing to increases in both land and housing values in areas where affordable homeownership is loosing ground. The CLT model and its resale restrictions, if broadly applied, can limit increases in land and housing values over the long term and help stabilize neighborhoods facing the traumas of speculative land development. In a recent study John Emmeus Davis (2006), demonstrates how the CLT model can be part of a broader strategy for “Shared Equity Homeownership.” Despite the apparent emphasis of CLTs on the promotion of homeownership, a sizeable proportion of the housing provided by the largest CLTs today is for rentals. CLTs have developed rental housing to meet the needs of low-income households, many of which are not in a position to qualify for mortgage financing. The interest in rental housing may also expand as CLTs grow in larger cities where multifamily building types are common. While multifamily housing projects may have different forms of tenure -- including condominium ownership, limited-equity coops, mutual housing, and rental – the larger multifamily building type clearly lends itself more to rentals than do single family homes. Since the Reagan presidency, national housing policy has, at least rhetorically, favored subsidies that promote affordable home ownership over those that finance the construction and maintenance of low-income rental housing. Homeownership is a priority of public policy not only in low-density areas but also in central city neighborhoods. Many local non-profit developers welcome homeownership because it promises to rectify past inequities and racial discrimination in mortgage finance. However, the benefits of homeownership are mixed and even with substantial subsidies homeownership by itself is unable to meet the needs of very low-income populations. Many households cannot qualify for financing even under liberal rules, some are highly mobile, and many have little interest in homeownership. Myths about homeownership sometimes make it the
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
80
2
panacea for all urban ills and create the illusion that rentals are only for poor people (Kemeny, 1986). Upwardly mobile and the very wealthy in fact often prefer rentals; for example, 70% of the housing units in the nation’s wealthiest neighborhood, Manhattan’s Upper East Side, are rentals. It is now becoming clear that, decades after the shift to homeownership promotion, the proportion of U.S. households owning homes has increased only incrementally and at 69% has possibly reached a ceiling. CLTs and Multifamily Housing
Recently a dialogue about the need to “scale up” production has emerged in the CLT community, and this brings up the question of whether CLTs should shift their focus and give greater priority to the development of multifamily projects. Until recently, the successes of CLTs have been limited to small cities and towns and rural areas, and compared to more conventional non-profit housing providers CLTs have produced very few units overall. In this highly urbanized nation, CLTs have only a limited presence in large metropolitan areas (Greenstein and Sungu-Erylimaz, 2005). This may be changing as larger cities such as Chicago begin to establish CLTs. Multifamily developments in general are more economically feasible in larger cities where land costs tend to be much higher. But in areas with high land costs, there are also intense pressures on existing affordable housing. Because CLTs can help preserve low-income housing in areas with rising land costs and rents, they can be an important instrument in urban housing policy. By producing more housing in multifamily buildings CLTs can achieve economies of scale, and at the same time help promote Smart Growth and sustainable, innovative approaches to dense urban development, help stabilize neighborhoods vulnerable to the displacement of affordable housing, and serve as models for local community development corporations (CDCs). In older urban neighborhoods CLTs could consider rehabilitation of existing units, which may require lower capital costs per unit if light and moderate rehab strategies are adopted. This could help save existing rental housing units and, especially when coupled with new construction strategies, maximize the overall number of low-income units. Existing government low-income housing subsidies, especially those for homeownership, are typically of limited duration, have weak or no resale restrictions, and affordable housing units created under these programs often remain affordable for short periods of time. When government subsidies are not renewed (in both homeowner and rental situations) households may be forced to move because they can no longer afford to stay. CLTs are a powerful alternative because they promise long-term affordability. CLTs can operate with different forms of tenure – fee ownership with deed restrictions, limited-equity cooperatives, etc. – and thus can be used with a variety of existing subsidy programs, both rental and ownership. But since homeownership is often out of reach for many very low-income households, and CLTs can secure long-term affordability for this population, CLTs can be especially useful for low-income rental housing. There are good reasons to be wary of major new increases in CLT production. The history of CDCs is littered with the remains of community-based developers that tried to
81
3
leap into large-scale development without the management capacity to do so. Some failed to balance development with their social missions and ended up earning the enmity of their community support base -- the case of Banana Kelly in the Bronx (New York) was significant, one of the first and oldest CDCs in the city and country that not too long ago imploded with ambition and corruption. CLT principles include core values of community and resident empowerment as well as long-term affordability (Davis, 1994; Institute for Community Economics, 1982), and if those values are jettisoned CLTs can become deal makers that only mimic the private real estate market and place profit before people. This study examines the costs and benefits of low-income multifamily rental housing provided by the Cooper Square Community Land Trust in New York City. Cooper Square is a unique case of a land trust in a densely developed Manhattan neighborhood that so far has not been studied in depth. All of its 303 housing units are in multifamily buildings, most of them attached and within a three-block area. The buildings are owned and managed by a mutual housing association. Our study finds that the success and survival of the Cooper Square CLT were made possible by decades-long political organizing and support from local government that drastically reduced land and financing costs. The CLT is one element in a broader housing and neighborhood preservation strategy that has deep historical roots in the tenant movement and organizing against abandonment and displacement by urban renewal programs. There is ample potential in New York City for creating many more CLTs. While Cooper Square’s unique history cannot be repeated, if communities are organized and city government provides support, CLTs could help protect a good deal of existing affordable housing and at the same time guarantee the long-term affordability of new housing. We compare the Cooper Square experience with selected multifamily housing projects in two other land trusts: Burlington Community Land Trust (Burlington, Vermont) and Northern California Land Trust (Berkeley, California). The Burlington and Berkeley cases also benefited from supportive political environments. Burlington set the national standard for CLTs because of its successes, operates in an area about the size of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and has a significant stock of multifamily housing. The Northern California trust had roots in a rural area and in recent decades established itself in a relatively low-density suburban part of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is perhaps typical of the many smaller CLTs, but operates within a large metropolitan region. Its multifamily buildings are relatively small and, in contrast to Cooper Square, they are scattered among multiple sites in a relatively low density urban area more typical of U.S. cities than New York. From the vantage point of New York City, Burlington and Berkeley look like small towns. At the 2000 Census, the Burlington area had a population of barely 170,000, compared to some 21 million in New York and 7 million in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area. However, while the scales of the metropolitan areas are radically different, Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Burlington and Berkeley have roughly comparable numbers of residents, around 150,000.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
82
4
Our research shows that these land trusts are able to provide multifamily housing at very low cost when compared to local markets, but in all cases this depends on strong local government and/or neighborhood support. We shall show how the successes of Cooper Square are bound up with and part of a broader social and political trend within its neighborhood favoring social ownership and control of land. Cooper Square could be a model for multifamily development in a city that is losing affordable housing units and subsidies at a rapid pace due to gentrification. So far, however, the Cooper Square experience is not well known, either in New York City or beyond, a situation that this study will hopefully help to remedy. When land trusts are one among many tools used to stabilize land values, including public ownership, rent controls, and land use controls, their benefits are maximized. This hypothesis is consistent with the framework introduced by John Emmaus Davis in “Beyond the Market and State” (1994), where he postulates the need for multiple forms of social housing (see also DeFillipis, 2004). We maintain that it is also necessary that communities consciously exert control over land by using a variety of tools, thereby obtaining a social purpose for land. Thus, “social land” or “community land,” is an important concept for preserving and developing neighborhoods in large cities. Community land is land which local residents and businesses control collectively either via public or non-profit ownership or their power to influence tax, fiscal, zoning, and land use policies the influence the way land is used. It has to do with control over economic and financial institutions that otherwise determine local land use and development patterns. It is an issue of political control, not simply one of legal ownership of the land. While it is not within the scope of this paper to fully elaborate this concept, we will attempt to show how the Cooper Square CLT has been part of a broader decades-long struggle in Manhattan’s Lower East Side for community control over land. Since this is the only CLT in the neighborhood, however, it is clear that one of the more powerful available tools to secure community land – the CLT model – has not been fully utilized.
THE COOPER SQUARE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST
New York City has the largest stock of low-income public housing, publicly assisted housing, and limited-equity coops in the nation, housing close to 800,000 people or ten percent of the city’s population. It has a significant pool of SRO and supportive housing and over 80 community development corporations that produce and manage almost 100,000 units of low-income housing. Over the years, much of this housing developed in response to a dynamic real estate market that placed pressures on affordable rental housing needed to house a large working class and immigrant population. The city’s powerful Real Estate Board of NY (REBNY) boasts that New York is the “Real Estate Capital of the World,” and they can point with pride to a dynamic downtown market that has historically had ripple effects on nearby affordable neighborhoods. New York’s history of liberal social policy has been in many ways defined by conflicts between these forces (see Freeman, 2000).
83
5
The Lower East Side of Manhattan is one such neighborhood. This classical immigrant working class neighborhood is sandwiched between the Wall Street and Midtown business districts. While bordered by the two most desirable business districts, it is also the quintessential new immigrant neighborhood. The tenant movement started there in the early 20th century, and grew with support of the Socialist and Communist parties, both of which had large constituencies in the neighborhood (Lawson, 1986). The nation’s first public housing was built there in 1934, and some of the largest projects every built in the city soon followed. The Lower East Side was the site of several large limited-equity coop projects financed in part by union trust funds. Reflecting its radical political history, the Lower East Side’s community board (one of 59 appointed neighborhood boards in the city that vote on land use matters) has been one of the few in Manhattan to welcome homeless housing, supportive housing and SROs when many others tried to keep them out. This large stock of low- and moderate-income housing and an organized tenant movement placed a great deal of land outside the private market and for decades acted as a brake on gentrification and speculative land development. In addition, New York City has had the longest history of local rent controls, and a large proportion of the neighborhood’s renters have been protected from eviction and precipitous rent increases. In the last half century, the neighborhood’s political leadership fought off several developer-driven proposals for zoning changes that would have allowed for high-rise market-rate development in the area. When large-scale abandonment hit the Lower East Side and other low-income neighborhoods in the 1970s, thousands of squatters and homesteaders further expanded the inventory of land and housing that remained outside the purview of a relatively weak private land market. With current moves to privatize public housing and end public support for moderate-income housing, this situation may well change in coming years, but for now the Lower East Side still has one of the largest and most diverse arrays of affordable housing in the city. As other nearby neighborhoods like Greenwich Village rapidly gentrified since 1960, the Lower East Side’s median income relative to the Manhattan median did not change. However, gentrification did occur and continues to occur in a portion of the Lower East Side due to speculative redevelopment of private rental housing and the conversion of rentals to private coops and condominiums (with no resale restrictions). Between 1960 and 2000, the neighborhood lost 29% of its population and 6% of its housing units; 11% of all rentals were lost. The population that left was disproportionately low-income households, who tended to live in rental units, many of which were converted to condominiums. These changes were the combined result of abandonment and gentrification, and illustrate why preserving rental housing is a top priority among neighborhood leaders. (Sites, 2003; Abu-Lughod, 1994) The Cooper Square CLT was created in 1991, but its roots go back to 1959, when planning czar Robert Moses proposed to level an 11-block area in the Lower East Side and replace it with what might now be dubbed “affordable housing” – union-sponsored coops. The Cooper Square Committee (CSC) of residents and businesses organized in opposition to the Moses project stating that even at below-market prices the new coops would be out of reach of the majority of current residents. In 1961, the Committee completed its own plan for the urban renewal area that included preserving existing
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
84
6
housing and building new low-income housing. After ten years of advocacy, the City accepted their Alternate Plan for Cooper Square (Cooper Square Committee, 1961), the first community-initiated plan to be adopted in the city. Shortly thereafter, the City’s fiscal crisis and the federal shift in housing policy away from low-income housing left the neighborhood advocates with few programs with which to implement their plan. Their first low-income project was completed in 1984 using project-based Section 8 funds. It took over two more decades to see the entire urban renewal plan implemented. Currently construction on the remaining vacant lots will result in new mixed-income housing and community facilities supported by the CSC. Negotiated by a new Cooper Square leadership, the latest phase of new housing has almost 70% market-rate units, but even with this new development 60% of all housing in the urban renewal area is still far below-market and houses tenants falling under 50% of the Area Median Income. The buildings in the neighborhood that had been slated for removal under the original urban renewal plan remained, thanks to the opposition of the CSC. However, with the cloud of eminent domain hanging over them, and in the absence of any intervention by the City, these buildings were abandoned by their private owners, in part a product of “planner’s blight.” Building abandonment in the Lower East Side was also a widespread phenomenon outside designated urban renewal areas. In the 1960s and 1970s, New York City landlords walked away from hundreds of thousands of units of multifamily housing occupied by low-income tenants in the South Bronx, Harlem, Central Brooklyn, and the Lower East Side. Lacking heat, hot water and other services, some tenants left; others took over their buildings and kept them operational. Squatters and homesteaders were particularly active in the Lower East Side. The abandoned buildings joined the growing stock of in rem housing (taken by the City for non-payment of taxes). In a matter of a decade the City wound up owning over 150,000 housing units city-wide. Despite calls by housing activists for a land banking policy (Homefront, 1977), the City’s policy was to dispose of the units, either to the tenants or to non-profit or private developers. The Division of Alternative Management Programs (DAMP) of the City’s housing agency, through its Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) program, was responsible for managing the units and planning their ultimate disposition, not for maintaining them in perpetuity. The problem they faced, however, was that most tenants, particularly those in the Lower East Side, were too poor to afford even a minimal down payment, and the formation of stable tenant-run entities in each building was a difficult and long-term task for which the City was ill equipped. The Urban Homesteading Assistance Board (UHAB), a non-profit group established in 1973, successfully guided 27,000 families in 1,300 buildings in the formation of limited-equity coops, and other buildings were either vacated and demolished or sold. The Cooper Square Committee wasn’t just looking to acquire units from the City. It was led by community organizers and tenant advocates who were committed to stopping displacement and preserving existing housing, and they became housing developers only to confront the practical problems they faced when their members found themselves taking more and more responsibility for their buildings. Frances Goldin, Cooper Square’s main organizer for decades, had been a founder and leading activist in the Metropolitan
85
7
Council on Housing, the city’s largest tenant organization. Cooper Square helped tenants organize to get the City to provide services in the in rem units. They helped tenants fight evictions.1 After fighting off efforts by the City to get rid of the in rem units and all responsibility for them, in 1990 the CSC faced a more friendly approach in the new administration of Mayor David Dinkins, New York’s first African American mayor, and whose home base, Harlem, was the Lower East Side’s closest ally in the political battles for low-income housing and community control of vacant land. The CSC created the Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association (MHA) in 1991 to manage 303 units of multifamily housing and 23 commercial units in 19 buildings, mostly within three blocks of the urban renewal area. The MHA has a central management covering all the buildings, and is governed by a board made up of two-thirds tenants and one-third appointees of the Land Trust. The cost per household to join the MHA was (and still is) $250. The Cooper Square Community Land Trust was founded in 1991 at the same time as the MHA, with a board made up of one-third tenants and two-thirds community residents or public members.2 The Land Trust owns the land on which the MHA buildings reside. The Cooper Square MHA is one of several mutual housing associations in New York City (see Krinsky and Hovde, 1996). Despite other efforts to organize land trusts we found only two currently functioning in New York City – Cooper Square and an East New York (Brooklyn) land trust, also affiliated with a mutual housing association. The housing in the latter land trust consists of several hundred units in 113 buildings that were once in rem and occupied by low-income tenants. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was the main community organizer and the Pratt Center for Community & Environmental Development (PICCED) provided technical assistance, as it had with Cooper Square. According to CSC leaders, the principal influence in founding the mutual housing and CLT was the mutual housing model from northern Europe. Dutch students and professionals who interned at CSC made the case for the mutual housing model, which was also supported by housing specialists at PICCED. While there was some initial connection with emerging land trusts in other parts of the U.S., the Cooper Square CLT emerged in relative isolation and has not been a part of national coalitions or had any consistent contact with other land trusts. This isolation may be a product of the dramatic differences between Cooper Square’s central city context and those of other land trusts. At present, they are in the process of seeking State approval for cooperative ownership of the buildings. The new limited-equity coops would remain affordable in the long term under the land trust. In effect, they would continue to function more or less as they have under the mutual housing model. The Cooper Square units are undoubtedly among the lowest cost housing in what is now a partially gentrifying neighborhood. Two bedroom apartments, for example, rent at $431 per month, affordable to households at less than 25% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Since 1991, rents increased only once, in 1994, by slightly more than 3%. We will discuss the significance of these low costs later on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
86
8
Since we compare CSC projects with multifamily projects in Burlington and Berkeley, we offer brief background sketches of the other two CLTS. Burlington Community Land Trust (BCLT)
3
The BCLT is the largest established land trust in the U.S. and arguably the standard against which other land trusts are measured because of its size, durability and track record of successfully developing and maintaining affordable housing. While BCLT is often looked to for its successful home ownership development programs, it is not often recognized for the lessons it offers to urban community land trusts aiming to develop low-income multifamily rental housing. BCLT fosters homeownership through a program to counsel prospective homebuyers and includes in its portfolio 172 homes. However, over 57% of BCLT’s housing stock is low-income rentals and limited-equity coops -- about 375 units in all, of which 49 are SROs. According to a recent study of BCLT renters, their median income is less than 50% of the Area Median Income, the apartments and households tend to be smaller, with more children and single parents, fewer elderly, and fewer cars (Gent and Sawyer, 2005). Because if its extensive experience with low-income rentals, BCLT might serve as both a benchmark against which the unique experiences of Cooper Square can be compared, and an indicator of where more developed land trusts may be heading in the future. BCLT’s recent merger with the Lake Champlain Housing Development Corporation, a regional non-profit that manages 1,100 affordable rental units, resulted in the largest regional community land trust in the nation, The Champlain Housing Trust. This will presumably create new opportunities for growth and scale economies in development and management. It remains to be seen whether the new housing corporation will focus development activities in strategic communities where the land trust, along with other forms of non-market ownership, can have a wider effect on stabilizing land values, or spread out over a larger region, thus benefiting individual households without necessarily helping to stabilize land values in communities. While BCLT, acting in concert with the City administration, has focused development in the Old North End and a few other areas, it remains to be seen where the new merged entity will prioritize intervention. The Northern California Land Trust
4
The Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) was founded in 1977 in Berkeley, California with the ambition of expanding throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The trust had its roots in the New Life Farm in Lodi, California, two households set up by peace activists with a vision of improving links between city and countryside. Peace Gardens, a six-unit cooperative in Oakland, started by war tax resisters, was the first urban project. NCLT currently has 94 units of housing in 14 projects, most of them in Berkeley. 38 of the units are coops, 32 are condos, 23 are rentals and there is one single family home. The trust is moving towards a condo and coop base and converting 10 rentals to coops,
87
9
leaving only 13 rental units. These totals do not include five commercial units and two units on the New Life Farm. Twenty new condominium units are under construction. NCLT recently rehabilitated and resold 75 foreclosed single family homes under the former HUD 203k program, plus another 11 single family units. The three NCLT projects all provide affordable housing to low-income tenants. Unlike Cooper Square, they are relatively small buildings in scattered locations. Fairview is near a concentration of some 7,000 square feet of NCLT commercial space that is rented at below-market rates to local businesses and service providers. Still, NCLT’s projects are for the most part as sprawled as the metropolitan region. While a proposed transit-oriented development at the nearby Ashby BART (rapid transit) station might offer NCLT opportunities for economies of scale, the future of that project is by no means certain. Selected Projects for Comparison
We selected six projects for comparison with Cooper Square, three from BCLT and three from NCLT (see Table I). Two of the projects – Maple Tree and Waterfront -- are the largest BCLT multifamily projects and among the most recent new construction projects. The others are rehab projects – BCLT’s BHRIP and NCLT’s Fairview, Addison and Blake Street. The rehab projects are in relatively low-density areas and average around 3-5 units per building.
Projects
Year
completed
Number
of
Buildings
Number
of Units
Square
Footage
Cooper Square 1996 19 303 221,010
New Construction
BCLT Waterfront 2004 1 40 55,425
BCLT Maple Tree 2002 1 50 41,644
Rehabilitation
BCLT BHRIP 1997 13 33 26,428 NCLT Fairview 1996 1 9 5,640
NCLT Addison 1996 1 10 5,200
NCLT Blake Street 1998 1 5 3,786
Table I. Cooper Square and Comparison Projects
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
88
10
New Construction
• Maple Tree Place (BCLT). This project is made up of 50 units of low-rise multi-family housing built in 2003. It was built next to a new suburban shopping mall in response to community concerns about the insularity of the mall development. 37 of the units were developed using tax credits and 13 are rented at “market” rate but with project-based Section 8 rent subsidies. Many of the tenants work in the mall.
• Waterfront (BCLT). This project has 40 units in a single building first occupied
in 2004. This is the first land trust building to be LEEDS certified. 28 of the units have tax credit financing, 10 have project-based Section 8 subsidies, and 12 rent at “market” rates, but 8 of these 12 have some other form of subsidy such as Section 8 vouchers.
Rehabilitation
• BRHIP (Burlington Redevelopment Housing Improvement Program), BCLT. This project totals 33 units of rental housing in 13 buildings. Unlike the other two BCLT projects in our study, these were existing buildings rehabilitated with land trust financing. Located in Burlington’s Old North End, a low-income neighborhood, the BRHIP project was part of a broader City strategy for neighborhood improvement in a low-income area where only 30% of households were homeowners and many failed to qualify for financing.
• Fairview (NCLT). Fairview is an 8-unit SRO in Berkeley established as a limited-
equity coop in two buildings. Fairview started in the 1970s as a collective household in a privately-owned building. According to one of Fairview’s original tenants, “after ten years of rent strike” the owner walked away from the building in the early 1990s for a modest settlement. To begin with, rents were relatively low as a result of Berkeley’s strict rent regulations;5 when tenants withheld all rent, that removed any incentive for the owner to invest in maintenance and forced the tenants to organize themselves to cover most operating and maintenance costs. As a result of deferred maintenance, the building value had depreciated, but clearly the land cost had grown over the years. Thus, at least in theory, conversion to a CLT reduced the land value dramatically. The tenants saw NCLT’s land trust model as a way to get financing to improve their buildings. Fairview’s collective household, which was one of many in Berkeley’s mini-culture of communal living,6 wasn’t bankable because tenants did not have fee ownership of either land or building.
• Addison (NCLT). Addison is a 10-unit project in Berkeley established as a
limited-equity coop in two buildings. Addison’s tenants wanted to buy their property from an owner who was anxious to sell to them instead of a third party,
89
11
but the tenants had trouble qualifying for loans. Unlike Fairview, Addison was located in a low-income area with relatively flat land values.
• Blake Street (NCLT) includes five units of very low-income rentals in two
buildings. Blake’s tenants had very low incomes and were mainly seeking a way to improve their living conditions, and the land trust was able to secure financing and services for this purpose.
Development and Financing Costs
As shown in Table II, the development cost (in 2006 dollars)7 for gut rehabilitation of the CSC units is less than for the two new construction projects but somewhat higher than the other rehabilitation projects, with the exception of NCLT’s Addison. This is consistent with the experiences of many other non-profit developers. The higher rehab costs for CSC may have something to do with high labor costs in New York City. Like some of the other rehab projects studied here, the CSC units have no mortgage financing or interest costs and there was no direct cost for acquisition of the land. A single no-interest renewable loan by the City of New York covered gut rehabilitation of the CSC buildings. The highest development costs of all the projects are for BCLT’s Waterfront and Maple Tree, both of which are new construction. Despite a relatively low land cost due to contributions from the City of Burlington, BCLT’s Waterfront development cost is high, and includes a modest additional cost to cover green building and LEEDS certification. The lowest development cost per square foot, in NCLT’s Fairview, may be due to a conscious choice by tenants to undertake only a light rehabilitation. Also, some tenants were contracted to do the work themselves, presumably at a lower cost than if it were contracted out. 8
TABLE II. Development Costs (All amounts in 2006 dollars)
Projects Land Cost Land/SF Mortgage
Development
Cost
Development
Cost/SF
Cooper Square $26 $0 $0 $26,569,416 $120.22
New Construction
BCLT Waterfront 109,958 2 3,401,744 7,525,776 135.78
BCLT Maple Tree 872,269 21 2,701,714 6,186,985 148.57
Rehabilitation
BCLT BHRIPP 278,623 10 1,513,707 2,457,274 92.98
NCLT Fairview 62,476 11 0 426,021 75.54
NCLT Addison 67,196 13 577,884 658,519 126.64
NCLT Blake Street 121,492 32 190,016 383,831 101.38
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
90
12
As with Cooper Square, Fairview and Addison had unusually low land costs. Both were the result of owner abandonment, though in somewhat different circumstances. Abandonment in New York City’s Lower East Side had been widespread, and the buildings involved were within a contested urban renewal area. The Berkeley buildings, on the other hand, were in relatively stable low- to moderate-income suburban-style neighborhoods – not the affluent Berkeley hills, but also not densely populated areas of concentrated poverty. In the mid-1990s, NCLT acquired Fairview, Addison and Blake with the help of 30-year low-cost loans by the City of Berkeley, which made possible major renovations in each of the projects. The terms of the City loans are quite favorable: no annual payments need to be made unless there is a positive cash flow (which can be avoided rather easily by adjusting member payments), and after the 30-year term the loan may be renewed. In this sense, the favorable financing of NCLT projects allows the land trust to lower operating costs in much the same way that CSC has done. In the case of Fairview, the City loan helped to pay tenants for their labor in the rehabilitation of the units. Fairview’s $100,000 loan included $46,500 for rehab costs and $45,000 to purchase the property. The coop tenants performed much of the moderate rehabilitation, so what was formally a housing subsidy also doubled as an employment program. While details about wages and income levels of Fairview tenants are not available, we can assume that the wages were set at relatively low, non-union scale and that construction employment was only temporary or part-time. In any case, since tenants are not required to report changes in their incomes, there is no way to monitor the use of these benefits. Addison’s $150,000 loan financed rehabilitation of the property. In addition to a $20,000 down payment from the tenant cooperators, Addison took out a $280,000 loan from a commercial lender to purchase the property from the private owner. While this was a relatively low price (only $30,000 per unit) it also represented an additional burden on Addison’s tenants that Fairview tenants mostly avoided. Construction was contracted out and Addison tenants did not work on the rehab. Since Addison was located in a low-income neighborhood that has experienced gentrification since 1997, the market value of land in the area has increased dramatically.9 Blake Street’s $150,000 loan included $45,000 for rehab costs and $85,000 for property acquisition. The steep financing costs combined with a tenant profile including very low income and some physically or mentally challenged tenants mean that Blake Street has a significant annual net operating loss -- about $6,500 per year ($1,300 per unit).
91
13
Benefits to Households
While there has been a good deal of discussion and research about the benefits of homeownership to low-income households, there has been very little recognition of the benefits of below-market rental occupancy. Homeownership provides opportunities to households for equity accumulation, contributes to stability of tenure, and may provide other social and psychological benefits to household members, and contribute to neighborhood stability. Although the benefits to low-income homeowners may not be as great as for middle- and upper-income homeowners, and they may be more vulnerable to foreclosures and financial losses (Rossi and Weber, 1996; Belsky, Retsinas and Duda, 2005), the focus on homeownership tends to underplay the benefits of rental housing. Cooper Square clearly provides housing at significantly less than market rent. While homeownership opportunities may create opportunities for savings and equity accumulation, Cooper Square and other CLT tenants also have opportunities to expand household disposable income and savings. In Table III we calculated the annual household potential for savings as the difference between the Census median rent and the CLT median rent.10These numbers are conservative since they do not take into account rent vouchers available to tenants, which further lower household payments. Since rents in CLT housing tend to cluster closely around the median, the comparison most likely understates the differences with the market. Also, we assume that no household in the census tract pays more than 30% of income on rent when many do in reality. Table III shows that the average Cooper Square household had a potential for saving over $4,000 per year on housing costs. CSC tenant benefits are much greater than for the new construction projects – BCLT’s Waterfront and Maple Tree. This may be a consequence of the higher development costs for new construction. The benefits are fairly similar to NCLT’s Addison and Blake Street, but much less than NCLT’s Fairview and BCLT’s BHRIP. Fairview’s favorable rents may have something to do with relatively low monthly operating and maintenance costs, but this does not appear to be the case with BHRIP. CLT tenants in the limited equity cooperatives (Fairview and Addison) may realize modest equity gains over the course of their tenancy. However, the potential for household savings due to low rents may be even greater. In homeowner or coop options, similar benefits might be folded into equity gains and not realized until sale of the unit.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
92
14
Projects
Median
Rent
2006 $
(1)
Census
Median
Rent 2006
$ (2)
Annual HH
Savings
Potential Since
Development
(3)
Total Since
Development
(4)
Cooper Square 405 771.1 $4,393 $43,932
New Construction
BCLT Waterfront 762 737.6 -293 -586
BCLT Maple Tree 533 737.6 2,449 9,797
Rehabilitation
BCLT BHRIPP 182 737.6 6,667 60,005
NCLT Fairview 344 883.3 6,472 64,716
NCLT Addison 500 883.3 4,600 45,996
NCLT Blake Street 501 883.3 4,588 27,526 (1) Based on 2006 data from CLTs (2) Based on Census Bureau data from 2000 (3) Based on assumption that tenants have moved in first year of development.
Difference between the median market rent and CLT rent (4) Savings per year multiplied by number years since development
TABLE III. Median Rents And Household Benefits
We used the Census rent figures instead of figures for units currently on the market; the latter are consistently higher. If CLT tenants in Cooper Square had to leave their apartments and find comparably-sized housing on the market, they would likely face rents about five times as high as the rents they currently pay, as shown in Table IV and Figure 1.
Apt. Type
Cooper
Square
Rent
Market Rent
(Craigslist)
Studio $285 $1,400
1 Bedroom 379 1,600
2 Bedroom 431 2,200
3 Bedroom 578 3,000
TABLE IV. Cooper Square CLT vs. Market Rents
93
15
FIGURE 1. Cooper Square vs. Market Rents
While we were not able to get precise data on rent increases over the course of the projects, it is clear that rent increases are far below increases normally found in market rents. Cooper Square’s rents, for example, increased less than 4% in 10 years in a market that almost doubled in the same period. The average annual increase allowed under New York City’s rent stabilization is normally around 3-4% annually. We do not know how households utilize the increases in disposable income, though one might assume that a portion is spent in the local community and contributes to overall community development. Savings by owner-occupiers, on the other hand, tend to be in the form of equity gains that are realized at sale and often get reinvested in real estate, except when owners borrow against their equity to make purchases. It may be significant that the rental savings in at least half of the CLT cases would easily cover a 10% down payment to purchase a home after only ten years. It would be interesting in future research to track renters who have left CLT rental units and learn how many of them bought homes. Affordability
CSC’s multifamily housing serves very low-income households. This is generally true, however, for all of the projects studied here, as shown in Table V. All of the projects are serving households falling below 45% of the Area Median Income, and most frequently under 30%. Throughout New York City over 25% of all households pay more than 50% of their incomes for rent; Cooper Square’s extremely low rents are thus even more
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
94
16
advantageous than shown by our calculations. BCLT’s BHRIP and NCLT’s Fairview serve tenants with even lower incomes than CSC.
PROJECT
AMI
2006 $
Median CLT
Rent
2006 $
CLT HH
Income as %
of AMI (1)
Cooper Square $70,900 405 22.8%
New Construction
BCLT Waterfront $70,500 762 43.2%
BCLT Maple Tree $70,500 534 30.3%
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitatio
n Rehabilitation
BCLT BHRIP $70,500 182 10.3%
NCLT Fairview $83,800 344 16.4%
NCLT Addison $83,800 500 23.9%
NCLT Blake Street $83,800 501 23.9%
(1) Definition of Area Median Income (AMI): HUD estimates the median family income for an area in the current year and adjusts that amount for different family sizes. The AMI is estimated for a family of four including two children. The table assumes that households pay 30% of income for rent. TABLE V. Area Median Incomes And CLT Rents
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Cooper Square’s operating and maintenance costs per square foot are comparable to those in other projects, both new construction and rehabs (see Table VI). Only BCLT’s BHRIP had significantly higher costs. BCLT management acknowledged the higher costs and attributed it in part to the scattering of the units and to their rental tenure. Management at both BCLT and NCLT suggested that coop maintenance costs tended to be lower because tenants take responsibility for some management tasks without compensation. Cooperators may also economize on such things as fuel or energy costs because they see a direct link between these costs and their monthly payments. On the other hand, strictly rental units rely on central maintenance for more things, and the added costs may well outweigh any scale economies of central maintenance.
95
17
Annual
Projects O & M Cost
Cost/S
F
Cooper Square $1,465,759 $7
New Construction
BCLT Waterfront 443,746 8
BCLT Maple Tree 248,063 6
Rehabilitation
BCLT BHRIP 280,670 11
NCLT Fairview 37,152 7
NCLT Addison 40,000 8
NCLT Blake Street 27,166 7
TABLE VI. Operating And Maintenance Costs
NCLT’s management considers Blake Street among the costliest to maintain, and the project operates at a net loss when expenses are calculated on a per unit basis. However, when looking at costs on a per square foot basis, we find only marginal differences between Blake Street and the other projects under study. It is not clear whether this is due to a large unit size in Blake Street, but it does suggest that any conclusions that higher operating costs are necessarily due to scattered-site low-density configurations, as in the case of BHRIP, require further study. Effective Use of Public Subsidies
Does Cooper Square more effectively spend public subsidy dollars than other forms of low-income housing in New York City? There are different ways of looking at this question. One is to consider the extent to which public subsidies are recaptured. For example, when new homeowners that received subsidies sell their homes, the subsidies may be recaptured and used to support other new homeowners. Subsidy recapture has not been a major policy priority for many public programs (see Cohen, 1994; Olsen, 2000) nor has it been the case in New York City. Another way to look at the effectiveness of subsidies is to compare the number of years of affordable housing each dollar of public subsidy will buy. While it would take much more extensive study to compare Cooper Square to all other programs in the city, we are able to make some rough approximations to the issue here. Our preliminary analysis suggests that the Cooper Square CLT more effectively spends public subsidies than other City programs for low-income multifamily housing. The largest new housing production program in New York City since the 1980s financed the construction of new “affordable” housing mostly on City-owned vacant land through the New York City Housing Partnership, a public-private collaboration financed by the City. This program, backed by the city’s real estate industry, involved building on City-owned land, which was provided free. Due to widespread housing abandonment in the neighborhoods where this land was located, the land had little or no market value, and there was no direct cost to government for the land. The same was true for the land in the Lower East Side that Cooper Square occupied. The typical public subsidy for the
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
96
18
homeownership program was about $25-35,000 per unit for one to three-family homes. The City’s New Partnership Homes program, which incorporates many more multifamily buildings than the original homeownership program, has produced 20,000 units of housing and another 1,000 are under construction. The City contributes up to $10,000 per unit and the State of New York up to $40,000, and the City holds a no-interest second mortgage on the property. In these programs, resale restrictions are minimal: owners can sell after three years, and after ten years they can sell without repayment of the second mortgage. Homes were generally sold to households earning up to 120% of the AMI, and sometimes as high as 160% (every project is a unique “deal”). In these programs almost none of the public subsidy is recaptured. Any increases in house value accrue to the individual households. The City gets the land back on the tax rolls, but since houses with four units or less, the majority of the original Partnership program, tend to be underassessed, we estimate it would take over 45 years to recover the initial public investment from tax revenues, though some or all of this repayment may be used to finance City services. In cases where the new housing was in neighborhoods that would later gentrify, the program turned out to be a windfall for the original owners but the housing quickly lost all pretext at being affordable.11 In cases where the new housing was in neighborhoods that did not gentrify, usually communities of color farthest from the center of the city, owners were often saddled with property they could not maintain, and were vulnerable to refinancing scams and foreclosures, the bane of communities that were once redlined (see Bajaj and Nixon, 2006). In addition, most original Partnership homes were 2-3 family structures; the renters received no direct benefits and their units were not covered by rent and eviction controls. The development cost per square foot for Cooper Square is about the same as for Partnership units. But Cooper Square is likely to remain affordable for decades to come and the Partnership units are guaranteed to remain affordable for only three years.12 Using very conservative assumptions that Cooper Square provides affordable housing for only 50 years, and Partnership homes remain affordable for ten years, the Cooper Square units cost on average $1,900 per year in subsidies, compared to over $3-5,000 for the Partnership units. This doesn’t take into account the rental units in the Partnership projects, which received equal amounts of subsidy but from the day of sale rented at market rate with no guarantee of affordability; however, the portion of subsidy that goes towards development of the rental unit effectively helps increase homeowner affordability and enhance the homeowner’s ability to resell and realize equity gains. Thus, one result of this program has been to expand the economic gap between homeowner and renters. No matter how we annualize this cost, the City clearly got a better deal in the long run by investing in Cooper Square than it did with its Partnership project; the land trust essentially allowed for retention of the public subsidy. This does not change significantly even if we reduce the benefit by the average $1,500 per unit in tax abatements each Cooper Square apartment received over ten years (these abatements may no longer apply
97
19
once Cooper Square becomes a legal coop; all of the other coops we studied pay local taxes but usually at a reduced rate). An unknown proportion of the Partnership units are no longer affordable, but even a cursory review of the location of these units leads to the inescapable impression that most have been swallowed up in the overheated surge in the city’s real estate market over the last decade. Every unit of Partnership housing that is no longer affordable means a net loss of an affordable unit in a city that has a seemingly endless need for them. If the City were to pay the price for that loss today it would require another $150,000 – the cost to develop the average new affordable unit. Also, to the extent that Partnership houses contribute to land value increases in the neighborhoods where they are built – indeed, such is the aim of the City’s policy – they push other housing out of the reach of low- and moderate-income families. Partnership units typically used prefabricated components while Cooper Square’s solid masonry buildings, many of them already a century old, clearly have a longer lifetime and are more energy efficient than large numbers of Partnership homes because they retain heat in the winter and cool air in the summer. Visitors to New York City can easily corroborate this, and while going through Cooper Square’s rowhouse inventory only a few blocks away they will find First Houses, the nation’s first public housing project, a high quality rehab demonstration that should have become the model for all public housing. HomeWorks, a more recent addition to the City’s housing programs, is a rehab program roughly modeled on the Partnership approach. Since it is a rehab program, it is worth comparing to Cooper Square. Through HomeWorks 215 City-owned properties have been redeveloped in Manhattan, especially in Harlem, and 200 in Brooklyn. Many of them are rowhouses, like Cooper Square’s buildings, in densely developed areas like the Lower East Side. Income-eligible owners compete for the buildings through a lottery and once they purchase the homes the only restrictions are that they must live on the property for six years or pay a penalty. New owners have reported dramatic short-term capital gains, and the program appears to serve more as wealth-creation for a small number of households than as a stable source of affordable housing. Capital growth has been especially significant for those who bought just before the onset of the most intense land value increases. One owner resold his property for $1.34 million after just two years, and while facing a $30,000 penalty he received $900,000 in profit.13 We did a rough overall comparison of Cooper Square to the average TIL building (see page 8 for an explanation of TIL).14 The average capital contribution by the City for rehabilitation under this program was $55,000 per unit. The average TIL building was managed by the City for 16 years before being sold to a limited-equity coop, with training and support from the non-profit Urban Housing Assistance Board (UHAB). The cost for purchase by each household is $250, the same as for Cooper Square’s MHA.15 While this could easily be a formula for long-term affordability if it reduces monthly charges to tenants, one thing is missing: resale restrictions. After conversion to coops, the tenants can decide to go private if they pay the City 40% of the price of the sale. In areas with
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
98
20
rampant land speculation, this is a weak incentive, and the temptation to evade the restrictions by making all-cash side deals or conceal contracts from the City is high. Sales in coops financed by the City’s financing agency are income-restricted but these restrictions expire with the City’s 20-year financing. A major problem is that the City does not have an adequate system to monitor TIL buildings once they’ve been converted to coops. Some TIL buildings experience just the opposite problem: inability to sustain themselves financially due to low tenant incomes or poor management. A 1998 audit of 45 TIL buildings by the New York City Comptroller found that 28 were in tax arrears and 15 were in danger of tax foreclosure. These buildings may qualify for limited tax abatements, but clearly all the dreams of solving the housing problem by putting buildings back on the tax rolls have not become reality, and the promise that public spending on affordable housing is bound to yield future tax revenues has also proven illusory. In sum, programs created to prevent land banking by the City have turned out to be the biggest lost opportunity to create affordable housing for generations to come. With minimum capital cost and financing, the City could have preserved this stock of City-owned property following a model similar to Cooper Square. However, to do this the City would probably have to change its policy from one of disassociating itself from buildings and their tenants to a posture of support, similar to the way Burlington and Berkeley dealt with their CLT partners. Land banking and the Cooper Square model may not be applicable in areas that already have extremely high land values, since it depends on relatively low cost land, but even when land values are high CLTs can help retain public subsidies and limit the need for future subsidies. In general, Cooper Square’s financing is similar to federally-subsidized public housing, where there are no land or finance costs to the developer. However, unlike public housing Cooper Square requires no operating subsidies. Cooper Square rents are low enough so that most tenants do not have to rely on Section 8 vouchers (only 25% do), thus reducing annual public subsidies to a minimum (mostly property tax abatements). The minimal use of Section 8 deprives Cooper Square of a potentially lucrative source of income, since the gap between the AMI and tenant incomes is substantial. However, since the federal government has been reducing the number of new Section 8 vouchers, in the long term this program may not be sustainable. The Cooper Square model may end up being a better key to long-term sustainability for low-income housing. BCLT’s projects and NCLT’s Blake Street rely heavily on Section 8 subsidies. In the case of BCLT’s Waterfront and Maple Tree projects, relatively high new construction costs require the use of other subsidies, like low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC). From the point of view of the local communities and community-based housing developers, every unit that can be produced without these subsidies is a net gain because those subsidies can be used elsewhere to multiply the number of units of low-income housing. States and municipalities have finite allocations of Section 8 and LIHTC subsidies, so the total benefit to them, in terms of numbers of units, can never go beyond
99
21
these allocation limits. The Cooper Square model can therefore be a useful option in helping to maximize the number of affordable housing units given a finite amount of public subsidies. New York City is now losing affordable units faster than it is building them (Scott, 2006). The current administration has set a goal of creating 165,000 units of affordable housing yet if existing affordable units continue to be lost at the current rate, losses will outweigh gains. A recent study by the Community Service Society found that between 1990 and 2005 almost one-fourth of all federally assisted apartments were lost, and perhaps over 10% of all non-market housing. City and State-funded limited-equity coops (Mitchell-Lama coops) are disappearing at the rate of over 4,000 units per year. This program, which might have financed the Robert Moses project in the Cooper Square Urban Renewal Area, allows building owners to opt out of the program after 20 years. A stone’s throw from Cooper Square, one of the oldest limited-equity coop projects recently went private, and apartments were sold at over 10 times their original value with monthly maintenance payments nearly tripling. Up to now, the New York City Housing Authority has lost only a small number of units through Hope VI projects but the authority is exploring rent increases and privatization strategies to deal with declining operating subsidies from Washington. Finally, the latest revision to the city’s rent law allows landlords to remove apartments from rent regulation once rents exceed $2,000 per month – placing more affordable rental units in gentrifying neighborhoods at risk. Conclusions: Community Land and Low-Income Multifamily Housing
The Cooper Square CLT is helping to insure long-term affordability at a time when many public subsidy programs either fail to restrict conversion to market-rate housing or are being cut back. CLT protections do not now apply to most of the city’s affordable housing stock. This presents new opportunities for “scaling up” and using land trusts to safeguard these units. CLTs could produce and protect many more multifamily rentals and coops in large cities where land costs are high, and it is clear that this potential is far from being realized. Our study shows that rehabilitation of existing multifamily units is marginally less expensive than new construction, and maintenance of multifamily projects isn’t necessarily cheaper. However, in central city neighborhoods like New York City’s Lower East Side, where land costs were originally low and there was a significant stock of abandoned housing units, rehabilitation proved to be a feasible approach. Effective management in concentrated rather than scattered-site multifamily housing can lower costs, although this benefit does not appear to be substantial. Low-income tenants in Cooper Square also benefit from significant additions to their disposable incomes. There are also non-material benefits such as building community and a sense of solidarity that are not as easily attained in scatter-site homeownership projects. As former NCLT director Mary Carlton told us, “it’s hard to build community out of such disparate properties.”16
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
100
22
The net result of Cooper Square’s long-term struggle to preserve and develop low-income housing in an 11-block urban renewal area is a mix of 60% low-income and 40% market-rate housing, a far cry from the typical 80% market/20% “affordable” split now common in developing neighborhoods. This is even more dramatic when considering that current definitions of affordability used by the City may go as high as 160% of federal AMI and in some cases exclude all households earning under 50% of AMI. In Cooper Square as in the other areas studied, local political support is essential to CLT development. In New York and Burlington, the CLTs are part of broader community-based development strategies that reinforce non-market, community control of land – community land. In Cooper Square, minimal land and financing costs combined with decades-long organizing by tenants to secure support from the City. This support ranged from allowing tenants to stay and manage the property to providing funds for rehabilitation and favorable tax status. The result was 303 units of stable low-income housing, plus affordable commercial units, in a dense neighborhood sandwiched between two business districts where land values are currently growing rapidly. Skeptics might assert that not every neighborhood and community organization has the political savvy, long-term vision, and determination to fight the long fight that Cooper Square has, but a careful look at many other neighborhoods in the city will show that Cooper Square is not alone (Angotti, forthcoming). Furthermore, the persistence of Cooper Square and many other community-based organizations has created more favorable conditions for the growth of land trusts in the city. And with a City administration today that is talking about preserving long-term affordability, and considering wider support of CLTs, many neighborhood groups may be relieved of the need to wage such persistent struggles. Cooper Square’s experience could apply to other New York neighborhoods that are now relatively affordable but face potentially dramatic increases in land values. Land may not be “free” as it was three decades ago but it may be much less expensive now than it will be ten or twenty years from now, when any public subsidies will have to contend with a thoroughly prohibitive land market. The CLT model can also be adopted by CDCs in these neighborhoods as a sort of insurance policy to protect their units from drastic changes in markets and public policy. But the CLT model could also be relevant under just the opposite conditions, in neighborhoods with stagnating or declining land values. The financial pages of local newspapers now predict an overall decline in the local housing market in the coming years. The prospect of a new period of cyclical decline could open up possibilities for the City to reconsider its stubborn rejection of land banking as a strategy. If the market takes a dip, the City’s current use of linkage and inclusionary zoning bonuses to produce new affordable units will slow, and the City will be forced to shift its focus on building new affordable housing to areas with little market interest instead of those facing rapid gentrification. In sum, whether the next short-term cyclical swing is up or down, and whether the City decides to concentrate its subsidies in relatively stable or gentrifying neighborhoods, the CLT model could help preserve and create more low-income multifamily units over a
101
23
longer period of time with the same limited public investment. At a time when the City administration is launching an unprecedented long-term strategic planning process, the advantages of CLTs should not be ignored.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
102
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abu-Lughod, Janet L.
1994 From Urban Village to East Village: The Battle for New York’s Lower East
Side. Oxford: Blackwell. Angotti, Tom
Forthcoming, We Won’t Move: Community Planning in “The Real Estate Capital
of the World,” MIT Press.
Burlington Associates in Community Development 2005 CLT vs. Conventional Market. Burlington. 2003 The Community Land Trust, An Overview. Burlington, VT. Bajaj, Vikas and Ron Nixon
2006 “For Minorities, Signs of Trouble in Foreclosures,” The New York Times, February 22 (1, C8).
Belsky, Eric S., Nicolas P. Retsinas and Mark Duda
2005 The Financial Returns to Low-income Homeownership. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.
Cohen, Helen S. 1984 “Diminishing Returns: A Critical Look at Subsidy Recapture.” In Davis, 1994 (107-121).
Cooper Square Committee
1961 An Alternative Plan for Cooper Square. New York. Davis, John Emmeus
2006 Shared Equity Homeownership, The Changing Landscape of Resale-
Restricted, Owner-Occupied Housing. W. Orange, NJ: National Housing Institute. 1994 Editor, The Affordable City, Toward a Third Sector Housing Policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Davis, John Emmeus and Amy Demetrowitz
2003 Permanently Affordable Homeownership: Does the Community Land
Trust Deliver on Its Promises? Burlington, VT: Burlington Community Land Trust.
DeFilippis, James 2004 Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital. New York: Routledge.
103
25
Freeman, Joshua
2000 Working Class New York: Life and Labor Since World War II. New York: New Press.
Gent, Cathleen, Will Sawyer. John Emmens Davis, and Alison Weber
2005 Evaluating the Benefits of Living in the Burlington Community Land Trust’s
Rental Housing and Cooperative Housing. Burlington: Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont.
Greenstein, Rosalind and Sungu-Erylimaz, Yesim
2005 “Community Land Trusts: Leasing Land for Affordable Housing,” Land Lines Newsletter, 17:2, April.
Homefront 1977 Housing Abandonment in New York City. New York. Institute for Community Economics 1982 The Community Land Trust Handbook. Springfield, Mass. Kemeny, Jim
1986 “A Critique of Homeownership,” in Bratt, Rachel G., Chester Hartman and Ann Meyerson, Eds. Critical Perspectives on Housing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press (272-276).
Krinsky, John and Sarah Hovde
1996 Balancing Acts: The Experience of Mutual Housing Associations and
Community Land Trusts in Urban Neighborhoods. New York: Community Service Society of New York.
Lawson, Ronald
1986 The Tenant Movement in New York City. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Olsen, Edgar O.
2000 The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Methods of Delivering Housing
Subsidies. Department of Economics, University of Virginia. Rossi, Peter H. And Eleanor Weber
1996 “The Social Benefits of Homeownership: Empirical Evidence from National Surveys,” Housing Policy Debate, 7:1 (1-35).
Scott, Janny
2006 “Lower-Priced Housing Is Vanishing at a Faster Pace,” The New York
Times, May 27 (B3).
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
104
26
Sites, William 2003 Remaking New York: Primitive Globalization and the Politics of Urban
Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. OTHER WORKS CONSULTED
Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy
2005 Reducing the Cost of New Housing Construction in New York City. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, The New York University School of Law
Department of City Planning 2007 Proposed Consolidated Plan 2007 - Volume 1. Department of City Planning, City of New York.
1 Based on multiple interviews with Frances Goldin; Walter Thabit, the planner responsible for the
Alternate Plan; and Valerio Orselli, former director of the Cooper Square Committee and current director of the Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association. 2 This is different than the “classic” CLT membership which includes three instead of two classes
of directors. We were not able to find a reason for this difference. 3 Interviews and data were generously provided by BCLT Director Brenda Torpey; Gail Beck,
Director of Property Management; and Amy Demetrovitz, Project Developer, during a three-day visit to BCLT in May, 2006. 4 Ian Winters, NCLT Director and NCLT staff member Hank Obermeyer provided useful
information and access to NCLT files. 5 Berkeley’s rent controls are no longer in force and vacancy decontrol applies to those units
originally covered. 6 Another NCLT property, East-West, the only one in San Francisco, was an intentional
community made up of students of Zen poet Alan Watts. 7 Development costs are defined as costs to the developer (the land trust). They include all costs
for land, construction, and financing. The costs do not reflect the value of free land, discounted interest, tax relief, or other government subsidies. 8 Development costs for Cooper Square are 20% lower than average development costs for New
York City (about $150 per square foot). Costs for Waterfront were 17% higher than the average for Burlington ($115 per square foot) and Maple Tree was 30% higher. In all of the rehabilitation projects, development costs were below average. The lowest was Fairview, about half the area average ($140 per square foot). 9 Interview with Addison Board member Liza, July 4, 2006.
10 This is admittedly a crude measure and does not take into account many variables, including
differences between contract rent and total housing costs, variations among neighborhoods and between cities, and disparities in household incomes, 11
In the interest of full disclosure, the main author of this article became part owner of a two-family Partnership home built in 1986. He bought in 1996 at about twice the price paid by the original owner, today the property is worth about 8 times its original value in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, and if sold at current market value the new buyer(s) would need to be making over twice the AMI.
105
27
12
Aside from Maple Tree, with a development cost of $109 per square foot, the other projects studied have development costs slightly under the cost for the Partnership homes. 13
Josh Barbanel, “Reaping a Profit, With the City’s Help,” New York Times. September 3, 2006. Real Estate Section, 1,10. 14
We attempted to secure hard data about tenants and tenancy for individual TIL buildings but were unsuccessful, both because reliable data is not systematically kept and coop boards are reluctant to share it. However, wedid speak informally with housing officials, organizers and some TIL tenants. 15
This price was set decades ago by the City’s housing agency as an incentive to get low-income tenants to buy. 16
Interview with Mary Carlton, September 23, 2006.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
106
3./// Wk. 9.23.12I. Reading DiagramII. Process SketchIII. Report #3: • Heritage • Community Land
Trusts • Non-Proft
Organizations • Mapping
Explanation of the DiagramThis week was focused on building the heritage avenue of our research. We found that there are very strong connections between culture, history and placemaking that can be explored. The Goodman reading made a connection between governments and business and created financial incentives for historic preservation. Future research should try to expand immigration bubble to connect with local, national and world historic sites.
109
National Register of Historic Places
Reading Diagram
After the Planners, Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 “The Urban-Industrial Complex: Part One and Part Two“R. Goodman
HeritageMapping
Goodman Diagram
Land TrustLocally signifi-
cant sites
Susnet Park Zoning
LPC Sites
Local Govern-ments
Immigration
Cultural Exchange
La Unión
GeneralLocalized
World Heritage Sites UNESCO
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
110
111
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
112
113
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
114
HERITAGE:For a complete report of Heritage please look in the post above.
We are going to try to find space in the legal definition of heritage to apply it to a specific community. Most of the definitions refer to a precise place, but there is still some space for it to be applied to a group of people. This parallel investigation is focusing more in the local investigation and La Union’s project.
CLT:We illustrated how the CLT are part of the industrialized cycle explained in Marx Capital Vol. 2 (ch.2-4). This diagram can be seen in the blog. This exercise tried to incorporate the parallel investigations to the topics and readings we discussed in class.
Our research prompted the question whether there is a difference between a CLT and Land Trust. After researching we found out that Land Trust cannot have constructions nor infrastructure (they can be community gardens), as opposed to CLT that refer specifically for housing projects. Though some definitions leave open the space for CLT to have other land purposes, this is still something we have to look into in the upcoming weeks.
Also, in the next week we are going to research case studies in the city of NY. We will start with Tom Angotti’s Cooper Union paper. We will also research other types of CLT throughout the world and the specific models that inspired the CLT.
NPO:With the NPOs we want to research why most people pick this type of organization. We want to see if there are other ways of doing similar NPO’s work. We want to read about the critiques and analyze the internal discourse in them.
For la Union’s case we want to see if they are looking to become an NPO, and if so why have they decided to do so?, what paper work have they filed?, what expectations they have once they become one?, and see if they have considered other types of formal organization?
MAPPING:As part of the Cityzens initial exploration of Sunset Park, we’ve started a GIS to gain an idea of the neighborhood’s spatial characteristics. As we are still quite early in our local
115
investigation of Sunset Park, the data we’ve brought into the analysis thus far is a somewhat random set, found mostly on New York City government websites, such as the Department of City Planning’s ‘Bytes of the Big Apple’ and ‘NYC OpenData.’ This early GIS is meant to be another method of discovering relationships within the neighborhood, hopefully leading to specific areas of interest at the intersections of these many data sets that can lead to further analysis, using the GIS as more than just a means of displaying information spatially.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
116
HERITAGE FINDINGS
Heritage Mission Statement- To make the material case for La Union’s acquisition of space through symbolic and literal acts that establish a sense of place that is recognized by the city government, consistent with the aims, goals, and purpose of La Union, and reflective of the program’s alternative relational processes.
Guiding Question- What is the personae, or mask, that La Union must wear to successfully achieve their aims and goals?
14 September 2012
1. Appropriation of Heritage language to create legacy and history.
“Interchange of human values…within a cultural area of the world on town planning”
“Nationally significant”; “provide an outstanding illustration of a broad theme or trend in American History“Special character”; “special aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city”Aligning La Union’s image with a Heritage site such as the Statue of Liberty (UNESCO, national and city heritage site)
Needs:
Explore how the work of La Union illustrates a “broad theme or trend in American History (i.e. immigration of Mexicans)Explore how the work of La Union is complementary to Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030Explore how the work of La Union fosters exchange between two cultures- American and Hispanic (Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Independence Day, Mexican-American relations)
20 September 2012
1. Questions to consider:
How can my research reconcile the Western accent on individualism with the disaggregation of land?
117
What is the “system of sentiment” that La Union needs to cultivate in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the various shareholders?How can we anticipate and plan for the problems generated from the disaggregation of land?
2. Designing an “incubator” phase that will mitigate the harder task of obtaining a space supportive of their “city within a city”:
Provision of “hard” tools to perform the administrative tasks of organizing and organization (cooperative office space such as the Brooklyn Creative League and Sunshine NY, landmark sites such as the public library, etc.). This would possibly “free” up the organization to:Execute social justice projects on other sites contingent on alignment of projects with specific times of the yearExamine possible incubator spaces that would benefit La Union
Needs: Identify the skills/knowledge that La Union needs to operate their projects on a continuous basis.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
118
10/12/12NYC GIS DATASETS @ DoITT
● All ERSI data, though, so need Arc to get to much of the larger because they’re .GDB sets Issue I am trying to explain regarding GIS: There is infinite information out there. What do we want and where is it? I need lists of places (addresses, locations, etc., districts, boundaries) to put together on a map or at least places to find them. I can’t realistically be searching for sources of data based on ideas that may or may not exist, and if they don’t exist but are desired, need to be researched and collected by those who want the info. Cityzen
1. Heritage
a. X 1. Official Landmarks (LPC and other entities)
i. LPC Distrcits & Places
b. 2. Landmarks in the process of designation
c. 3. Perspective Landmarks (CB7, co-op Alku I, Bush Terminal)
d. 4. Grassroots Landmarks (Placematters, *View of what, from where*)
i. http://placematters.net/ESRImap/index.html
e. 5. Department of Interior and State of New York historical district designation
i. This website looks pretty linky for preservation stuff from the DOI
ii. Brooklyn buildings on the Library of Congress’s Built in Amercan list
1. Most of the relevant ones are along the waterfront - Bush terminal
iii. National Register of Historic Places -
1. 68th Police Precinct Station House and Stable - 4302 4th Ave. , New York
2. 9th Avenue Station (Dual System BRT) - 38th St. and 9th Ave. near the jct. of New Utrecht Ave. , Brooklyn
3. Green--Wood Cemetery - 500 25th Street , Brooklyn -
4. Prospect Hall - more south Slope than Sunset Park/ Greenwood @ 263 Prospect Ave (btw 5th & 6th aves btw 16th & 17th sts)
5. Sunset Park Historic District - Roughly bounded by Fourth Ave., Thirty-eighth St., Seventh Ave. and Sixty-fourth St. , Brooklyn
6. U.S. Army Military Ocean Terminal - 58th-65th St. and 2nd Ave. , New York
7. Weir Greenhouse - 750 5th Ave
2. Zoning-
a. Existing Zoning
i. INFO ON EXACT ZONING DETAILS http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_resdistricts.shtml
b. Any proposed changes (based on PlaNYC 2030, Sunset Park Vision Plan, CB7 197a Plan, Vision 2020, BIDs)
i. PlaNYC2030
1. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/theplan/the-plan.shtml
a. Haven’t been able to parse out any Sunset Park specific data for this
ii. Sunset Park Vision Plan
1. From the NYC Economic Development Corp
a. http://www.nycedc.com/project/sunset-park-vision-plan
b. http://portnyc-sbmt.com/Portals/127644/pdfs/sunset_park_vision_plan.pdf
119
iii. CB7 197a Plan
1. http://bklyncb7197a.blogspot.com/
2. http://www.lostinbrooklyn.com/bklyncb7/197a/pdf/bklyncb7_197a_entire.pdf
iv. NYC Vision 2020 (Waterfront Development Plan)
1. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml
3. BROWNFIELDS, PARKING LOTS, DO THESE SEEM RELEVANT? NOT NOW, PROBABLY? AGE OF BUILDINGS...
LAND, mine4. focus the void; whether it be vacant lots, parking lots, alleys, or scaffolding.
a. Vacant Lots data looks like it can be found at Dept of Sanitation - Jan 2012
b. Parking Lot DoITT Map - Can’t get on QGIS but probs on Arc data at NYCOPENDATA
c. ALLEYS can be found in ‘STREET CENTERLINE’ - .GDB can’t be opened in QGIS or w OSx
d. SCAFFOLDING might be an aspect of building permits and such, but there is no reliable data for it, I don’t think
5. We are also very interested in finding out the power structure in Sunset Park in relation to La Union and its issues and see where they are in the area. LAND, mine: Am I forgetting something?
Could Street Activity be of any use? NYCOPENDATA data sets ZoLa - article http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5725
Pratt List of Basemap Resources
http://mysite.pratt.edu/~sromalew/PDF/GIS_basemap_resources_NYC_Spring06.pdf 9/27/12
● Site for map hosting: http://leaflet.cloudmade.com/ ● let’s look at historical districts and historical aspects of sunset park - where?
○ ● Foreclosure properties in SP - does this bring in any useful trends and characteristics of the
neighborhood? ○ does foreclosure foreshadow changes in ownership and a shift towards new property
owners, i.e. developers, speculative agglomeration for ‘attractive rental properties’ that are part of ‘gentrification’ or the displacement of community members due to increasing demand/rent, etc. - SO YES!
○ consolidated owenership 9/26/12
● - property ownership in NYC records: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property.shtml
○ details at ACRIS website, but non spatial, really. need to do a lot, so, would need a wild amount of time to get ownership of places on a map
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
120
○ http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/buyers/nychome-neighborhoods-brooklyn-sunsetbeach.shtml
● - search of Trulia.com for Foreclusures: map○ -could be an interesting aspect of the map
● - http://gis.nyc.gov/census/○ - helpful for sunset park east v west divide numbers○ - divide is down 6th ave btw East & West, and the demographics are way majority Asian
or Hispanic, respectively■ - change in Sunset Park East over the last 10 yrs is 60% growth in Asians!
● ● As part of the Cityzens initial exploration of Sunset Park, we've started a GIS to gain an idea of
the neighborhood's spatial characteristics. As we are still quite early in our local investigation of Sunset Park, the data we've brought into the analysis thus far is a somewhat random set, found mostly on New York City government websites, such as the Department of City Planning's 'Bytes of the Big Apple' and 'NYC OpenData.' This early GIS is meant to be another method of discovering relationships within the neighborhood, hopefully leading to specific areas of interest at the intersections of these many data sets that can lead to further analysis, using the GIS as more than just a means of displaying information spatially.
9/20/2012
● How to move forward - what data do we want on this dataset?● heritage sites
○ latin cultural organizations map, https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Cultural-Affairs/Latin-Cultural-Organizations-Map/hv4a-s7jr
■ Young Dancers in Repertory, inc■ Boricua Festival Committee
● school zones & point locations, 2012-13 shapefiles○ https://nycopendata.socrata.com/Education/2012-2013-School-Zones/4szu-rxzq
● zoning districts shapefiles○ http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/dwnzdata.shtml
● 9/17/2012● ● Beginning Sunset Park GIS
○ The goal with this GIS is to create a visual of the many different physical aspects of the area, so not necessarily to analyze anything really. But maybe.
○ Roads, trains, buses, parks, schools, hospitals, land use, vacant lots, community gardens, ...
● Process● Basemaps from ArcGIS Online ● “world_imagery” - Satellite image of whole world,
121
● “2 World Street Basemap” - streets, few building footprints (NYC/Manhattan only?)● Taking bus and subway layers from http://spatialityblog.com/2010/07/08/mta-gis-data-update/● Subway shapefile, layer file (for symbology), MXD for labels● Bus route shapefile (“grouped” w 214 distinct features, one per bus route)● ‘https://nycopendata.socrata.com/’ - Huge clearinghouse for NYC specific data and GISs, heaps
of shapefiles, etc.○ ‘Greenstreets’
● ‘http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/applbyte.shtml’ - Another really vast source of GIS data of the city - some super intersting bits
● Zoning Related Datasets, i.e.:○ ‘NYC GIS Zoning Features’○ “FRESH Food Stores Zoning Boundaries’○ ‘Inclusionary Housing’
● Waterfront Related datasets● Single Line Street base map dataset● Administrative and Political Boundaries ● Other City Planning datasets, i.e.:
○ ‘Selected Facilities and Program Sites’○ ‘Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (Formerly ‘Neighborhood Projection Areas’)’
■ Used to make ‘SPark_Boundary’ by exporting selected bits ● ●
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
122
123
4./// Wk. 9.30.12I. Reading DiagramII. Report #4III. Sunset Park Derive 1 —
EthnographyIV. Community Board 7
zoning research
Explanation of the DiagramIn attempt to link potential historic sites in Sunset Park with La Unión, we decided it was necessary to take a deríve to the neighborhood. While an over all sense of confusion still exists, we can clearly see a strong connection between our own observations and our zoning research with the neighbhorhood. To connect La Unión to this, we need to look at the history of the neighborhood.
125
Reading Diagram
An Alternative to Private Property: Collective Property in the Juridical Consciousness of the Nineteenth Century. Paolo Grossi
Heritage
Deríve to Sunset ParkGrossi - History of Collective Property
Hispanic Population
Asian Population
Susnet Park Zoning Research and
MappingHistoric Buildings
Industrial Waterfront
La Unión
General
Localized
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
126
127
Report for week of 09-24-12 – 10-01-12
This Wednesday September 26th our group went to Sunset Park with the intention of identifying potential heritage sites as a starting point for mapping and deeper research into the historical and cultural significance of these individual sights. We walked up 36th Street and 5th avenue, then down 41st to the waterfront industrial complex at 1st avenue. Our initial impression was that this was an immense job, based on the size of the neighborhood and the range of possibilities for heritage sight designation. This was a catalyst for our group to reexamine our intentions and the trajectory of our studio project.
As a group we have been feeling a disparity between our interest in community involved development and our lack of knowledge about La Union. Per this discussion we have decided to move forward with the intention of creating user-friendly tools for the Sunset Park community at large to empower them to create a foothold in the area, against the prospect of the speculative development. Based on our existing research we still think heritage designation, community land trusts and non-profit organizations are all valuable modes of creating this foothold. We plan to continue research in these avenues, and on mapping the historical and oscillating cultural importance of certain areas in the neighborhood.
Within our research we need to find case studies and examples of these systems at work. We want to focus heritage research on the process of converting private property to communal property by claiming heritage status can start on a grassroots level, allowing for greater latitude in the definition of heritage in the present community. We will post a link to more in depth research into this topic.Among other things, we intend to look into bio syndicates, nonprofit property development, the history of Sunset Park, community centered schools, heritage and community land trust case studies.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
128
On Wednesday evening, Aubrey, Charlie, Jessica and myself made our first entry into Sunset Park. We each took our own routes to our meeting point, the intersection of 4th Avenue and 36th Street. Aubrey, Jessica and I separately took the subway from Manhattan (N/R lines), while Charlie biked from Boreum Hill in Brooklyn. After emerging from the subway, my first goal was to locate the rest of my team, as I was running a few minutes late. I took a quick scan of 4th Ave and noted that it was very busy road, but I was able to locate Aubrey and Jessica standing on the corner under and umbrella, as it began to rain. The three of us crossed to the east side of 4th Ave where Charlie was standing under a bike shelter avoiding the rain. After a few minutes discussing that we should focus on looking for sites of potential historical and cultural significance, as well as noting any vacant or unoccupied land and buildings, we began our trek eastward up 36th street toward 5th Ave. Our first stop was a brief look at the cemetery, mostly masked by vegetation from 36th Street. The street was not very busy (no pedestrians or moving vehicles) and consisted of mainly row houses with a few brownstone structures. Reaching 5th Ave I noted that profile of the street much narrower than 4th Ave and I could see a business district in the distance toward the south. The other team members were also all drawn to it and we walked that direction without discussion. At this point though, 5th Avenue was flanked on both sides by large industrial buildings that appeared to be used by the MTA for some purpose. We made a short stop on 38th Street, however. Aubrey was drawn to a brick building about a third of the way down the block toward 4th Ave., which appeared to be vacant at first glance. There was signage on the building indicating it was an MTA structure as well. Back on 5th Ave we noted a large parking lot on the corner, and there were a mot more people on the sidewalks. The majority of the people, as we expected, were Latino however not exclusively. At the corner of 39th Street, I was very impressed with the quality of the older buildings in the business district and
129
looking up and down 39th street I could see more row houses, with a sprinkling of larger apartment buildings. I was sure to take several shots to make panorama at this corner. As we walked further down the block, Jessica and I stop to look at some of the posters on the buildings, which were in Spanish. Jessica translated, and we both thought it was interested that some of the posters seemed to have advertisements for two completely unrelated things. At the corner of 41st Street, we had a discussion and Aubrey suggested that we start walking toward the waterfront, where there would probably be more vacant industrial buildings. Before we turned though, I noted a vacant storefront on 5th Avenue and made a mental note to check out the park (Sunset Park) on my next visit. On 41st St. we noted the many brownstone and row house buildings, and we could hear some Latin music emitting from one of them. Back at 4th Ave, I noted a school at the corner, and thought about how La Unión could potentially utilize school buildings. At 3rd Ave, you can’t help but notice the BQE aqueduct, which completely dominates the streetscape. It definitely creates a big barrier, mentally and physically, between waterfront area and the 5th Ave area of the neighborhood. Walking under though, I for some reason also got a sense of peace, and it wasn’t as big of an obstacle as I expected it to be. On the other side, I immediately noticed the vacant industrial structures that Aubrey was hoping for, and I got really excited about them. Some were pretty old looking, and I immediately wanted to know more about them, if they were occupied and by whom. There were also plenty of industrial buildings that were obviously in use. There were not though, any people around, which could have been a factor of time, as it was well after normal business hours. We quickly walked toward 2nd Ave, and as we arrived, the first thing I noticed was cobblestones! We knew this was the area that was subject to a re-‐development plan, and we could easily see why. There were tons of old gorgeous factory buildings (and some not so old buildings as well), and streetcar rails running down the street and even though a couple of the buildings. Overall, I got a sense that many of the buildings were being used at least partially. The intersection of 41st and 1st Ave was just completely gorgeous in my mind, but I like things like that. Taking a right down 1st Ave, the street was dominated by a very large factory building on the left, and in the street there was some current construction, which was affecting the rail line in the street. It was interesting that the rail line actually seemed sort of new, and I wondered if it was still in use. At 39th St. the land opened up and there were parking lots galore. Looking at map now, I notice there is also a rail yard there. At this point, we were starting to get tired and hungry, so we started walking back. At 2nd Ave, however, we turned back south, because we were drawn in by a building on the street that looked recently renovated. I loved how the rail line in the street
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
130
curved into the building and down an alleyway between it and another. At 40th Street we turn back east. At 3rd Ave, we were interested in a lone retail store was just closing up shop. Jessica and Aubrey went in an the two men started a conversation with them. After a story about a piece of debris flew off the highway overpass and smashed the back window of one the gentlemen’s parked car, we were off again. Walking up to and turning north onto 4th Ave We crossed over on bridge, the railroad tracks were the D subway lines duck underground and join the N and R on 4th Ave. Finally, we arrived at a bagel shop, and had a conversation about our experience. We established that we frustrated and felt we could have gotten the same experience using Google streetview, and we were simply walking around aimlessly. We agreed to bring this up to Miguel at our next meeting with him.
131
panorama1.jpg
SunsetPark-06.JPG
SunsetPark-14.JPG
SunsetPark-35.JPG
SunsetPark-41.JPG
SunsetPark-01.JPG
SunsetPark-08.JPG
SunsetPark-17.JPG
SunsetPark-36.JPG
SunsetPark-44.JPG
SunsetPark-02.JPG
SunsetPark-11.JPG
SunsetPark-32.JPG
SunsetPark-38.JPG
SunsetPark-46.JPG
SunsetPark-03.JPG
SunsetPark-12.JPG
SunsetPark-34.JPG
SunsetPark-40.JPG
SunsetPark-47.JPG
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
132
SunsetPark-48.JPG
SunsetPark-58.JPG
SunsetPark-63.JPG
SunsetPark-71.JPG
SunsetPark-76.JPG
SunsetPark-49.JPG
SunsetPark-60.JPG
SunsetPark-65.JPG
SunsetPark-72.JPG
SunsetPark-78.JPG
SunsetPark-51.JPG
SunsetPark-61.JPG
SunsetPark-67.JPG
SunsetPark-73.JPG
SunsetPark-79.JPG
SunsetPark-53.JPG
SunsetPark-62.JPG
SunsetPark-69.JPG
SunsetPark-75.JPG
SunsetPark-80.JPG
133
SunsetPark-82.JPG
SunsetPark-87.JPG
SunsetPark-97.JPG
SunsetPark-84.JPG
SunsetPark-90.JPG
SunsetPark-85.JPG
SunsetPark-92.JPG
SunsetPark-86.JPG
SunsetPark-94.JPG
Research 10.12.12 Community Board 7 Profile
https://docs.google.com/a/newschool.edu/file/d/0B7t14YGOCasFUVFKOUY1bTlHdWs/edit NYC Department of City Planning - City divided into three basic zoning districts: residential (R), commercial (C), and manufacturing (M) - These are further divided into a range of lower- medium- and higher-density residential, commercial and manufacturing districts. - These districts may be overlaid by special purpose zoning districts (these overlay districts modify and supplement the controls of the underlying zoning districts)
• Commercial overlay district: C1 or C2 district mapped within a residential district to serve local retail needs (grocery, dry cleaner, restaurant, etc). Commercial overlay districts designated by letter C1-1 through C1-5 and C2-1 through C2-5, are shown on the zoning maps as a pattern superimposed on a residential district. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtml#commercial_overlay
• Limited Height Districts: may be superimposed on an area designated as an historical district by the LPC. The maximum height is 50ft in a LH-1 district, 60 feet in a LH-1A district, 70ft in a LH-2 district and 100ft in a LH-3 district. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtml#limited_height_district
Each Zoning District Regulates: • permitted uses listed in one or more of 18 use groups;
• Use Group Uses that have similar functional characteristics and/or nuisance impacts and are generally compatible with each other are listed in one or more of 18 groups that are categorized as residential uses (Use Groups 1–2), community facility uses (Use Groups 3–4), retail and service
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
134
uses (Use Groups 5–9), regional commercial centers/amusement uses (Use Groups 10–12), waterfront/recreation uses (Use Groups 13–15), heavy automotive uses (Use Group 16) and industrial uses (Use Groups 17–18). Use group charts can be found in Chapter 2 of Articles II, III and IV of the Zoning Resolution.
• the size of the building in relation to the size of the zoning lot, known as the floor area ratio or FAR; • for residential uses, the number of dwelling units permitted, the amount of open spaceand plantings required on the zoning lot and the maximum amount of the lot that can be covered by a building; • the distance between the building and the front, side and rear lot lines; • the amount of required or permitted parking; and • other features applicable to specific residential, commercial or manufacturing districts. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis2.shtml Special Purpose Districts: The City Planning Commission has been designating special zoning districts since 1969 to achieve specific planning and urban design objectives in defined areas with unique characteristics. Special districts respond to specific conditions; each special district designated by the Commission stipulates zoning requirements and/or zoning incentives tailored to distinctive qualities that may not lend themselves to generalized zoning and standard development. Special Limited Commercial District Resolution Chapter: 83-00 Map: 12c Effective Date: 10/9/69 The Special Limited Commercial District (LC) attempts to preserve the character of commercial areas within historic districts by permitting only those commercial uses compatible with the historic district, and by mandating that all commercial uses be in completely enclosed buildings. In addition, limitations are placed on the size and illumination of signs. There is one such special district mapped in Greenwich Village. Special Mixed Use Districts Resolution Chapter: 123-00 Maps: see below Effective Date: see below The Special Mixed Use District (MX) was established in 1997 to encourage investment in, and enhance the vitality of, existing neighborhoods with mixed residential and industrial uses in close proximity and create expanded opportunities for new mixed use communities. New residential and non-residential uses (commercial, community facility and light industrial) can be developed as-of-right and be located side-by-side or within the same building. Pairing an M1 district with an R3 through R10 district (e.g. M1-2/R6) ensures a balanced variety of uses. Residential uses are generally subject to the bulk controls of the governing residence district; commercial, industrial and community facility uses are subject to the M1 district bulk controls, except that community facilities are subject to residential FAR limits. Most light industrial uses are permitted in each MX district as-of-right, others are subject to restrictions and Use Group 18 uses are excluded altogether, except for small breweries. Special Mixed Use Districts are mapped in the following neighborhoods:
MX-1: Port Morris, Bronx Maps: 6a, 6b Effective Date: 12/10/97
MX-2: DUMBO, Brooklyn Map: 12d Effective Date: 7/29/09
MX-4: Flushing/Bedford, Brooklyn Maps: 12d, 13b Effective Date: 5/9/01
MX-5: Red Hook, Brooklyn
135
Map: 16a Effective Date: 1/30/02
MX-6: Hudson Square, Manhattan Map: 12a Effective Date: 7/23/08
MX-7: Morrisania, Bronx Maps: 3d, 6c Effective Date: 8/19/03
MX-8: Greenpoint-Williamsburg, Brooklyn Maps: 12c, 12d, 13a, 13b Effective Date: 9/28/04
MX-9: Northern Hunters Point Waterfront, Queens Map: 9b Effective Date: 8/16/06
MX-10: Atlantic and Howard Avenues, Brooklyn Map: 17a Effective Date: 10/29/07
MX-11: Gowanus, Brooklyn Map: 16c Effective Date: 3/11/09
MX-12: Borough Park, Brooklyn Map: 22c Effective Date: 10/27/10
MX-13: Lower Concourse, Bronx Map: 6a Effective Date: 6/30/09
MX-14: Third Avenue/Tremont Avenue, Bronx Maps: 3c, 3d Effective Date: 10/13/10
Special Natural Area District Resolution Chapter: 105-00 Maps: see below Effective Date: see below The purpose of the Special Natural Area District (NA) is to guide new development and site alterations in areas endowed with unique natural characteristics, including forests, rock outcrops, steep slopes, creeks and a variety of botanic and aquatic environments. In the four Special Natural Areas, the City Planning Commission reviews proposals for new development, enlargements and site alterations to maximize protection of natural features. Natural features are protected by limiting modifications in topography, by preserving tree, plant and marine life, and natural water courses, and by encouraging clustered development. The Special Natural Area Districts are mapped in the following neighborhoods:
NA-1: Emerson Hill, Dongan Hills, Todt Hill, Lighthouse Hill and the central wetlands of Staten Island Maps: 21b, 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d, 27a, 27b Effective Date: 12/19/74
NA 2: Riverdale, Spuyten Duyvil and Fieldston, Bronx Maps: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d Effective Date: 5/21/75
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
136
NA-3: Shore Acres Area, Staten Island Map: 21d Effective Date: 12/1/77
NA-4: Fort Totten, Queens Maps: 7d, 11c Effective Date: 4/28/83
Special Planned Community Preservation District Resolution Chapter: 103-00 Maps: 3b, 4b, 6a, 9b, Effective Date: 7/18/74 10d, 11b, 14c, 15a The Special Planned Community Preservation District (PC) designation protects the unique character of communities that have been planned and developed as a unit. Those communities characteristically have large landscaped open spaces and a superior relationship of buildings, open spaces, commercial uses, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation. No demolition, new development, enlargement or alteration of landscaping or topography is permitted within the district except by special permit of the City Planning Commission. Preservation districts have been mapped in Sunnyside Gardens and Fresh Meadows in Queens, Parkchester in the Bronx and Harlem River Houses in Manhattan. *Special Scenic View District* Resolution Chapter: 102-00 Maps: 12b, 12d Effective Date: 10/24/74 The Special Scenic View District (SV) is intended to prevent obstruction of outstanding scenic views as seen from a public park, esplanade or mapped public place. No buildings or structures are allowed to penetrate a scenic view plane except by special permit of the City Planning Commission. The Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District (SV-1) extends over an area west of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade to protect the views of the Lower Manhattan skyline, Governors Island, the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_special_purp_cw.shtml From the zoning resolution: “102-00 GENERAL PURPOSES The "Special Scenic View District" (hereinafter also referred to as the "Special District"), established in this Resolution, is designed to promote and protect public health, safety, and general welfare. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: (a) to preserve, protect and prevent obstruction of outstanding scenic views as seen from a mapped public park or an esplanade or a mapped public place directly accessible to the public; and (b) to promote the most desirable use of land and direction of building development, to assure the maintenance and enhancement of the aesthetic aspects of scenic views, to conserve the value of land and buildings and to protect the City's tax revenues.” “102-023 RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS In all cases, the City Planning Commission shall deny a special permit application whenever the proposal will interfere with a public improvement project (including highways, public #buildings# and facilities), redevelopment or renewal projects, or rights-of-way for sewers, transit, or other public facilities) which is approved by or pending before the Board of Estimate, the City Planning Commission, or the Site Selection Board as determined from the calendar of each such agency issued prior to the date of the public hearing on the application for a special permit.” “102-40 SPECIAL DISTRICT DESIGNATION ON PUBLIC PARKS When a #Special Scenic View District# is designated on a #public park# or portion thereof, any future landscaping, erection of new #signs# or #buildings or other structures#, thereon, shall not penetrate a #view plane# unless authorized by the City Planning Commission. As a condition for such authorization, the Commission shall find that
137
any penetration of a #view plane# shall not significantly obstruct the #scenic view# which is to be protected by the provisions of this Chapter.” Link to zoning resolution: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/art10c02.pdf Special Purpose Districts Brooklyn: Special Bay Ridge District Special Coney Island District Special Coney Island Mixed Use District Special Downtown Brooklyn District Special Enhanced Commercial District Special Mixed Use District Special Ocean Parkway District Special Scenic View District Special Sheepshead Bay District Quality Housing Program The Quality Housing Program, mandatory in contextual R6 through R10 residence districts and optional in non-contextual R6 through R10 districts, encourages development consistent with the character of many established neighborhoods. Its bulk regulations set height limits and allow high lot coverage buildings that are set at or near the street line. The Quality Housing Program also requires amenities relating to interior space, recreation areas and landscaping. Other information that may be applied to waterfront redevelopment: Loft: a building or space designated for commercial or manufacturing use, generally constructed prior to 1930. In certain manufacturing districts, lofts may be converted to residential use by CPC special permit. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtml#limited_height_district (below limited height district) Waterfront Access Plan (WAP) A waterfront access plan is a detailed framework set forth in the Zoning Resolution, that tailors waterfront bulk regulations and public access requirements to the specific conditions of a particular waterfront. Development of individual waterfront parcels governed by the plan triggers a requirement to build and maintain public access areas in accordance with the WAP. Waterfront Area* A waterfront area is the geographical area adjacent to a body of water at least 100 feet wide, comprising all blocks between the pierhead line and a parallel line 800 feet landward from the shoreline. Blocks within the waterfront area are subject to waterfront zoning regulations.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
138
The bulkhead line is a line shown on the zoning maps which divides the upland and seaward portions of waterfront zoning lots. The pierhead line is a line shown on the zoning maps which defines the outermost seaward boundary of the area regulated by the Zoning Resolution. The shoreline* is the mean high water line. A waterfront block*,waterfront public park* orwaterfront zoning lot* is a block, public park or zoning lot in the waterfront area that is adjacent to or intersected by the shoreline.
Waterfront Public Access Area* A waterfront public access area (WPAA) is the portion of a waterfront zoning lot where publicly accessible open space is provided to and along the shoreline. All WPAAs are required to be improved with landscaping and trees, seating and other amenities. WPAAs can include a shore public walkway, an upland connection, a supplemental public access area, a public access area on a pier or floating structure, or any additional area improved for public use. The minimum amount of waterfront public access area required is a specified percentage for the zoning lot.
A shore public walkway* is a linear public access area running alongside the shore.
An upland connection* is a pedestrian way between a public place (a street, a sidewalk or a park, for example) and a shore public walkway. Upland connections may be provided along a private road.
A supplemental public access area* is a public access area required in order to fulfill the minimum percentage of WPAA required on a waterfront zoning lot, once a shore public walkway and upland connection have been provided.
Waterfront Yard* A waterfront yard is the portion of a waterfront zoning lot extending along the entire length of the shoreline which must be open and unobstructed from the lowest level to the sky, except for certain permitted obstructions. Depending
139
upon the zoning district, the minimum depth is typically 30 to 40 feet. Shore public walkways are required to be located within the waterfront yard. Sunset Park Community Conversation on Rezoning October 27, 2007 Sponsored by council member Sara M. Gonzalez and Community Board 7 Goals: -Overview of Zoning in NYC -Explore options for utilizing zoning and land use tools to create and preserve affordable housing and community character in Sunset Park -Gather community input regarding rezoning priorities -Gather community input on non-zoning issues that affect Sunset Park’s Future
1. Zoning 101 City uses zoning to regulate building size, density, and land use - Land Uses - Building Size - Design FAR: Floor Area Ratio - Ratio of allowable built floor area to area of the lot that the building sits on Population Growth + Gentrification = Development Pressure
New York Department of City Planning:
Update September 30, 2009:
On September 30, 2009 the City Council adopted the Sunset Park Rezoning. The zoning text and map amendments are now in effect.
At the request of Community Board 7 and local elected officials, the Department of City Planning proposes zoning map and text amendments for an approximately 128 block area in the Sunset Park neighborhood within Community District 7 in Brooklyn. The rezoning area consists of three residential areas within the Sunset Park neighborhood. The northern area consists of portions of nine blocks between 4th and 5th avenues generally bounded by 29th Street on the north and 38th Street on the south. The western area consists of parts of four blocks between Second and Third avenues generally bounded by 59th Street on the north and 63rd Street on the south. The larger area consists of one hundred and fifteen blocks in an area generally bounded by Third Avenue to the west, Eighth Avenue on the east, a line between 39th Street and 40th Street to the north, and a line generally along the Gowanus Expressway to the south. The area is predominantly zoned R6, with a small C4-3 district mapped along a portion of Fifth Avenue The rezoning proposal has been developed after extensive discussion with the Community Board, elected officials, and neighborhood residents. The rezoning aims to preserve neighborhood character and scale by placing height limits throughout the area, allowing for new development where appropriate at a height and scale that is in keeping with the existing context, to create opportunities and incentives for affordable housing through inclusionary zoning, and to support local retail corridors while protecting the residential character of nearby side streets. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/sunset_park/index.shtml
Sunset Park Rezoning: 2009 rezoning: see above article
6th Avenue and 41st Street
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
140
Crain’s New York Business Big Sunset Park rezoning gets green light
Court rules in favor of city's 2009 effort covering 128 blocks in the neighborhood. Limits building heights on side
streets, while allowing taller structures on avenues.
September 9, 2011 1:39 p.m. The New York State Supreme Court appellate division ruled late Thursday afternoon that the city can move forward with the 2009 rezoning of the Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park.
Two years ago, the city rezoned 128 blocks in Sunset Park in a move to preserve the community's character with its many two- to three-story brownstones, by imposing 50-foot height limits on side streets in the area, but allowing taller residential buildings on Fourth and Seventh avenues. The change also allowed commercial development in several areas previously zoned residential.
Opponents said the rezoning would displace low-income residents in favor of luxury residential developments and large chain stores. A lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court against the city's Planning Department, claiming that the city failed to conduct a full-scale environmental assessment needed for the rezoning, which examines the effects of rezoning on a community.
"We are gratified that the appellate court found that the city's environmental review was appropriate. The city complied with all applicable laws, and took a hard look before determining that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts,” said Elizabeth Natrella, senior counsel of the Appeals Division in the city Law Department, in a statement. “The Sunset Park rezoning involved careful consultation with the local community board, elected officials and neighborhood residents.”
Despite the unfavorable ruling, the plaintiffs of the case—several residents, five local churches and the Chinese Staff and Workers' Association—are considering an appeal, said Rachel Hannaford of the South Brooklyn Legal Services, who represented them along with Bethany Li, a fellow at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund .
“We were disappointed, but pleased that two dissenting justices recognized our argument against the environmental review of the rezoning,” said Ms. Hannaford. “We are hopeful that if we do appeal, the court will side with the dissenting judges.” Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110909/REAL_ESTATE/110909917#ixzz298Xo6jsU
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110909/REAL_ESTATE/110909917
Board Seven Questions City’s ‘Green’ Zoning Changes
By Paula Katinas Brooklyn Eagle
SUNSET PARK — The Department of City Planning’s proposal to change zoning laws to make buildings more environmentally friendly received a generally positive review from Community Board Seven.
But board members expressed concern over at least one part of the multi-layered proposal.
The Dept. of City Planning is seeking to change the restrictions regarding bulkhead, the water towers and other large structures on the roofs of buildings. Under the agency’s proposal, a 55-foot-high wind turbine could be erected on the roof of any building over 100 feet tall.
In Sunset Park, a community that recently underwent a complete overhaul of its zoning regulations to restrict the height of buildings, the idea of buildings being made even taller by large wind turbines is unappealing, board members said.
141
The City Council approved the Sunset Park rezoning plan in 2009. The goal of the rezoning, according to Board Seven members, was to prevent the construction of high-rise buildings that would dominate the skyline and crowd out smaller buildings in the community. The board was also seeking to protect the community’s housing stock, composed largely of charming row houses constructed in the late 19th Century, board members said.
John Burns, chairman of Board’s Seven Zoning and Land Use Committee, said the prospect of gigantic wind turbines on roofs is troubling.
“We don’t need somebody coming down with 100-foot windmills, so that if you’re in Sunset Park you can’t see,” Burns said.
The hill in Sunset Park, the park for which the community is named, offers a view of New York Harbor and the Statue of Liberty.
“We have a very different type of typography than other communities,” Burns said.
Board Seven has asked the Dept. of City Planning to have the community be exempted from the proposed regulation.
“We should respect what we wished for and asked for,” board member Randolph Peers said, referring to the Sunset Park rezoning effort, which was led by Board Seven.
The Dept. of City Planning proposals also include loosening restrictions on height restrictions to allow for the installation of solar panels, rooftop gardens and awnings to reduce energy costs for building owners. The proposals are being presented together under the title “Green Zone.”
The proposed changes are part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC program, a long-term project to make New York a more environmentally-friendly city, with more trees, cleaner air and more energy-efficient buildings.
The Dept. of City Planning is seeking feedback from all of the city’s 59 community boards. The City Council will hold a hearing on the “Green Zone” and then vote on whether the changes should be made. A date for the hearing has not been set.
Published: March 1, 2012
http://brooklyneagle.com/articles/board-seven-questions-city%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98green%E2%80%99-zoning-
changes
Brownstoner Articles Opponents of Sunset Park Rezoning Lose Legal Challenge
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
142
Crain’s reported that last week a court ruled in favor of the city’s 2009 rezoning of Sunset Park. A legal challenge against the rezoning claimed that the city hadn’t performed a complete environmental review of the area getting rezoned and that the rezoning would encourage more luxury development and large chain stores, resulting in widespread residential and commercial displacement and gentrification among Sunset Park’s low-income Asian and Latino communities. Crain’s notes that the rezoning, which covers 128 blocks, imposed 50-foot height limits on most side streets while encouraging more density on main drags like 4th and 7th avenues. The groups that filed the lawsuit, five local churches and the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association, are mulling an appeal of the decision. Big Sunset Park Rezoning Gets Green Light [Crain's] By Gabby | 09/12/2011 9:00 AM Another Legal Challenge to Sunset Park Rezoning
The community groups that recently lost their legal challenge against the 2009 rezoning of Sunset Park have filed an
appeal, according to The Eagle. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) and South
Brooklyn Legal Services say the 128-block rezoning has the potential to cause the displacement of Sunset Park’s
low-income Asian and Latino communities, particularly on Third, Fourth and Seventh avenues, where the zoning was
changed from residential to commercial. The groups charge the city didn’t properly conduct an environmental review
as part of the rezoning. The Eagle quotes AALDEF staff attorney Bethany Li as saying the following: “Once you
account for all the changes due to the rezoning, the amount of affordable housing and commercial space will
significantly decrease. We hope the court will rule in favor of the Asian and Latino immigrants who want to preserve
their Brooklyn neighborhood.”
Sunset Park Rezoning Case Heads to the High Court [Eagle]
Opponents of Sunset Park Rezoning Lose Legal Challenge [Brownstoner] By Gabby | 10/17/2011 9:30 AM http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2011/10/another-legal-challenge-to-sunset-park-rezoning/
143
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
144
5./// Wk. 10.7.12I. Reading DiagramII. Process SketchesII. Report #5: Heritage • LPC Designated
Landmarks • Sunset Park History
and Culture • Resources
/// ArticlesI. “Historic Districts Council
- Frequently Asked Questions about the Landmark Process”
II. “The Imapact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Value”
Explanation of the DiagramResearching the history of Sunset Park has led to the beginning of some confluence of various points of research. The strongest connections that bridge La Unión with Sunset Park include the points about the Finnish Coops and the neighbhorhood as a haven for immigrants. This week we began to see a resurgence in the non-profit branch of our research as well.
147
Heritage
Non-profit
Reading Diagram
New York for Sale, Ch.8 “Progressive Directions for Community Planners”. Tom Angotti
TOM ANGOTTI New York For Sale Ch.8
Progressive Directions for Community Planners —a 10-POINT STRATEGY for Community-Based Planning
if this is the STRATEGY, then
WHAT IS HAPPENING now?
What if the mayor EMBRACED progressive PLANNING?
EXPAND the PUBLIC TRUST and
Consolidate Community Land1.
COMMON LAND
=POWER to fight dis-placement!
If planning starts with the assumption that nothing can be implement-ed without a big private partner, it has RELIN-QUISHED the most powerful tools for control-ling the use of land...
Consolidate the urban commons
Create MORECommunity Land Trusts
Promote QUALITY OF LIFE instead of a
Create a LAND BANK for the commons
REGULATEthe commons
Think LOCALLY, REGIONALLY, and GLOBALLY
Take COMPREHENSIVEplanning BACK TO THE FUTURE
FORMATION of the Community-Based Planning Task Force
Main Objectives:
Think of theSEVENTH Generation
3.
6. 7.
4.
5.
8. 9. 10.
SO SO3
A substantial portion of land in the city is already under some form of public ownership or control...
The 3-HEADED MONSTER• Mixed-use zoning• Waterfront zoning• Optional inclusion-
ary zoning
• Ineadquate housing• Crowded transit• Oppressive work life
Publicly assembled land could and should be sub-ject to democatically developed community planning.
RECONNECT LAND and PEOPLE
Re-establishing the link ... between urban planning and public health is becoming an increasingly GLOBAL issue as more of the word’s population becomes urbanized.
BUREAUCRACY: City departments do NOT interact and Community Boards have no REAL authority and NOT ENOUGH resources.
2.Land Air Water Food Buildings
Over half of the city’s developable vacant land is in the peripheral areas
Lack of space leads to PRESSURE to develop the public COMMONS
there is not
ONEPROCESS!
Governmentowned land is NOT UN-AMERICAN!
The failure to control the use of land through an open democratic process is the central problem.
It has STOPPED improving living conditions
Special zoning districts and historic preservation are used as defense weapons against unwated development.
Eminent Domain: Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood used this invaluable tool to start a community land trust.
“What good are more jobs and higher salaries if rents go up, people are forced to move and commute logner distances, and the poorest neighborhoods get all the un-wanted land uses?”
PRESERVATION: Community land trusts are an invaluable tool to preserve OPEN SPACE as well as AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION: Community land trusts can be used as an invaluable tool to INCLUDE YOUR NEIGHBORS rather than excluding.
GROWTH MACHINE
Regional coalitions for af-fordable housing, public trans-portation, and environmental protection need to grow and challenge the fragmented governmental framework that .... are wedded to narrow local property interests.
...to guarantee the integrity of the process and ensure that it becomes inclusionary, democratic and progressive, not exclusionary...
Traditional planners =
NO CLUE about the REGION.
Community planning is resurrecting and transforming the discredited, orthodox rational -planning approaches by making comprehensiveness an open, democratic and participatory process.
Even if our answers CANNOT be QUANTIFIED and verfied with any degree of certainty.
Right now NO ONE bothers to ask the question. A FRONT LINE APPROACH
5-10
YEAR investment cycles are NOT long enough!
1) Community boards and organizations should have the RESOURCES THEY NEED 2) Community boards need to be REPRESEN-TATIVE of their diverse populations 3) Community plans need to be implemented, NOT ignored; there needs to be link with the budget process
Mapping
Angotti Reading - Progressive Community
Planning
Look at CLT case studies
Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC) ResearchLPC structures in
Sunset Park
Sunset Park History and Culture
ResearchImmigration
La Unión
Place Matters
Community Centered Schools
Housing
Finnish Coops
General
Localized
TOM ANGOTTI New York For Sale Ch.8
Progressive Directions for Community Planners —a 10-POINT STRATEGY for Community-Based Planning
if this is the STRATEGY, then
WHAT IS HAPPENING now?
What if the mayor EMBRACED progressive PLANNING?
EXPAND the PUBLIC TRUST and
Consolidate Community Land1.
COMMON LAND
=POWER to fight dis-placement!
If planning starts with the assumption that nothing can be implement-ed without a big private partner, it has RELIN-QUISHED the most powerful tools for control-ling the use of land...
Consolidate the urban commons
Create MORECommunity Land Trusts
Promote QUALITY OF LIFE instead of a
Create a LAND BANK for the commons
REGULATEthe commons
Think LOCALLY, REGIONALLY, and GLOBALLY
Take COMPREHENSIVEplanning BACK TO THE FUTURE
FORMATION of the Community-Based Planning Task Force
Main Objectives:
Think of theSEVENTH Generation
3.
6. 7.
4.
5.
8. 9. 10.
SO SO3
A substantial portion of land in the city is already under some form of public ownership or control...
The 3-HEADED MONSTER• Mixed-use zoning• Waterfront zoning• Optional inclusion-
ary zoning
• Ineadquate housing• Crowded transit• Oppressive work life
Publicly assembled land could and should be sub-ject to democatically developed community planning.
RECONNECT LAND and PEOPLE
Re-establishing the link ... between urban planning and public health is becoming an increasingly GLOBAL issue as more of the word’s population becomes urbanized.
BUREAUCRACY: City departments do NOT interact and Community Boards have no REAL authority and NOT ENOUGH resources.
2.Land Air Water Food Buildings
Over half of the city’s developable vacant land is in the peripheral areas
Lack of space leads to PRESSURE to develop the public COMMONS
there is not
ONEPROCESS!
Governmentowned land is NOT UN-AMERICAN!
The failure to control the use of land through an open democratic process is the central problem.
It has STOPPED improving living conditions
Special zoning districts and historic preservation are used as defense weapons against unwated development.
Eminent Domain: Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood used this invaluable tool to start a community land trust.
“What good are more jobs and higher salaries if rents go up, people are forced to move and commute logner distances, and the poorest neighborhoods get all the un-wanted land uses?”
PRESERVATION: Community land trusts are an invaluable tool to preserve OPEN SPACE as well as AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION: Community land trusts can be used as an invaluable tool to INCLUDE YOUR NEIGHBORS rather than excluding.
GROWTH MACHINE
Regional coalitions for af-fordable housing, public trans-portation, and environmental protection need to grow and challenge the fragmented governmental framework that .... are wedded to narrow local property interests.
...to guarantee the integrity of the process and ensure that it becomes inclusionary, democratic and progressive, not exclusionary...
Traditional planners =
NO CLUE about the REGION.
Community planning is resurrecting and transforming the discredited, orthodox rational -planning approaches by making comprehensiveness an open, democratic and participatory process.
Even if our answers CANNOT be QUANTIFIED and verfied with any degree of certainty.
Right now NO ONE bothers to ask the question. A FRONT LINE APPROACH
5-10
YEAR investment cycles are NOT long enough!
1) Community boards and organizations should have the RESOURCES THEY NEED 2) Community boards need to be REPRESEN-TATIVE of their diverse populations 3) Community plans need to be implemented, NOT ignored; there needs to be link with the budget process
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
148
149
The New York Landmark Preservation Commission:The New York Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) is responsible for identifying, designating andregulating landmarks in the city of New York. This is a non-profit organization that was created by the lawand appointed by the mayor.Landmark Law 1965:This law came into effect in April 19, 1965, after many fights of the citizens trying to preserve some ofNY´s landmarks. A major factor triggering the creation of the law was the demolition of the PennsylvaniaStation in October 1963. This law was made to protect historical landmarks and neighborhoods from beingdestroyed or fundamentally changing their character (http://www.nypap.org/content/new-york-city-landmarks-law). It was through this law the Preservation Commission was established.Preservation through the Landmark Preservation Commission:The Administrative Code of the City of NY, title 25 defines landmark as the following:“30 years or older…a special character or special historical of aesthetic interest of value as part of thedevelopment, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state, of nation”For the NYPC they identify four types of landmarks:a. Individual landmark: only exteriorb. Interior landmark: interior structure or nay part therefor, that is customarily open and accessible to thepublic.c. Scenic landmark: landscape feature(s) with special historical and aesthetic interest. It has to by cityowned property.d. Historical districts: represent one style of architecture and “sense of place”.http://www.nypap.org
Heritage Designation Process with the Landmark Preservation Commission:1. Request for Evaluation (RFE)2. Evaluation of Request by a review board comprised of LPC members – decide if the request will bereviewed before the entire commission.3. RFE is evaluated by the Commission at a public meeting – vote if it is signifigant enough to require apublic hearing4. Public hearing, notice of the which is sent to property owner, City Planning Commission, affectedcommunity boards & elected officials. Representatives from the Research Department, property owner, orother interested parties can speak.5. Discussion and Designation Report – document and describe the architectural, historical, and/or culturalsignificance of the historic district and a detailed description of each building within the proposed district.(see below mention of review of the Park Slope Designation Report)6. Commission Vote7. City Planning Commission Report – report to the City Council elaborating on the effects of thedesignation on zoning, projected public improvement, etc.8. City Council vote.please see full report for more information about this process:https://docs.google.com/a/newschool.edu/document/d/1ijWjCAhuDCUf1kvzUUdQrmpBFze8cqP41vd7bGE4tRQ/editWe also investigated the details of this process further by reviewing the Park Slope Historical DistrictDesignation Report. This is a 150 plus page report that describes the historical and architecturalsignificance of the area in great detail. More than 140 pages are dedicated to describing this significanceblock by block. The proposal for designation was originally brought before the board in 1966. Due to theinflux of designation requests this proposal was not assessed until 1970. The hearing was in June 1970 andthe area was designated in 1973. From Evelyn Ortner, a major leader in the designation: “I thinkeverything will go through as promised, but after seven years of dealing with the Landmarks Commissionin pursuit of the grail of designation, I have become more than a little skeptical – perhaps even a bitparanoid at times.”This report and other are very focused on architectural history of the neighborhoods. A question movingforward is, have their been district designations based more on cultural and social grounds rather than onarchitectural/historic?There are various agencies that designate what is a landmark on a city, state and national scale. The LPC isthe agency for the NY metropolitan area but there is also the National Register of Historic Places, theDepartment of Interior and the State of New York, to name a few. There are some differences in the processand definition of designation between these sites (requiring further investigation). Some landmarks may be
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
150
on various lists.In our research conducted in the Brooklyn Public Library, we found various books (The Sunset parkRestoration Committee, Inc; The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Manbeck, 1998) that claimed Sunset Parkis home to the largest historical district in the northeast United States. This designation was made by theDepartment of Interior and the State of NY (Giordano, 1990:10). We will need to examine this type ofdesignation further, to find out what protections are given and on what premise the designation wasfounded (historical, architectural, cultural, etc.)The trip to the Brooklyn Library was very helpful in learning more about Sunset Park’s history. Pleasecontact us if you would like to know more about the general neighborhood history. Below is some heritagespecific historical information.“Nearly all of the area’s residential construction occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s” Theyconsist of brownstones, limestones, brick and wood row houses. – The Neighborhood of Brooklyn,John B Manbeck, Citizen’s Committee for NYC, Yale University Press, 1998There are 7 landmarks designated in Sunset Park. Please see the corresponding image. Through the archivewe were able to identify 4 of the 7, thus far.Not on the Landmark Preservation Commission, but possible to become landmarks:1. Bush Terminal/Industry City: The Bush terminal was the fist industrial park in the UnitedStates. Located between 33rd street and 41st street west of 3rd Avenue. This waterfront property used to be“Ambrose Park” which was a picnic area (Site of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show in 1892). The area waspurchased by Irving T. Bush who began building in 1890 to compete with the Manhattan ports. Thisventure was surprisingly successful and Bush expanded the area in 1902. He eventually owned his own railsystem, fire and police departments, and power plant. The area was rename Industry City in 1960 in anattempt to revitalize the area. It was bought in 1965 by a group of developers led by Harry Helmsley.2. Co-ops: In 1916 members of the Finnish community built “Alku I” (Beginning I) a four storycooperative apartment building, between 8th and 9th avenues. Other buildings were added to this in the30s and 20s. This was the first cooperative in the United States. There was some discrepancy about thelocation in our readings, so further investigation is required.*It is very interesting, that there is a historical presence of cooperative living. How mightwe incorporate this into a redefinition of heritage designation geared toward shifting landfrom private ownership to public use?3. Historic district: The 55th st across the 5th avenue is one of the oldest blocks in Sunset Park datingfrom 1895 (Sunset Park Restoration Committee, Inc. 1990).Research on the Opportunities, Obstacles, and Overlays of the city’s public plansrevealed both horizontal (opportunity-opportunity) overlays and vertical(opportunity-obstacle) overlays:1. HORIZONTAL OVERLAYS ()CB 7′s promotion of the development of a guidebook and historic tours of the waterfront and the SunsetPark Historic District leverages Vision 2020′s desire to identify and designate city landmarks and historicdistrictsCB7′s promotion of a cultural/historic precinct on the water’s edge leverages Vision 2020′s call for theprotection, maintenance, and promotion of heritage tourism sitesCB 7′s promotion of a historic trail and map leading people from upland neighborhoods to and along thewaterfront leverages both VISION 2020′s goal to enliven the waterfront with a range of attractive usesintegrated with adjacent upland communities and PlaNYC 2030′s network of green corridors (Parks andPublic Spaces, Initiative 10)2. VERTICAL OVERLAYSCB 7′s recognition of the potential loss of Sunset Park’s historic maritime and industrial infrastructure isleveraged by VISION 2020′s proposal for the study of potential buildings and structures of historicsignificance
151
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
152
153
All the designated landmark in Sunset Park by the LPC: Following are the links to PDF files of the LPC of each of the landmarks. 1. Sunset Play Center: http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/2007SunsetPlayCenter.pdf 2. Sunset Courthouse: http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/01-SUNSETPARKCOURTHOUSE.pdf 3. Cemetary Gates:http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/GREEN-WOOD-GATES.pdf 4. Sunset Play center bath: (interior):http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/2007SunsetPlayCenterInterior.pdf 5. Sunset Walker Theater: HAVE TO ADD IThttp://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/1984WalkerTheaterInterior.pdf 6. Weir Greenhouse:http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/82---WEIR-GREENHOUSE.pdf 7. Police precinct:http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/db/bb_files/68th-Police-Precinct-Station-House-and-Stable.pdf Info from LPC website: http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/designation_reports/
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
154
Sunset Park History and Culture:
“…Sunset Park, is one of the most heterogeneous neighborhoods in Brooklyn…” 200“As long time residents know, the genuineness of Sunset Park’s commitment to ethnic and racial inclusion is as clear as its distinctive view of the Verrazano Bridge.” 200Sunset Park – 24.5 acre park built in 1890sThe city of Brooklyn used to end around 60th street, so much of what is now considered Sunset Park was once referred to as a part of South Brooklyn.“It’s upland residential community contains the largest historical district on the Federal Register in the Northeast and is renowned for its owner-occupied row houses.” 200 Dutch Settlers acquired portions of Sunset Park from the Canarsee Indians in the 1640s. They farmed along the waterfront. The land was mainly agricultural until the mid-1800s. Irish immigrants came to the area during the potato famine of the 1840s. In the 1870s the local ferry pier and railroad terminal we heavily used for visitors to Coney Island.In the 1880s and 1890s Polish, Norwegian, and Finnish immigrants settled the area.
“During this early period, the new-comers introduced cooperative housing, long known in Finland.” 200
“Nearly all of the areas residential construction occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s” Brownstones/Limestones/brick and wood row houses.
“Two of Sunset Park’s landmarked buildings were constructed during this time. The Weir Greenhouse (1900), a large wood and brick structure with a distinctive octagonal dome, can be found on 5th Ave. across from the main entrance to Green-wood cemetery. And the fortress like former 68th (originally 18th) Police Precinct Station House and Stable (1892)…on 4th Ave.” 201
The waterfront property used to be Ambrose Park, a picnic area. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show came here in 1892 before the European tour. The area was purchased by Irving T. Bush and it … “changed forever the landscape of Sunset Park – although no one would have believed it at the time.” 202Bush wanted to compete with Manhattan’s ports and began building the terminal in 1890. People referred to the project as “Bush’s Folly.” He began with a single warehouse, pier, tugboat, and old railroad engine. This developed into Bush Terminal “a 200 acre complex of piers, warehouses, display rooms, and factory lofts.” He expanded in 1902 “…and eventually owned his own rail system, fire and police department, and power plants. Some of the buildings in his complex have rooms that span 3 acres.” 202It was renamed Industry City in 1960. In 1965 a group of developers led by Harry Helmsley bought the area. There was illegal dumping by the piers. The piers are an “unofficial bird sanctuary”203In 1969 the Lutheran Medical Center needed more space so they purchased an abandoned factory on 2nd Ave.
155
Construction of the Gowanus expressway in the early 1950s separated the industrial section from the residential.
Post WWII many residents moved to the suburbs. Homes and jobs were filled in large part by Puerto Rican immigrants.
In the 1950s, corruption in the Federal Housing Administration as well as real estate and banking industries led to the abandonment of homes.
The city built a small container port – The North East Marine Terminal, and most of the Maritime industry moved to the New Jersey Shore.
Bush Terminal was renamed “Industry City” in 1960, in one of many attempts to revitalize the area. In 1965 it was bought by a group of investors led by Harvey Helmsley. 5 of 18 piers were no longer standing.
There was illegal dumping near the piers. It is an “unofficial bird sanctuary where a mated pair of ring-necked pheasants lives and many other local and migrating birds visit.” 203
In 1969, the Lutheran Medical Center needed more space. They purchased an abandoned factory on 2nd Ave. and 55th street, from the city for $1.00. They spent more than 70 million renovating the space. The Medical Center helped local non-profit organizations renovate 500 housing units that are now federally subsidized.
In the 80s and 90s immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Vietnam, Jordan AND Poland moved to the area.
Local real estate agents advertised homes in Chinese newspapers. They made it known that they could negotiate sales made in Chinese. They played up the existence of the N train, a direct link to Manhattan Chinatown.
The Brooklyn Army Terminal was deactivated in the 1970s and reopened in 1987 as a center for light industry. The terminal was built in 1919 at 58th and 2nd. It was designed by Cass Gilbert, the designer of Manhattan’s Woolworth building. During WWII 80% of all supplies and soldiers headed for Europe were shipped from the Brooklyn Army Terminal. 204
4story cooperative apartment building in 1916, Alku I (Beginning 1) between 8th and 9th Aves. Alku I and other buildings erected later (including 2 garages and a shopping complex) were the “first cooperative in the US. 204
Bush Terminal was revived as an industrial park.
Bodegas, restaurants and retail stores owned by Latin Americans sprang up between 35th and 60th St. along 5th Ave. 5th Ave improvement district.
Faith Cami Mosque – imported Turkish tile
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
156
Other Resources:
Brooklyn’s Eagle Almanac, Brooklyn Eagle PressBrooklyn Historical Society, Brooklyn’s Hispanic Communities, Brooklyn Historical Society, 1989Andrew Dolkart, “This is Brooklyn: A guide to the Borough’s Historical Districts and Landmarks, 1990Norval White & Elliot Willensky, “American Institute of Architecture Guide to New York
City,” 3rd Edition, 1988Adolph Whiteman, US Navy Yard Brooklyn, 1904 Greenwood Cemetery was commissioned in 1838. Used for recreational purposes.
It was a popular destination. In 1844 stagecoaches began to shuttle visitors from ferries to the cemetery. There is a gothic revival gate (LPC designated) at 5th Ave and 25th St. Made of New Jersey Brownstone.
Ellen M Snyder- Grenier, “Brooklyn- An Illustrated History,” for the Brooklyn Historical Society, 1996
Sunset Park, Pages 13, 17, 61 Sunset Park and: Chinese Immigrants 59-61, 132 Commercial Development 259-260 Italian 45 – 46 Latino 58-59 Polish 50 Scandanavian 49
Brooklyn Neighborhoods Website: http://webhost.brooklyn.lib.ny.us/world/neighborhoods
Sunset Park Parade of Flags, celebration of Diversity on 5th Ave – late October
Resources:“The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn” John B Manbeck (Consulting Editor), Citizen’s committee for New York City, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1998
Brooklyn Library 10.06.12 Park Slope Historical District Designation Report: 1973 City of New York John V. Lindsay, Mayor Parks Recreation and Cultural Affairs Administration Richard M. Clurman, Administrator Landmarks Preservation Commission Harmon H. Goldstone, Chairman ***There are pages missing from this report*** Acknowledgements: “However, the major part of the research was begun in 1970 by volunteers from the District.” “…some 1800 buildings were photographed and a preliminary draft of the architectural block by block description was largely completed in 1972.” “Research was done largely by Charles Brown, Evelyn Ortner and William Lee Younger…All of this work was carried out under the aegis of the Historic and Cultural Resources Committee of the Park Slope Civil Council.” “Grants from the New York State Council on the Arts and the Massachusetts Audubon Society made possible the assistance in 1973 on a short-term, part-time basis, of the following people: …” Map of area (boundary of district and roadbed/street names) Introduction: Basic shape and boundaries of district Boundaries: Very precise bounding description, e.g.: “The property bounded by the southern property line of 446 through 494 14th Street, the eastern property line of 494 14th street, 14th Street, Prospect Park West, 10th street, the eastern and northern property lines of 693 10th Street….” Etc. This boundary description fills about a page and a half. Testimony at Public Hearings: “One June 23, 1970 the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on this area which is now proposed as an Historic District (Item No. 56). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provision of law. Seven persons spoke in favor of the proposed designation and two individuals opposed it. The witness favoring designation clearly indicated that there is great support for this Historic District from the property owners and residents of the Historic District.” May 26, 1970: Item No. 29 11 people testified in favor of a “slightly smaller Park Slop Historic District: the District was reheard in June to permit the addition of the buildings on Park Palce between Sixth and Seventh Avenues.” November 22, 1966: Item No. 6 “The Commission was not able to act upon all the proposed Historic Districts heard during its first series of public hearings in 1965 and 1966, and so several neighborhoods including the
157
subject of this report, were heard in 1970, involving areas where there continues to be great interest in preserving the fine buildings of the community.” Historical Introduction: This section is 6 pages. The first page was not included in this copy of the report, so I am not able to know when the historical Introduction begins. The historical introduction includes references for it’s statements: “Until the 1860s, the site of Prospect Park and the area to the west, now the Park Slope Historical District, remained essentially rural in character, as is clearly shown by the large farm holdings on the M. Dripps Topographical Map of the City of Brooklyn of 1855 and by a bucolic photograph of Battle Pass taken as late as 1865. The Dripps Map, made from actual surveys and original maps, shows the boundaries of those farms which originally comprised the Park Slope Historical District; they are also clearly indicated on later atlasessuch as the Robinson Atlas of the City of Brooklyn of 1886.” (iv) -History of the area, property holders, original farm boundaries, history of specific sites (e.g. “Dutch Reformed Church of Flatbush, built in 1654 under the auspices of Governor Stuyvesant, on the site of the present church.”(iv)), extensive history of prospect park, the impact of the Brooklyn Bridge construction…among other things. A short paragraph that concludes the section addresses the (socio-economic) demographic of the area in very careful terms. Architectural Introduction: There is a seven page description of the architectural styles featured in the district. The styles are each described (historically and aesthetically) and provide specific examples in the district. Documentation and Arrangement: Important sources sited and an explanation of the arrangement of the report. Beyond this is the main body of the report: “The main text of this report consists of block-by-block description.” (xvii) This goes first by the avenues, then “The Named Streets”, “The Numbered Streets (First to Fourteenth Streets)” Information by block: # of buildings. When it was built and by whom, Finally is a statement by the commission on page 143 Findings and designations on 143 Topographical Errata on 147
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
158
Fre
qu
en
tly
Ask
ed
Qu
est
ion
sA
bo
ut
the
La
nd
ma
rks
Pro
cess
the ad
voca
te for
new
yor
k ci
ty’s
hist
oric
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
ON THE COVER: MOTT HAVEN EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE BRONX
ALL PHOTOGRAPHS © HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL
Ab
ou
t th
e H
isto
ric
Dis
tric
ts C
ou
nci
l
Th
e H
isto
ric
Dis
tric
ts C
oun
cil i
s th
e ci
tyw
ide
advo
cate
for
New
Yor
k’s
his
tori
c n
eigh
bor
hoo
ds.
We
wor
k to
en
sure
th
e pr
eser
vati
on o
f si
gni
can
t h
isto
ric
nei
ghb
orh
ood
s, b
uil
din
gs a
nd
pub
lic
spac
es i
n N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y, u
phol
d t
he
inte
grit
y of
th
e N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y L
and
mar
ks L
aw a
nd
fu
rth
er t
he
pres
erva
tion
et
hic
. T
his
mis
sion
is
acco
mpl
ish
ed t
hro
ugh
on
goin
g pr
ogra
ms
of a
ssis
tan
ce
to m
ore
than
50
0 c
omm
un
ity
and
nei
ghb
orh
ood
gro
ups
and
th
rou
gh p
ubli
c-p
olic
y in
itia
tive
s,
publ
icat
ion
s,
educ
atio
nal
ou
trea
ch
and
sp
onso
rsh
ip
of
com
mu
nit
y ev
ents
.
Ori
gin
ally
fou
nd
ed i
n 1
971
as a
coa
liti
on o
f co
mm
un
ity
grou
ps
from
New
Yo
rk C
ity’
s d
esig
nat
ed h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts,
HD
C h
as g
row
n t
o b
ecom
e on
e of
th
e fo
rem
ost
city
wid
e vo
ices
for
his
tori
c pr
eser
vati
on. F
ollo
win
g it
s m
and
ate
of
com
mu
nit
y-ba
sed
pr
eser
vati
on
advo
cacy
, H
DC
w
orks
co
nti
nuo
usl
y to
br
oad
en a
nd
edu
cate
th
e pr
eser
vati
on c
onst
itue
ncy
— f
rom
pro
duci
ng
zon
ing
and
arc
hit
ectu
ral
surv
eys
of u
npr
otec
ted
his
tori
c n
eigh
bor
hoo
ds,
to
mee
tin
g w
ith
legi
slat
ors
and
gov
ern
men
t of
cia
ls, t
o cr
eati
ng
edu
cati
onal
pro
gram
s on
th
e te
chn
ique
s an
d s
trat
egie
s of
nei
ghb
orh
ood
pre
serv
atio
n.
Th
e co
re b
elie
f of
th
e H
isto
ric
Dis
tric
ts C
oun
cil
is t
hat
pre
serv
atio
n a
nd
en
han
cem
ent
of N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y’s
his
tori
c re
sou
rces
— i
ts n
eigh
bor
hoo
ds,
bu
ild
ings
, par
ks a
nd
pub
lic
spac
es—
are
cen
tral
to t
he
con
tin
ued
suc
cess
of t
he
city
. Th
e cr
eati
on o
f th
e N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y L
and
mar
ks L
aw in
19
65 a
ckn
owle
dge
d
this
an
d e
mp
ower
ed t
he
gove
rnm
ent
to a
ct t
o pr
eser
ve b
uil
din
gs a
nd
sit
es
that
“p
osse
ss s
pec
ial
char
acte
r or
sp
ecia
l h
isto
rica
l or
aes
thet
ic i
nte
rest
or
valu
e as
par
t of
th
e d
evel
opm
ent,
her
itag
e or
cu
ltu
ral
char
acte
rist
ics
of c
ity,
st
ate
or n
atio
n.”
Th
is p
rese
rvat
ion
goa
l ben
e t
s n
ot o
nly
ou
rsel
ves
but
futu
re
gen
erat
ion
s of
New
Yor
kers
, an
d it
gu
ides
th
e H
isto
ric
Dis
tric
ts C
oun
cil i
n a
ll
its
acti
ons.
Mor
e in
form
atio
n i
s av
aila
ble
in H
DC
’s s
ign
atu
re p
ubli
cati
on,
Cre
ati
ng
an
H
isto
ric
Dis
tric
t: A
Gu
ide
for
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds,
ava
ilab
le o
n H
DC
’s W
eb s
ite,
w
ww
.hd
c.or
g or
by
call
ing
212-
614-
910
7.
Th
is
pu
blic
atio
n
was
m
ade
pos
sibl
e th
rou
gh
sup
por
t fr
om
New
Yo
rk
Sta
te
Sen
ator
Dia
ne
J. S
avin
o, T
he
New
Yor
k C
omm
un
ity
Tru
st a
nd
th
e D
euts
che
Ban
k A
mer
icas
Fou
nd
atio
n.
159
Wh
at
is a
n h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t?
An
his
tori
c d
istr
ict
is a
n a
rea
of t
he
city
des
ign
ated
by
the
Lan
dm
arks
P
rese
rvat
ion
Com
mis
sion
(L
PC
) th
at r
epre
sen
ts a
t le
ast
one
per
iod
or
styl
e of
arc
hit
ectu
re t
ypic
al o
f on
e or
mor
e ar
eas
in t
he
city
’s h
isto
ry;
as a
res
ult
, th
e d
istr
ict
has
a d
isti
nct
“se
nse
of
plac
e.”
Fort
Gre
ene,
G
reen
wic
h V
illa
ge,
Jack
son
Hei
ghts
, M
ott
Hav
en a
nd
St.
Geo
rge/
New
Bri
ghto
n a
re e
xam
ples
of
the
mor
e th
an 8
0 s
ecti
ons
of t
he
city
th
at
con
tain
h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts.
Hav
ing
a n
eigh
borh
ood
de
sign
ated
pr
eser
ves
its
phys
ical
nat
ure
an
d h
elp
s pr
otec
t it
fro
m o
ut-o
f-sc
ale
and
in
appr
opri
ate
deve
lopm
ent.
Wh
y w
as
the
La
nd
ma
rks
La
w e
na
cte
d?
Th
e L
and
mar
ks L
aw w
as e
nac
ted
in
19
65 i
n r
esp
onse
to
New
Yor
kers
’ gr
owin
g co
nce
rn t
hat
im
por
tan
t ph
ysic
al e
lem
ents
of
the
city
’s h
isto
ry
wer
e be
ing
lost
. E
ven
ts
like
th
e de
mol
itio
n
of
the
arch
itec
tura
lly
dis
tin
guis
hed
P
enn
sylv
ania
St
atio
n
in
1963
in
crea
sed
pu
blic
aw
aren
ess
of t
he
nee
d t
o pr
otec
t th
e ci
ty’s
arc
hit
ectu
ral,
his
tori
cal a
nd
cu
ltu
ral h
erit
age.
TREADWELL FARM HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN
A N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y d
istr
ict i
s ov
erse
en b
y th
e lo
cal L
and
mar
ks P
rese
rvat
ion
C
omm
issi
on a
nd
pro
tect
s th
e ch
arac
ter
of t
he
dis
tric
t th
rou
gh t
he
loca
l L
and
mar
ks L
aw.
A N
atio
nal
Reg
iste
r d
istr
ict
is r
ecog
niz
ed t
hro
ugh
th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of
th
e In
teri
or a
nd
ad
min
iste
red
by
the
New
Yor
k St
ate
His
tori
c P
rese
rvat
ion
Of
ce.
Nat
ion
al R
egis
ter
of H
isto
ric
Pla
ces
list
ings
are
lar
gely
hon
ori
c a
nd
usu
ally
do
not
pre
ven
t al
tera
tion
s or
de
mol
itio
n o
f st
ruct
ure
s w
ith
in t
he
dis
tric
t, b
ut m
ay e
nti
tle
own
ers
to
tax
ben
e t
s. M
any,
if n
ot m
ost
of t
he
city
’s h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts a
re a
lso
on
the
Stat
e an
d N
atio
nal
Reg
iste
rs.
No.
Th
e L
PC
doe
s n
ot r
equ
ire
rest
orat
ion
or
forc
e ow
ner
s to
ret
urn
bu
ild
ings
to
thei
r or
igin
al c
ond
itio
n. T
he
LP
C o
nly
reg
ula
tes
prop
osed
w
ork
on d
esig
nat
ed s
truc
ture
s. It
may
, how
ever
, mak
e re
com
men
dat
ion
s fo
r re
stor
ativ
e tr
eatm
ent
wh
en
oth
er
wor
k is
u
nde
rtak
en
to
the
prop
erty
.
Wil
l I
be
re
stri
cte
d i
n t
he
kin
d o
f ch
an
ge
s I
can
ma
ke?
Yes.
N
ew
York
C
ity
lan
dm
ark
desi
gnat
ion
do
es
plac
e ad
dit
ion
al
rest
rict
ion
s on
his
tori
c pr
oper
ties
, w
hic
h m
ost
ofte
n i
nvo
lve
exte
rior
ch
ange
s. D
esig
nat
ion
is
desi
gned
to
prot
ect
and
pre
serv
e pr
oper
ties
an
d n
eigh
borh
ood
s.
Th
is c
an b
e be
ne
cia
l to
a p
rop
erty
ow
ner
by
prev
enti
ng
inap
prop
riat
e ch
ange
s to
nei
ghbo
rin
g bu
ild
ings
th
at c
ould
ta
ke a
way
fro
m p
rop
erty
val
ues
and
th
e am
bian
ce o
r en
joym
ent
of t
he
prop
erty
.
To m
ake
chan
ges,
you
mu
st a
pply
for
a p
erm
it f
rom
th
e L
PC
, wh
ich
wil
l re
view
you
r pl
ans
and
issu
e a
per
mit
or
sugg
est a
ppro
pria
te a
lter
atio
ns.
T
he
maj
orit
y of
LP
C p
erm
its
are
for
exte
rior
wor
k an
d c
an u
sual
ly b
e is
sued
wit
hin
a fe
w w
eeks
.
23
If m
y n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d o
r b
uil
din
g i
s d
esi
gn
ate
d,
wil
l I
be
re
qu
ire
d t
o r
est
ore
my
pro
pe
rty
?
Wh
at
pro
ced
ure
s d
o I
fo
llo
w t
o m
ak
e c
ha
ng
es
to m
y la
nd
ma
rke
d p
rop
ert
y?
Wh
at
is t
he
dif
fere
nce
be
twe
en
a N
ew
Yo
rk C
ity
his
tori
c d
istr
ict
an
d a
Na
tio
na
l R
eg
iste
r d
istr
ict?
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
160
Do
es
it c
ost
mo
re t
o m
ain
tain
a l
an
dm
ark
ed
bu
ild
ing
?
It m
ay.
Alt
hou
gh t
her
e ca
n b
e an
add
itio
nal
exp
ense
for
his
tori
call
y ap
prop
riat
e re
pai
r an
d m
ain
ten
ance
of
desi
gnat
ed b
uil
din
gs, p
rop
erty
ow
ner
s ge
ner
ally
n
d t
he
extr
a co
sts
offs
et b
y h
igh
er r
esal
e re
ven
ue
and
pro
per
ty v
alue
s.
Wil
l li
vin
g i
n a
de
sig
na
ted
his
tori
c d
istr
ict
rais
e m
y ta
xe
s?
No.
Th
ere
is n
o ev
iden
ce t
hat
th
ose
livi
ng
in a
n h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t p
ay
hig
her
pro
per
ty t
axes
th
an r
esid
ents
out
side
of
the
dis
tric
t.
Stud
ies
all
over
th
e co
un
try
show
th
at d
esig
nat
ion
im
prov
es p
rop
erty
va
lues
. In
20
03
the
Inde
pen
den
t B
udge
t O
f c
e pu
blis
hed
a s
tud
y sh
owin
g th
at p
rop
erti
es w
ith
in d
esig
nat
ed N
ew Y
ork
Cit
y h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts a
ppre
ciat
e m
ore
in v
alue
ove
r th
e lo
ng
term
th
an i
den
tica
l pr
oper
ties
not
in h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts.
DOUGLASTON HILL
HISTORIC DISTRICT, QUEENS
TRIBECA WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN
Dev
elop
men
t is
pe
rmit
ted
in
h
isto
ric
dis
tric
ts.
Dev
elop
ers
are
subj
ect
to t
he
sam
e ap
prov
al p
roce
ss b
y th
e L
and
mar
ks
Com
mis
sion
as
ar
e ot
her
prop
erty
ow
ner
s. E
ven
tho
ugh
dev
elop
men
t m
ay
be re
view
ed in
term
s of
aes
thet
ics,
hei
ght
and
bu
lk,
deve
lope
rs m
ay b
ene
t f
rom
th
e pr
esti
ge a
nd
asso
ciat
ion
th
at c
ome
wit
h d
esig
nat
ion
. To
enco
ura
ge s
ensi
tive
al
tera
tion
s an
d
ren
ovat
ion
s,
fede
ral
and
stat
e ta
x cr
edit
s ar
e av
aila
ble.
The
re
al e
stat
e co
mm
un
ity
mar
kets
his
tori
c pr
oper
ties
in a
way
th
at p
lace
s em
phas
is
and
grea
ter
valu
e on
the
bu
ildin
g’s
and
n
eigh
borh
ood’
s sp
ecia
l ch
arac
ter.
No.
The
re a
re n
o de
nit
ive
stud
ies
that
pr
ove
this
. By
pres
ervi
ng
and
pro
tect
ing
exis
tin
g h
isto
ric
stru
ctu
res,
des
ign
atio
n
prev
ents
rap
id, o
ut-o
f-sc
ale
deve
lopm
ent
that
oft
en le
ads
to d
ispl
acem
ent.
Zon
ing
is
a se
para
te
feat
ure
of
a
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d’s
char
acte
r.
The
zo
nin
g d
icta
tes
how
larg
e a
build
ing
may
be,
its
gen
eral
sh
ape
and
use
. The
LP
C o
vers
ees
all
chan
ges
in a
n h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t bu
t do
es n
ot r
egu
late
con
tem
pora
ry u
se. 5
4
Ho
w d
oe
s h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t d
esi
gn
ati
on
aff
ect
re
al
est
ate
v
alu
es?
Ho
w
do
es
liv
ing
in
a
n
his
tori
c d
istr
ict
aff
ect
zo
nin
g?
Do
esn
’t b
eco
min
g a
la
nd
ma
rke
d
dis
tric
t sp
ee
d u
p t
he
pro
cess
of
ge
ntr
i c
ati
on
?
Ho
w d
oe
s h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t d
esi
gn
ati
on
aff
ect
de
velo
pm
en
t v
alu
es
wit
hin
a d
istr
ict?
161
Ho
w d
oe
s a
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
be
com
e a
n h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t?
Th
e pr
oces
s of
de
sign
atin
g an
h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t st
arts
w
hen
th
e L
and
mar
ks P
rese
rvat
ion
Com
mis
sion
(L
PC
) b
egin
s to
con
side
r an
are
a w
orth
y of
sp
ecia
l pro
tect
ion
. H
owev
er, r
arel
y do
es t
he
desi
gnat
ion
of a
n
eigh
borh
ood
hap
pen
wit
hou
t su
bsta
nti
al c
omm
un
ity
invo
lvem
ent.
HD
C r
ecom
men
ds
that
bef
ore
follo
win
g t
he s
tep
s be
low
, the
maj
orit
y of
the
com
mu
nit
y an
d i
ts e
lect
ed r
epre
sen
tati
ves
be i
nvo
lved
in
an
d
sup
por
tive
of t
he e
ffor
t ear
ly in
the
pro
cess
by
orga
niz
ing
a c
omm
un
ity
grou
p t
o p
rom
ote
lan
dm
ark
des
ign
atio
n.
Wh
en th
e pu
blic
, a c
omm
un
ity
mem
ber
, or
a gr
oup
wis
hes
an
are
a or
• pr
oper
ty t
o be
con
side
red
for
desi
gnat
ion
, a R
eque
st fo
r E
valu
atio
n
(RF
E) m
ust
be s
ubm
itte
d to
the L
PC
. Th
is re
ques
t is a
sin
gle-
pag
e for
m
that
ask
s fo
r in
form
atio
n a
bout
th
e pr
oper
ty o
r ar
ea. T
he
RF
E c
an
be d
own
load
ed o
ff o
f th
e L
PC
Web
sit
e (h
ttp:
//w
ww
.nyc
.gov
/htm
l/lp
c) o
r re
ques
ted
by
phon
e (2
12-6
69
-78
17)
or b
y m
ail
(On
e C
entr
e St
reet
, New
Yor
k, N
Y 1
00
07)
.
Th
e L
PC
rev
iew
s th
e R
FE
, mak
es s
ite
visi
ts, d
oes
furt
her
res
earc
h
• and
dec
ides
if
a d
istr
ict
is w
orth
y of
fu
rth
er c
onsi
dera
tion
. T
he
com
mu
nit
y ca
n a
lso
mak
e kn
own
to
the
LP
C t
hat
th
ere
is s
tron
g su
ppor
t fo
r th
is d
esig
nat
ion
in
th
e fo
rm o
f le
tter
s, p
hon
e ca
lls
or
e-m
ails
to th
e C
omm
issi
on. I
t is
also
rec
omm
ende
d th
at c
omm
un
ity
mem
ber
s m
eet w
ith
the
LP
C ch
air
and
sta
ff to
tou
r th
e n
eigh
borh
ood
.
• On
ce
the
LP
C
deci
des
that
an
ar
ea
is
wor
thy
of
furt
her
con
side
rati
on,
“cal
end
arin
g”
is
the
rs
t of c
ial
step
in
th
e de
sign
atio
n
proc
ess.
C
alen
dar
ing
is
the
acti
on
of
esta
blis
hin
g th
at a
n i
tem
wil
l be
sch
edu
led
for
a P
ublic
Hea
rin
g. T
his
is
also
w
hen
bou
nd
arie
s of
the
pot
enti
al d
istr
ict
are
prop
osed
by
the
LP
C.
• Th
e P
ubli
c H
eari
ng
is
the
opp
ortu
nit
y fo
r m
emb
ers
of
the
com
mu
nit
y, e
lect
ed
of
cial
s an
d
inte
rest
ed
par
ties
to
gi
ve
test
imon
y fo
r or
aga
inst
th
e de
sign
atio
n o
f th
e pr
opos
ed d
istr
ict.
S
omet
ime
afte
r th
e P
ubli
c H
eari
ng
(in
mos
t ca
ses)
, th
e L
PC
wil
l ta
ke a
vot
e on
th
e d
istr
ict.
If
the
vote
is
favo
rabl
e, a
Des
ign
atio
n
Rep
ort
is i
ssue
d a
nd
th
e n
ew h
isto
ric
dis
tric
t is
now
pro
tect
ed.
GREENWICH VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN
• On
ce t
he
his
tori
c d
istr
ict
is d
esig
nat
ed, t
he
desi
gnat
ion
is s
ubje
ct t
o re
view
by
the
Cit
y P
lan
nin
g C
omm
issi
on (
CP
C)
and
to
a vo
te b
y th
e C
ity
Cou
nci
l. T
he
CP
C’s
rol
e is
ad
viso
ry o
nly
, bu
t th
e C
ity
Cou
nci
l ca
n a
ppro
ve, m
odif
y or
ove
rtu
rn t
he
desi
gnat
ion
.
67
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
162
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 1
Page One
The Impact of Historic Districtson Residential Property Values
Background PaperSeptember 2003
New York City Independent Budget Office
New York CityIndependent Budget OfficeRonnie Lowenstein, Director110 William St., 14th floorNew York, NY 10038Tel. (212) 442-0632Fax (212) 442-0350e-mail: [email protected]://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us
A
For more reports on...
Housing andCommunityDevelopmentIssues
...visit www.ibo.nyc.ny.us
SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY
IBO’s analysis of the impact of historic districts on residential property values was originallysummarized in a July 2001 letter (available at: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/HistoricDistricts.pdf ). In response to requests for additional information, this background paperprovides more detail on the study’s findings along with a fuller explanation of the data andmethodology used in the analysis.
The original request—from former Council Members Andrew Eristoff and Kenneth Fisher—asked whether there was any evidence that historic districting in New York City has constrainedthe appreciation in residential property values. To answer this question, IBO used standardregression techniques which allowed us to control for differences in property characteristics andDepartment of Finance data on sales of one-, two-, and three-family houses from 1975 through2002. IBO’s study found:
• All else equal, prices of houses in historic districts are higher than those of similar housesoutside historic districts.
• Although prices for historic properties have at times increased less rapidly than for similarproperties outside historic districts, overall price appreciation from 1975 through 2002was greater for houses inside historical districts.
163
2 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE
OVERVIEW
Like many other communities, New York City has chosen todistinguish properties with architectural and/or historicalsignificance by giving them individual landmark status orincluding them in an historic district.1 New York City hasdesignated over 80 historical districts since 1965, most of themin Manhattan (see list in appendix).
One concern of building owners in prospective historic districtsis how districting will affect property values. On the positiveside, inclusion in a historic district provides guarantees thatsurrounding properties will not be demolished and replaced, ortheir exteriors modified in ways that are not in harmony withthe neighborhood’s traditional appearance. Historic districtsmay also act as “brand labels” that guarantee, or at least conveyan image of, neighborhood quality. Finally, federal tax benefitsare associated with the purchase or rehabilitation of certainhistoric properties. To the extent that these tax benefits exist,they should be at least partially capitalized into the price of theproperty.
While historic districting has the potential to enhance propertyvalues, in theory it can also depress them. Owners of buildingslocated in historic districts face a significant curtailment ofproperty rights, in the form of strong limitations on demolitionand restrictions on how the structure may be altered physically.Concern over the loss of property rights has sometimes ledowners to oppose the inclusion of their buildings in historicdistricts.
The impact of historic districting on property values is likely tovary, both in magnitude and direction, across localities. IBOundertook this study to determine how inclusion in an historicdistrict affects property values in New York City. Our studyfocuses exclusively on one-, two-, and three-family dwellings,which are assigned to tax class one for purposes of the New YorkCity real property tax.2 There are several reasons for focusing onthis type of property. Sales prices of commercial buildings arecomplicated by tax considerations and the length of existingleases, making commercial sales harder to analyze for evidence ofchanging market values than residential sales. Among residentialowners, owners of class-one properties have typically been morevocal than apartment building owners in their concern over thepossible negative impacts of districting. In addition, becauseclass-one properties are not subject to rent regulations, the use ofsales prices to get at market value changes is morestraightforward than for larger residential buildings. Mostimportantly, the number of sales of class one properties providesreasonable sample sizes for statistical analysis.
After accounting for differences in property characteristics, wefound evidence of a statistically significant price premiumassociated with inclusion in an historic district. The extent of thepremium varied from year to year, ranging from 22.6 percent in1988, 1990, and 1997, to 71.8 percent in 1978.
We also examined whether property values in historic districtshave appreciated faster or slower than property values outsidethe districts. To answer this question we employed statisticalmodels that looked at change in property values over a numberof years. The city’s housing markets have shown very sharpswings over the last quarter century. Because the behavior ofprices cannot be adequately modeled with a single time trend,we broke up the analysis into six shorter periods. For eachperiod we estimated separate (linear) time trends for non-historic and historic properties. In two of the time periods—1975-1982 and 1997-2000—historic properties appreciated at amuch higher rate than non-historic properties, and thedifference was statistically significant. In three periods—1982-1989, 1993-1997, and 2000-2002—prices rose somewhat fasteroutside historic districts, after controlling for other physical andlocational characteristics. However, in 2000-2002 the differencewas very small, and not statistically significant. Finally, in 1989-1993 both historic and non-historic properties declined in price.The decline was slightly greater for properties within historicdistricts, but the difference with non-historic properties was notstatistically significant. Despite some years when non-historicproperties performed marginally better than historic ones, theoverall price increase for the period 1975-2002 was higher insidethe districts. In the absence of statistically significant evidencelinking districting with consistently lower appreciation, weconclude that is not likely that property owners are adverselyaffected and may actually benefit from being included in ahistoric district.
THE DATA
For this study, IBO combined information from two data setsmaintained by the New York City Department of Finance. Thesales data file contains information on all residential propertysales (excluding coops) since the mid-1970s. The department’sreal property assessment file (RPAD) contains assessed valuesand descriptive information, as well as an estimated marketvalue that can be compared against actual sales data or the valuescomputed by our own models. We have augmented theinformation contained in these files by adding variables forinclusion in historic districts, distance to the nearest subway orcommuter rail station, and mean household income at theneighborhood level.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
164
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 3
The combined data set contains 368,664 parcels in New YorkCity that had at least one class one sale between 1975 and 2002.These parcels are concentrated in Queens (44 percent) andBrooklyn (31 percent), with less than 1 percent in Manhattan.Of all the parcels with at least one class-one sale, 4,333 belongedto historic districts as of late 2003. Overthree-fifths (61 percent) of these historicproperties were located in Brooklyn, whichwe have made the focus of our study. Whileall five boroughs of the city contain someclass one historic properties, only inBrooklyn are there sufficient sales to makemeaningful comparisons between similarproperties located inside and outsidehistoric districts. During most of the yearscovered by our data, the number of classone sales in Brooklyn’s historic districts waswell over 100. In no other borough did thenumber of class one historic district salesapproach this level.
IBO’s study compared prices of properties in historic districtswith prices outside designated historic areas. Rather than usesales from the entire borough of Brooklyn, we restrictedourselves to those community districts that contain at least onehistoric district. The justification for this restriction was tocompare historic district properties with non-districtedproperties that are at least somewhat similar in terms ofarchitecture, age, and location.
The six Brooklyn community districts with historic districts (1,2, 3, 6, 9, and 14) contain 21,905 parcels with at least one class
one sale between 1975 and 2002. The total number of sales was31,093, of which 3,948 took place within historic districts. Weexcluded those sales that give clear evidence of not being arms-length or that apparently involve major structural changes, aswell as sales that are extreme outliers in terms of price or squarefootage.3 These screening criteria eliminated roughly twopercent of all sales.
OVERALL TRENDS IN CLASS ONE HOUSING PRICES INNEW YORK CITY
The question posed was whether historic districting has animpact on housing prices that is separate from the overall pricetrends. The chart on price trends per square foot in all fiveboroughs shows the mean nominal price per square foot of taxclass one properties from 1975 through 2002, for each of thefive boroughs. Prices have generally followed an upward trend,with the exception of a period of stagnation and decline in the
early 1990s. The pattern is remarkably similar across all of theboroughs, with the exception of Manhattan. Prices inManhattan are much higher than in the rest of the city, haveincreased at a much faster rate during real estate booms, andhave fallen much more sharply in periods of downturn.
The chart on price trends in Brooklyn uses only sales fromcommunity districts that contain historic districts. The chartcontrasts nominal prices of properties included in an historicdistrict at the time of sale, with properties outside the historicdistrict, but in the same community district.
The Brooklyn chart shows that the mean sales price of tax classone properties in the borough increased at a moderate pace from1975 through 1982. Prices then rose rapidly from 1982 through1989. From 1989 through 1993 there was a period of decline. Arecovery began around 1993, and accelerated beginning in
Queens, 13%
Staten Island, 2%
Brooklyn, 61%
Manhattan, 20%
Bronx, 4%
SOURCES: IBO;Department of Finance.
Class One Sales in Historic Districts,Shares by Borough
0100200300400500600
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Queens Staten Is.
Trend in Price Per Square Foot, Class One Housing, Five Boroughs
SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance.
165
4 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE
1997. Throughout the period under consideration, propertiesin historic districts were more expensive than non-districtproperties. The divergence became especially great beginningaround 1997, due to the very rapid appreciation of high-endproperties in historic districts. Over the entire 1975-2002period, historic properties increased in value an average of10.2 percent per year, while non-historic propertiesexperienced a rate of growth of 9.0 percent per year. When weadjust prices for inflation, the increases of the mid-1980s areless dramatic, and the decline of the early 1990s morepronounced. In inflation-adjusted terms, prices of historicproperties have risen an average of 5.3 percent per year since1975, while non-historic district properties have risen anaverage of 4.2 percent.
Neighborhood Level Trends. Of course, property markets canvary widely, even within the limited geographic extent of asingle borough. Therefore, we next looked at trends at the
neighborhood level. Wechose three historic districtsas examples of the variationamong historic districts. ParkSlope is a relatively high-income district, with a 1990per capita income of$32,000 according to censusdata. Fort Greene is amiddle-incomeneighborhood (per capitaincome of $18,000), andStuyvesant Heights isrelatively low-income (percapita income of $12,500).We then compare the mean
nominal price per square foot for sales inside each historicdistrict, to the prices in areas within 1,000 to 1,250 feet ofhistoric district boundaries. Prices just outside each districtfollow similar patterns to prices inside. As the comparative chartshows, in Park Slope and Fort Greene, prices in most years arenoticeably higher inside the districts than just outside them.Prices inside and adjacent to the Stuyvesant Heights historicdistrict are very similar, but in most years are slightly higherinside.
The Stuyvesant Heights and Park Slope historic districts wereestablished in 1971 and 1973, respectively. Since the sales databegin in 1975, for these neighborhoods it is not possible tocompare prices before and after districting. The Fort GreeneHistoric District was established in September 1978. The priceper square foot was substantially higher in 1979 than in 1978($21.11 vs. $13.57). While these results may indicate thatdistricting itself had a positive impact on property values, thenumber of sales—only 13 per year—is too small to give
conclusive results.
STATISTICAL MODELS OF HOUS-ING PRICES
Based on the analysis of the previoussections, IBO concluded thatinclusion in an historical district isgenerally associated with higherprices. However, the analysis hasthus far made no explicit effort tocontrol for other aspects of thehouses, other than the uniformitythat would be expected fromlooking at properties within arestricted geographic area. Interior
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Pric
e p
er s
qua
re fo
ot
Park Slope hdNear Park Slope hdFort Greene hdNear Fort Greene hdStuyvesant Heights hdNear Stuyvesant Heights hd
Comparison of Price Per Square Foot, Historic Districts and Adjacent Blocks
SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance.
Price Per Square Foot, Class One Properties in Brooklyn CommunityDistricts with Historic Districts, 1975-2002
SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Do
llars
Mean, properties not in historic districts at time of saleMean, properties in historic districts at time of sale
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
166
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 5
and exterior dwelling characteristics, as well as neighborhoodtraits, influence housing prices. If properties in historic districtssell for more than properties outside districts, in part this maybe because of differences in these other variables.
This study uses the statistical technique known as linearregression to analyze how the price of a house is influenced byinclusion in an historic district, as well as by other structural andneighborhood characteristics. The analysis requires a largernumber of observations than is available at the individualhistoric district level, and thus sales from all Brooklyncommunity districts that contain historic districts are groupedtogether. There are two different model formulations, eachdesigned to measure the influence of historical districts onproperty values in a different way. The variables contained in themodels are described below.
Sales Price. The dependent variable in our models is the salesprice of the house (housval). As explained earlier, extremeoutliers and sales that did not appear tobe arms-length were discarded.
The variable for sales price is expressedin logarithmic form in our models. Thecoefficients on the continuousindependent variables, multiplied by100, indicate the percentage change inthe sales price for a one-unit change inthe independent variable. Thecoefficients on the dummy variablesindicate the difference in log valuesbetween properties that have thecharacteristic and those that do not. AsHalvorsen and Palmquist (1980) andKennedy (1981) have shown, thepercentage effect of a difference in logs,b, can be expressed as 100(eb – 1). Forexample, if the coefficient on a dummyvariable is 0.5, this means that houseswith the characteristic are worth 100(e.5
-1), or 65 percent more than houseswithout the characteristic.
Yard Size. The variable yardsize refersto the area of the lot not taken up bythe house. Yard size was calculated byfirst estimating the “footprint” of thebuilding, i.e., the area of the lot takenup by the structure. The footprint wascomputed by multiplying the building’s
reported frontage by its reported depth (both numbers arecontained in the RPAD file). The actual footprint may varyslightly from the calculated result, due to the building nothaving an exact square or rectangular shape. The footprint wassubtracted from the total lot size, to give yard size. The vastmajority of the calculated values were reasonable, given the sizeof the lot and the house. In the few cases (less than one percent)in which the calculated yard size was negative, or unrealisticallysmall or large, the observation was discarded. The yard sizevariable allows us to control for differences in plot size—animportant determinant of value—while avoiding the statisticalproblems that would result from simply using total lot sizewhich is partially correlated with another of our variables:building square footage (grosqft).
Age of the Building. The data set contains a variable, yrblt,which refers to the year the house currently occupying the lotwas built. In a few cases a given lot has been occupied by morethan one structure since 1975. Sales of any previous structure
Mean Values for Housing Characteristics, Class One Properties In Brooklyn that Have Sold at Least Once Since 1975
Variable Description
All Community Districts
Community Districts with Historic Districts
Historic Districts as of July 2000
HOUSVAL* Sale price of a house, excluding outliers and non-arm’s length transactions
$41,386 (1975) $344,295 (2002)
$37,859 (1975) $415,635 (2002)
$60,164 (1975)
$870,931 (2002)
GROSQFT The square footage of the house 2,245 2,597 3,247
ONEFAM Dummy variable equal to one if the house is one-family; zero otherwise
0.33 0.28 0.35
YARDSIZE The size of the yard in square feet 1,538 1,534 1,479
YRBLT Year in which the house was built 1920 1913 1904
INCLEVEL The income level of the census tract where the property is located (1=low, 2=medium, 3=high)
2.29 2.2 2.74
SUBWDIST Approximate distance to the nearest subway station (see text)
2,831 feet 1,549 feet 1,337 feet
SOURCE: IBO.
NOTE: *Dependent variable; expressed in logarithmic form in regression equation.
Mean Value of Variable (weighted by number of observations)
167
6 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE
that occupied the lot cannot be used, because the data set wouldcontain no information on the year the house was built, itssquare footage, or the building class.
Distance to the Subway. The variable subwdist represents theapproximate distance from a house to the nearest subway orcommuter rail station. The assumption is that in New York City,distance from mass transit access affects market values. Morespecifically, it is the distance from the center of the tax block inwhich a house is located. The RPAD file contains geographiccoordinates for centroids (central points) of each tax block. Afterassigning a tax block location to each subway and commuter railstation, we calculated the straight-line distance between theblock and each station. We then determined the distance to theclosest station. This distance is expressed in feet. We added200 feet to each value, to account for the distance that subwayusers must travel from the entrance to the platform, and toavoid having distances equal to zero. The resulting value isassigned to the variable subwdist. All houses in a given tax blockhave the same value for subwdist, and houses that are in the sameblock as a rail station have a value of 200.
Neighborhood Income and “Quality of Life” Indicators. Propertyvalues in New York City are subject to wide variation betweenone neighborhood and another. Properties with similar physicalcharacteristics and even similar subway accessibility can bevalued quite differently, depending on the perceived desirabilityor quality of life of their respective neighborhoods. Quality oflife indicators could include crime rates, school scores,cleanliness of streets, and availability of recreational facilities.However, even if all this information were available at the
neighborhood level, there is no one “correct” way to combinethe individual measures into an index. The quality ranking of agroup of neighborhoods may be different, depending on how aquality of life index is constructed.
Differences in neighborhood quality may be hard to quantify,but are very real to consumers. Neighborhood quality is ineconomic terms a “normal” good, meaning that as their incomerises, households demand more of it. As a result, higher-incomehouseholds will tend to concentrate in neighborhoods with ahigher perceived quality of life. This means that neighborhoodquality of life should be highly correlated with householdincome. For this reason, IBO’s study took the level of per capitaincome (low, medium, or high) as a proxy for neighborhoodquality. This variable is labeled inclevel.
The table on mean values for housing characteristics lists theexplanatory variables used in the models, together with theirmean values. On average, houses located in historic districts arelarger and older than non-districted properties, are located incensus tracts with a higher income level, and are closer to thesubway.
MODEL I: DUMMY VARIABLE FOR INCLUSION IN HISTORICDISTRICTS
The first model attempts to answer the following question: In agiven year, controlling for other building and neighborhoodcharacteristics, are historic properties more expensive than non-districted properties? The model uses a “dummy” variable thattakes a value of one if the property is located inside an historic
district at the time of sale, and zero otherwise, along withthe variables listed in the table on housing characteristics.
As the table listing the coefficients computed for the(dummy) historic district variable shows, in every year from1975 through 2002 this coefficient is positive andstatistically significant at the .01 level. This implies thathistoric district properties are more expensive than non-districted properties, even after controlling for otherinfluences on property values. As explained above, thecoefficient on the dummy variable can be used to calculatethe percentage premium for an historic district house. Thecoefficient ranges from .204 (a 22.6 percent premium) in1988, 1990, and 1997, to .541 (a 71.8 percent premium)in 1978.
MODEL II: TIME TREND VARIABLES
The results from the first model provide strong evidence
SOURCE: IBO.NOTE: All coefficients are statistically significant at the .01 level. (I tI>2.58)
1975 .497 (64.4) 1989 .295 (26.2)1976 .442 (55.6) 1990 .204 (22.6)1977 .536 (70.9) 1991 .233 (26.2)1978 .541 (71.8) 1992 .286 (33.1)1979 .445 (56.0) 1993 .334 (39.7)1980 .466 (59.4) 1994 .358 (43.0)1981 .418 (51.9) 1995 .236 (26.6)1982 .301 (35.1) 1996 .214 (23.9)1983 .531 (70.1) 1997 .204 (22.6)1984 .341 (40.6) 1998 .334 (39.7)1985 .351 (42.0) 1999 .290 (33.6)1986 .324 (38.3) 2000 .460 (58.4)1987 .281 (32.4) 2001 .428 (53.4)1988 .204 (22.6) 2002 .465 (59.2)
Coefficient (percentage effect)
Coefficients of Historic District Dummy Variable Year Coefficient
(percentage effect)Year
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
168
that historic district properties are more expensive than non-district properties, even after controlling for square footage andother house and neighborhood characteristics. However, ofgreater concern to many owners is how districting will affect therate of change, or appreciation, in property values. To answerthis question, IBO used separate equations in which the salesprice depended on neighborhood and building characteristics,plus a time trend. As shown in the chart on Brooklyn prices persquare foot, prices did not follow a single linear trend from1975 through 2002. However, we can approximate the overallmovement of prices by breaking down the data into overlappingtime periods and estimating a linear trend for each period. Wehave divided that data into six periods: 1975-1982, 1982-1989,1989-1993, 1993-1997, 1997-2000, and 2000-2002. Becausethe dependent variable (housval) is expressed in logarithmicform, the coefficients of the time trend variables can beinterpreted as annual percentage rates of change. For each timeperiod there is one equation for all properties sold that are insidehistoric districts at the time of sale, and another for all sales of
properties outside historic districts at the time of sale but still inthe six community districts that contain historic districts. Themodel coefficients are listed in the table on the time trendmodel.
Although the price trends estimated in Model II control forhouse and neighborhood characteristics, the results are similar tothe simple measure of housing prices per square foot displayedin the chart on Brooklyn price trends. In 1975-1982, propertiesin historic districts increased in price at an annual rate of12.5 percent, compared with a rate of increase of only8.4 percent for properties outside historic districts. In 1982-1989, historic district houses increased in price by an estimated16.8 percent annually, compared with a 19.8 percent increasefor houses outside. During the downturn of 1989-1993, pricesfell slightly more inside historic districts than outside(-1.9 percent vs. -1.7 percent). The market for historicproperties then recovered somewhat slowly, with an annual priceincrease of 1.2 percent in 1993-1997, compared with
4.4 percent for non-historicproperties.4 During the boom of1997-2000, historic propertiesincreased in value at an annual rateof 13.4 percent, much higher thanthe 4.7 percent rate for propertiesoutside historic districts. Finally,during 2000-2002 the annual rateof price increase for historicproperties was 12.2 percent, belowthe rate of 15.1 percent for non-historic properties.
The model implies that controllingfor structural and neighborhoodcharacteristics, historic propertiesappreciated at a slightly lower ratethan non-historic properties duringthe periods 1982-1989, 1993-1997,and 2000-2002. In addition, thedecline in prices during 1989-1993was slightly greater for historicproperties. However, two caveatsare in order. First, the difference inthe time trend coefficients forhistoric vs. non-historic propertiesis not statistically significant in twoof these periods—1989-1993 and2000-2002. Second, during 1975-1982 and 1997-2000 appreciationis so much higher among historic
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 7
Time period>
Explanatory variable
In Historic District
Not in Historic District
In Historic District
Not in Historic District
In Historic District
Not in Historic District
Time trend .125* .084* .168* .198* -0.0186 -.017*Difference in historic district and non-historic district time trends statistically significant?Grosqft .00021* .00016* .00018* .00019* .00016* .00017*Onefam .113* .157* .0822* .119* 0.07 .0867*Yardsize -0.00002 .00013* -.000027* .00013* -0.000019 .000097*Yrblt -.00362* .00664* -0.00298 .00525* -.00398* .0045*Inclevel .336* .241* .470* .409* .416* .269*Subwdist .000184* -.000035* .000184* -.00005* .000179* -.00004*
Time period>Time trend 0.0122 .0436* .134* .0467* .122* .151*Difference in historic district and non-historic district time trends statistically significant?Grosqft .00022* .00018* .00025* .00016* .00023* .0001*Onefam 0.0243 .043* 0.051 0.0222 0.0414 .0409*Yardsize -.000055* .000068* -.000061* .000075* -0.000039 .000038*Yrblt -.0071* .0038* -.0063* .0011* -0.00045 -.00015*Inclevel .448* .233* .56* .281* .607* .269*Subwdist .000275* -.000037* .0002* -.000032* .00027* -.00003*SOURCE: IBO.
2000-2002
Yes Yes No
NOTE: *Denotes coefficient significant at .01 level.
Regression Coefficients, Time Trend Model 1975-1982 1982-1989 1989-1993
Yes Yes No
1993-1997 1997-2000
169
compared to non-historic properties that it more than makes upfor the periods of weaker performance.
Controlling for other dwelling and neighborhood characteristics,prices of class one properties in historic districts sometimesincreased faster, sometimes slower, than properties outside thedistricts. However, the overall effect of inclusion in an historicdistrict during the 28-year period 1975-2002 was positive.Applying the time trend coefficients, a house valued at $37,859in 1975—the mean price for all class one properties sold incommunity districts with historic districts—would have risen invalue to $457,715 if it had been in an historic district, but only$396,762 if it had been outside the historic district.
Other variables also have a significant impact on house prices.Not surprisingly, square footage of the house (variable grosqft) isconsistently a strong predictor of sales prices, with allcoefficients positive and statistically significant. All coefficientson the census tract income level variable (inclevel) are alsopositive and highly significant. The dummy variable for a one-family house (onefam) is consistently positive, but not alwaysstatistically significant. The size of the yard (yardsize) has apositive and statistically significant impact on the sales price ofnon-historic properties. However, in the case of houses locatedinside historic districts, larger yard sizes are associated with lowersales prices. This negative relationship was statistically significantin three of the six time periods. Houses in the expensivebrownstone neighborhoods where prices have risen extremelyrapidly typically have smaller yards than houses in more modesthistoric districts. For example, houses in the Brooklyn Heightshistoric district that sold between 1975 and 2000 had an averageyard size of 924 square feet. This compares with an average yardsize of 1,196 square feet in the Stuyvesant Heights district, and4,762 square feet in the Ditmas Park district, both areas withlower per capita income and lower housing prices, thanBrooklyn Heights.
The year in which the house was built (yrblt) is statisticallysignificant in 10 out of the 12 equations. The coefficients for thehistoric district equations are all negative, while the coefficientsfor non-districted properties are all positive. Inside historicdistricts, older houses are often associated with greaterarchitectural significance. Outside the districts, older houses
may be more associated with increased maintenance costs andobsolete design.
The distance from the house to the nearest subway station(subwdist) is statistically significant in all 12 equations. Asexpected, the coefficient is negative for sales of propertiesoutside historic districts, indicating that buyers are willing topay a premium for better subway access. However, thecoefficient is positive for sales within historic districts. Mosthistoric district properties in Brooklyn are close to a subway line,and it may be that within these districts, living at a moderatewalking distance from a station is preferred to living adjacent toa station.
CONCLUSION
IBO found clear evidence that after controlling for property andneighborhood characteristics, market values of properties inhistoric districts were higher than those outside historic districtsfor every year in our study. Although the results for priceappreciation during particular sub-periods are mixed, for theentire 1975 through 2002 period properties in historic districtsincreased in price at a slightly greater rate than properties not indistricts. Finally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude thatdistricting itself causes higher prices or greater price appreciation.
Written by Alan Treffeisen
END NOTES
1 Charleston, South Carolina was the first city in the US to establish an historicdistrict, in 1931. New York City’s first historic district was Brooklyn Heights in1965.2 Tax class one also contains small condo buildings, garages and vacant landadjacent to another class one parcel, and some small mixed-use properties. Thisstudy excluded such properties. Hereinafter, tax class one properties refers only toconventional one-, two-, and three-family houses.3Sales are classified as not arms-length if the property is sold two years in a row, andone of two conditions holds: 1) if the price increases by 100 percent or morebetween the first year and the second year, the first transaction is considered notarms-length; 2) if the price decreases by 9 percent or more between the first year andthe second year, the second transaction is considered not arms-length. Price outliersare defined relative to average prices in the community district.4 While the model implies that historic properties performed less well than non-historic properties during the periods 1989-1993 and 1993-1997, the time trendvariables for historic districts during these two periods are not statisticallysignificant.
8 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
170
Name Borough Community Date ofBoard Designation
(yr./mo./day)
African Burial Grounds and the Commons Manhattan 1 93/02/25Audobon Terrace Manhattan 12 79/01/23Carnegie Hill Manhattan 8 74/07/23Expanded Carnegie Hill Manhattan 8 93/12/21Central Park West 73-74 Street Manhattan 7 77/07/12Central Park West 76 Street Manhattan 7 73/04/19Charlton-King-Vandam Manhattan 2 66/08/16Chelsea Manhattan 4 70/09/15East 17th Street/Irving Place Manhattan 5 98/06/30Ellis Island Manhattan 1 93/11/16Fraunces Tavern Block Manhattan 1 78/11/14Governors Island Manhattan 1 96/06/18Gramercy Park Manhattan 6 66/09/20Greenwich Village Manhattan 2 69/04/29Hamilton Heights Manhattan 9 74/11/26Hamilton Heights/Sugar Hill Manhattan 9 00/06/27Hamilton Heights/Sugar Hill Northwest Manhattan 9 02/06/18Hardenbergh/Rhinelander Manhattan 8 98/05/05Henderson Place Manhattan 8 69/02/11Jumel Terrace Manhattan 12 70/08/18Ladies’ Mile Manhattan 4/5 89/05/02MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Manhattan 2 67/08/02Madison Square North Manhattan 5 01/06/26Metropolitan Museum Manhattan 7 77/09/20Mount Morris Park Manhattan 10 71/11/03Murray Hill Manhattan 6 02/01/29NoHo Manhattan 2 99/06/29Riverside Drive-West 80-81 Manhattan 7 85/03/26Riverside Drive-West 105 Manhattan 7 73/04/19Riverside-West End Manhattan 7 89/12/19St. Mark’s Manhattan 3 69/01/14St. Nicholas Manhattan 9 67/03/16Sniffen Court Manhattan 6 66/06/21Soho-Cast Iron Manhattan 2 73/08/14South Street Seaport Manhattan 1 89/07/11Stone Street Manhattan 1 96/06/25Stuyvesant Square Manhattan 6 75/09/23Treadwell Farm Manhattan 8 67/12/13Tribeca East Manhattan 1 92/12/08Tribeca North Manhattan 1 92/12/08Tribeca South Manhattan 1 92/12/08Tribeca South Extension Manhattan 1 02/11/19Tribeca West Manhattan 1 91/05/07Tudor City Manhattan 6 88/05/17Turtle Bay Gardens Manhattan 6 66/06/21Upper East Side Manhattan 8 81/05/19Upper West Side/Central Park West Manhattan 7 90/04/24West 71st Street Manhattan 7 89/08/29West End-Collegiate Manhattan 7 84/01/03
Appendix
New York City Historical Districts: Locations and Dates of Designation
Table continued on next page
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 9
171
10 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE
Bertine Block Bronx 1 94/04/05Clay Avenue Bronx 3 94/04/05Longwood Bronx 2 80/07/08Morris Avenue Bronx 5 86/07/15Morris High School Bronx 2 82/12/21Mott Haven Bronx 1 69/07/29Mott Haven East Bronx 1 94/04/05Riverdale Bronx 8 90/10/16Albemarle-Kenmore Terraces Brooklyn 14 78/07/11Boerum Hill Brooklyn 2 73/11/20Brooklyn Academy of Music Brooklyn 2 76/09/26Brooklyn Heights Brooklyn 2 65/11/23Carroll Gardens Brooklyn 6 73/09/25Clinton Hill Brooklyn 2 81/11/10Cobble Hill Brooklyn 6 69/12/30Ditmas Park Brooklyn 14 81/08/29Fort Greene Brooklyn 2 78/09/26Fulton Ferry Brooklyn 2 77/06/28Greenpoint Brooklyn 1 82/09/14Park Slope Brooklyn 6 73/07/17Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Brooklyn 9 79/10/09Prospect Park South Brooklyn 14 79/02/08Stuyvesant Heights Brooklyn 3 71/09/14Vinegar Hill Brooklyn 2 97/01/14Douglaston Queens 11 97/06/24Fort Totten Queens 7 99/06/29Hunters Point Queens 2 68/05/15Jackson Heights Queens 3 93/10/19Stockholm Street Queens 5 00/11/28St. George Staten Island 1 94/07/19NYC Farm Colony Staten Island 2 85/03/26
SOURCE: IBO; Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Appendixcontinued from prior page
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
172
/// Wk. 10.14.12I. Heritage DiagramII. Report #6: • Non-Proft
Organizations • Cultural Identity
resources • Zoning/HeritageIII. Sunset Park Zoning MapIV. Process DiagramV. Historic Preservation in
New York City outlineVI. Charlotte’s Place
ethnography
/// ArticlesI. “ Community Gardens and
Politics of Scale in New York City”
II. “ Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process”
III. “ Sunset Park Community Conversation on Rezoning”
6.
Explanation of the DiagramIn the search to determine what kind of space would be suitable for La Unión, we researched how other non-profit organization utilize space. For the most part, individual organzations have ‘spaces of dependence’ which is the point where group members come together to exercise their group identity. In order to achieve greater power, these organizations can unite together which allows for the elevation of the politics of scale via ‘spaces of engagement’ — interaction with the community in some way. Additionally, we looked at zoning in Sunset Park and varying definitions of heritage designation to realize that La Unión’s space lies somewhere at the confluence.
175
Spaces of Engagement(politics of scale) Scales of Heritage Designation
Reading Diagram (Video)
The Artist Will Have to Decide Whom to Serve. Jeanne van Heeswijk
URL: http://youtu.be/_W7Fix41VGg
HeritageNon-profit
van Heeswijk reading - relates to
spaces of dependence
New York Restoration Project
Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC)
UNESCO
Government
National Register of Historic Places
Spaces of Dependence
La UniónCharlotte’s Place
Community Gardens Case Study
Localized
Sunset Park Historic District
Sunset Park Zoning
Finnish Coops
Group Identity
General
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
176
177
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
178
Nonprofit Research Report – 10/14/12 Analysis from the Charlotte’s Place lead to the idea that group and cultural identity could play an important role in how La Union could utilize a space, and in turn, what type and where a space could be. We thought that this identity question might be able to translate into different types of community space, so I decided to look further into non-profit acquisition as potential linkage point between group identity and common property with the thought of somehow using that property to establish a dialogue with people from outside of the community. Specific Study Questions: What role does group identity play in mobilization efforts? What aspects of identity are self-imposed, which aspects are a result of the political economy? In search for the linkage point I came across a fantastic article outlining the Mobilization efforts of Community Gardens in New York City – Process of legitimization and acquisition of non profit spaces COMMUNITY GARDENS AND POLITICS OF SCALE IN NEW YORK CITY CHRISTOPHER M. SMITH and HILDA E. KURTZ Main Points In order to solve the housing crisis, the Guiliani administration took a neoliberal position by deciding to auction off 114 community garden plots as part of a larger divesture of vacant publicly owned land. Community gardens, as a result of the way they were legitimized through their grassroots efforts, were deemed as “temporary” in the eyes of the city government, until the lots could be developed for housing. The community gardens at the time were not connected in any way, and the government didn’t follow protocol for divesting land, leaving a David vs. Goliath situation Methodology
• The point of the essay is to outline the method of mobilization of the community gardeners using David Cox’s “spaces of dependence” and “spaces of engagement” lens
• Spaces of dependence – specific places for the “realization of essential interests” (200). In this case – individual community gardens
• Spaces of engagement – places where the politics surrounding the spaces unfold, in this case on varying politics of scale
• “Politics of scale” refers to the ways in which social actors draw on relationships at different geographical scales to press for advantage in a given political situation. Although geographers have traditionally taken “scale” to refer to scales of analysis-such as urban, regional, national, or global-recent work on the political construction of scale calls attention to the processes that reify familiar geographical scales, suggesting that their constitution is fluid.” (Smith, p.199)
Elevation in Politics of Scale 1) Exchange Value vs Use value
• “In the increasingly privatized neoliberal space of New York City, city officials demanded that ownership of the gardens be secured in the space of market exchange, and groups of community gardeners were largely unable to save the gardens on the open market. In order to defend these spaces of dependence, garden advocates fostered alternative spaces of engagement, shaped by factors other than the market.” (201)
179
• localized groups came together, all had varying interests at stake: • Brooklyn Alliance of Neighborhood Gardens • Stuyvesant Gardens Coalition • NYC Community Garden Coalition • Green Thumb • Green Guerillas
“Garden advocates questioned prioritizing exchange value over use value for the gardens and fostered a succession of spaces of engagement within which to defend the gardens, effectively increasing the scope of their struggle.” (202)
Joining local movements into larger citywide movements had the effect of individual members bonded through a shared identity, increasing their power with access to “news media and public discourse” (203)
• Use value for entire city was quantifiable • “the fiscal consequences of losing more than 100 community gardens,
arguing that the auction was ‘a bad deal for New York City [because] the surrounding communities will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free services [such as community gathering spaces, spaces to grow food, and job-skills training] provided by the gardening groups’ (Green Guerillas)” (204)
City government framed the conflict in a broader capitalism vs communism debate and pitted housing advocated vs garden advocates to which the gardeners had to contend. They needed to elevate the politics of scale beyond NYC 2) Moving Beyond NYC – Elevating the Politcs of scale through the use of five tactics 1) activism – demonstrations 2) align the “plight of the gardens” with environmentalism and a more encompassing take back pubic space movement CONNECTION: Took part in the Reclaim the Streets movement, which interestingly also spawned Transportation Alternatives, as described by Paul White in Colloquium. 3) Use of the internet to engage a broader community using listserv and email – though this had its limitation as not everyone had internet access 4) Legal challenges – city didn’t adhere to ULURP and Environmental review Research: State of New York v. City of New York 5) Partnering with seemingly non-related entities such as NYRP, Municipal Art Society, JK Kaplan Fund – “price. Interviews with members of several organizations suggested that fundraising through interpersonal contacts highlights the relationship between fund-raising and the "networks of associations" concept” (209) Gardens were purchased by two Land Trusts including the NYRP Connection: Transportation Alternatives use the Politics of Scale approach to be successful in getting things passed. (CONNECTION with NYRP) (Possible overlap with land, MINE’s research on Community Gardens, see Braden) Smith argues that politics of scale is directly related to neoliberalism:
“We argue that an explicit link exists between the politics of scale and theories of neoliberalism and the "revanchist city" (Smith 1996, 1998; Mitchel11997). Scholars of neoliberal theory do not use the language of scale politics to describe the effects of
neoliberalism, yet they offer ample material with which to theorize how neoliberal policies alter the geometry of power through the manipulation of geographical scale. The example of the New York City community garden conflict shows that neoliberal urban policies and "revanchist" city actions constituted, in themselves, a politics of scale.” (209)
Gardens advocates were successful by reconstituting the scale to meet their own needs/
“Cox's concept of spaces of dependence, which enriches the political construction of scale literature but does not empirically address the defense of these spaces of dependence outside the realm of capital circulation. Spaces of dependence are characterized as linked to specific moments in the circuit of capital, but garden advocates argued throughout the conflict that the gardens serve their purpose as spaces of dependence outside the realm of accumulation. Even though considerable funds were eventually leveraged to purchase the gardens, the result was to insulate the gardens from the circuit of capital.” (210)
o Connection with land trusts and political economy o Connection with Angotti’s methods
For further research: Explore possible connections with heritage research and conversions to land trusts,
• Could we get the NY Restoration Project involved? • Could we use this method to get historical designation status for the waterfront
district? Or perhaps just specific buildings? • Entopia has done a lot research on this
Which non-profit organizations exist to assist undocumented citizens? What other organizations would La Union be able to align with? Cultural identity of the Latino population
• Why the diaspora? – Neo-liberalism, selling the American Dream • What role does xenophobia play into La Union struggles as well as undocumented
citizens overall? How can we reconstitute neo-liberal politics of scale to allow the Latino community in Sunset Park to join together like the community garden networks?
• Could we use Paul Knox’s idea of the experience economy as means of strengthening cultural identity, lessening apathy and fear?
• xenophobia, cultural economy (the arts), spectacle (Knox) • Possible ideas for co-creation research in Sunset Park regarding spectacle?
What tools can be used for them to elevate the politics of scale? Upcoming “Identity” reading which I hope will help:
• Sanchez, R. El Foro “The toxic tonic: narratives of xenophobia.” Latino Studies (2011) 9, 126–144.
• Oboler, S. Editorial “Cultures of resistance: Another world is in the making…” Latino Studies (2011) 9, 5–9.
• Baroud, R. “Beyond Violence and Nonviolence: Resistance as a Culture.” OpEd. truthout.org. August 8, 2010.
• Miller, T. Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, Consumerism, and Television in a Neoliberal Age. Chapter 1-“What is cultural citzenship
• Smith, R. “Diasporic Memberships in Historical Perspective: Comparative Insights...” IMR; International Migration Review; Fall 2003; 37, 3;
• AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ETHNIC CONTACT, IDENTITY, AND CONFLICT (CIC):...Yueh-Ting, Lee;Joann Quiñones-Perdomo;Perdomo, Edison. Ethnic Studies
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
180
neoliberalism, yet they offer ample material with which to theorize how neoliberal policies alter the geometry of power through the manipulation of geographical scale. The example of the New York City community garden conflict shows that neoliberal urban policies and "revanchist" city actions constituted, in themselves, a politics of scale.” (209)
Gardens advocates were successful by reconstituting the scale to meet their own needs/
“Cox's concept of spaces of dependence, which enriches the political construction of scale literature but does not empirically address the defense of these spaces of dependence outside the realm of capital circulation. Spaces of dependence are characterized as linked to specific moments in the circuit of capital, but garden advocates argued throughout the conflict that the gardens serve their purpose as spaces of dependence outside the realm of accumulation. Even though considerable funds were eventually leveraged to purchase the gardens, the result was to insulate the gardens from the circuit of capital.” (210)
o Connection with land trusts and political economy o Connection with Angotti’s methods
For further research: Explore possible connections with heritage research and conversions to land trusts,
• Could we get the NY Restoration Project involved? • Could we use this method to get historical designation status for the waterfront
district? Or perhaps just specific buildings? • Entopia has done a lot research on this
Which non-profit organizations exist to assist undocumented citizens? What other organizations would La Union be able to align with? Cultural identity of the Latino population
• Why the diaspora? – Neo-liberalism, selling the American Dream • What role does xenophobia play into La Union struggles as well as undocumented
citizens overall? How can we reconstitute neo-liberal politics of scale to allow the Latino community in Sunset Park to join together like the community garden networks?
• Could we use Paul Knox’s idea of the experience economy as means of strengthening cultural identity, lessening apathy and fear?
• xenophobia, cultural economy (the arts), spectacle (Knox) • Possible ideas for co-creation research in Sunset Park regarding spectacle?
What tools can be used for them to elevate the politics of scale? Upcoming “Identity” reading which I hope will help:
• Sanchez, R. El Foro “The toxic tonic: narratives of xenophobia.” Latino Studies (2011) 9, 126–144.
• Oboler, S. Editorial “Cultures of resistance: Another world is in the making…” Latino Studies (2011) 9, 5–9.
• Baroud, R. “Beyond Violence and Nonviolence: Resistance as a Culture.” OpEd. truthout.org. August 8, 2010.
• Miller, T. Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, Consumerism, and Television in a Neoliberal Age. Chapter 1-“What is cultural citzenship
• Smith, R. “Diasporic Memberships in Historical Perspective: Comparative Insights...” IMR; International Migration Review; Fall 2003; 37, 3;
• AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ETHNIC CONTACT, IDENTITY, AND CONFLICT (CIC):...Yueh-Ting, Lee;Joann Quiñones-Perdomo;Perdomo, Edison. Ethnic Studies Review; 2002; 25, 2; Ethnic NewsWatch
• Protecting and Preserving Indigenous Communities in the Americas. Willis, F Michael; Seward, Timothy. Human Rights 33. 2 (Spring 2006): 18-21.
• El Centro unveils its new home: New building includes a community room, police substation, possible future LCCC connection. Ingrid Marie Rivera, La Prensa
o (possible cultural center case study) • Rhetorics of Engagement and Activism. Hartelius, J. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Volume
14, Number 4, Winter 2011, pp. 781-798 • Menjivar, C. Chapter 7, Chapter 1, and Intro “Immigrant Art as Liminal Expression: the
case of Central Americans.” Rugers Series on the Public Life of the Arts : Art in the Lives of Immigrant Communities in the United States.
• Shaw, Todd C: American Politics: Local and National Perspectives: Race, Regime and Redevelopment: Opportunities for Community Coalitions in Detroit, 1985-1993. The National Political Science Review 9 [2003] p.186-205
181
Pertinent information from the Cityzens investigations on heritage and zoning from this week, with questions that will help guide our research in the upcoming week.
Critical Thoughts About Heritage Designation 10.13.12
They are various scales of “heritage” designation: global, federal, state, local – see diagramMuch of the residential part in Sunset Park is already designated as a historical district by the Department of the Interior and is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places.This qualifies the district for grants and federal tax benefits but does not restrict development or provide zoning stipulations (considered in the planning but no regulation).There are also a few individually designated places at both the national and local levelsSee GIS list google docLocal NYC designation has the most protections/limitations attached to itHeritage designation brings opportunities for grants and other alternative funding resourcesThese funds seem mostly for external, architectural preservation and upkeepAre there funds for land acquisition or cultural development (in light of a cultural designation versus architectural based designation discussed below)?
An individual designation might offer more opportunity for actual land acquisition because of alternative sources of funding for these type of places (i.e. grants, non-profit what?)Individual designation provides access to funding that is less applicable to the district designation because of the breadth of district designationBut is this an actual hindrance because of the amount of work chasing funding can be, especially for an organization like La Union, with so few people?As suggested previously and by other groups, it would benefit La Union to engage in coalition building.
Heritage District offers more protection for the existing community against exclusionary development. It does this by creating a bureaucratic obstacle for developers. It also provides opportunity for additional zoning resolutions such as height restrictions, and some specially zoned district:
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
182
The City Planning Commission has been designating special zoning districts since 1969 to achieve specific planning and urban design objectives in defined areas with unique characteristics. Special districts respond to specific conditions; each special district designated by the Commission stipulates zoning requirements and/or zoning incentives tailored to distinctive qualities that may not lend themselves to generalized zoning and standard development.
What is the potential of Sunset Park to be an engaged commons?Does a community space offer opportunities for open discussion of the issues of property or empowerment through collective action and engagement?
Is heritage designation innately exclusionary/inclusionary?What are examples of each?In what ways can it be one or the other?
MATERIAL CASE!“The cultural right of the neighborhood to have access to the land as a site for communal discourse”Is the cultural and historical story of Sunset Park’s waterfront and supportive residential neighborhood an argument for historical and cultural preservation of some physical feature?Does this history give the Sunset Park community some sort of ‘right to land’?The economic link of SP Waterfront to the international markets and global exchange historically and contemporarilySP as a traditionally culturally heterogeneous neighborhood with a historical connection to cooperative housingAmerica’s First Housing Co-operative (Finnish- please see last week’s research for further information)SP is enigmatic of NYCs diversity and history (culturally, economically)Chinese immigrant families coming together to form informal cooperative housingDoes this happen within the Latino community as well?
A missing link in this larger investigation of common property is the fundamental importance of community engagement and action and the difficulty of organizing people around these actions.
183
QUESTIONS FOR HERITAGE PROFESSIONALSAre there opportunities for or examples of using non-architectural arguments for preservationIF SO, how do we need to rethink the LPC ‘Request For Consideration’ ?What would the end product bring with it?What would the difference between a cultural building and a cultural district be?What are the federal, state, and local tax effects of being heritage designated?What grants and funding are available for heritage property acquisition, upkeep, etc?
ZONING:Zoning limits and special zoning districts through resolutions (such as height restrictions and type of commercial developments) offer additional obstacles for new exclusionary development, or means of community empowerment for inclusionary action.
Height restrictions are a part of neighborhood development concerns, as well as an important part of the neighborhood identity and relation to place. Sunset Park and Greenwood Cemetery are the two highest points in Brooklyn, and provide distinct views of the city. There is the possibility of establishing a Special Scenic View District that would limit the building height and establish these view spaces as an integral part of the neighborhood consciousness, creating an obstacle to ‘exclusionary’ development.
*Special Scenic View District*Effective Date: 10/24/74 The Special Scenic View District (SV) is intended to prevent obstruction of outstanding scenic views as seen from a public park, esplanade or mapped public place. No buildings or structures are allowed to penetrate a scenic view plane except by special permit of the City Planning Commission. The Brooklyn Heights Scenic View District (SV-1) extends over an area west of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade to protect the views of the Lower Manhattan skyline, Governors Island, the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge.http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_special_purp_cw.shtml
Height restrictions are a debated issue in the 197-a CB7 development plan.
As we continue our investigation into heritage property and are working to make a material case, we are not sure of this as a mean towards property acquisition, but feel confident there is an opportunity here. There may also be opportunities to connect it to Community Land Trusts.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
184
185
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
186
October 10, 2012Built Environment Preservation in New York City
● Scale is important! National, State, and Local are different in name, but are they different in process/effects?
○ A New York City landmark is different from being listed on the National Register: the National Register of Historic Places is a list of buildings and sites of local, state, or national importance, administered by the National Park Service through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, although many of New York City's individual landmarks and historic districts are also listed on the National Register.
● Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) is the NYC agency responsible for
identifying & designating city landmarks and buildings in the city’s historic districts○ “ The Landmarks Law was enacted in response to New Yorkers' growing
concern that important physical elements of the City's history were being lost despite the fact that these buildings could be reused,” work “protecting the city’s architectural, historical, and cultural heritage”
○ Mission, including “promote the use of landmarks for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of New York City.” [emphasis added]
● Types of Landmarks:
○ 1) Individual landmarks - structures from bridges to rowhouses to skyscrapers;○ 2) Interior landmarks - bldg interiors that are “customarily open or accessible to
the public”;○ 3) Scenic landmarks - city-owned parks or landscape features;○ 4) Historic Districts - areas possessing arch & hist significance, a distinct “sense
of place” Heritage Designation Process (more in depth / fully described process)
● Eight step process, but is pretty much researching and creating an argument for a site, requesting the site’s designation, and a whole lot of reviewing the proposal (steps 3-8), transparency seems huge and could be good/bad depending on the goal, no?
1. the Designation Process starts with a Request for Evaluation (RFE) form, which is only
a page in length, but the addition of supporting information is requested as well, so an entire research document seems possible
2. Evaluation of request by an RFE committee made up of LPC staff, determining whether it gets recommended for consideration by the Commission.
3. If accepted an RFE is reviewed by the entire Commission at public meetings, wherein they can vote to schedule a public hearing on properties meriting further review.
4. Public hearing held for each property [see ‘a’] considered, notice of the which is sent to property owner, City Planning Commission, affected community boards & elected officials. Representatives from the Research Department, property owner, or other interested parties can speak.
a. Really each property or each request i.e. for a historic district?5. Discussion and Designation Report is created to document and describe the
architectural, historical, and/or cultural significance of the historic district and a
187
detailed description of each building within the proposed district, which building owners are given for review and comment, which the commissioners also us to inform their decision-making.
6. The Commission votes at a public meeting, wherein six of eleven are needed to approve or deny a designation, upon which landmark designation is legally effective and rules/regulations of the Landmarks Law are applicable. Must report findings to City Council, City PLanning Commission, and other agencies; must send owner a Notice of Designation, register Notice at City Register’s or County Clerk’s Office
7. City Planning Commission Report has 60 days to submit a report to the City Council elaborating on the effects of the designation on zoning, projected public improvement, etc. in the area involved.
8. City Council Vote has 120 days from the LPC filing to modify or disapprove the designation; Majority vote required; Mayor can veto the vote w/in five days; City Council can override the veto by two-thirds vote within 10 days.
Wow. Kind of a big and TANSPARENT process, but I think what it comes down to is 1) deciding on what ‘districts’ are most relevant, 2) the research process, and 3) creating a bullet-proof argument, which is much more elaborately discussed at the LPC website... Recommending a New Landmark
○ Potential landmark must be 30+ years old and must possess “a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.”
● Conducting Historic Building Research In NYC (full website here) , with good explanation of what each office/archive has in it
○ GOOD “BEFORE YOU GO” & “RESEARCH TIPS” bitS regarding access, withdrawing data, etc.
■ i.e. Get Tax Map Block and Lot Number of proposed building or Block Numbers in proposed districts
● via addresses here■ Can use Block & Lot to get tax forms and record documents here
○ Department of Buildings (Brooklyn @ 210 Joralemon St, 8th Floor) - ■ No Appointment Necessary!■ here can can access computer print outs of Property Profiles at public
access terminals, copies are 25cents each, for block/lot numbers and ‘building folder contents’
○ Brooklyn Historical Society (128 Pierrepont St)■ $5 admission, 25c copies
○ Brooklyn Public Library (2nd Floor, Grand Army Plaza)■ by appointment only
○ New York City Public Library Center for the Humanities (42st & Fifth Ave, room 315S)
■ no appointment necessary○ Museum of the City of New York Dept of Collections (1220 Fifth Ave @ 103rd st)
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
188
■ $10 for student, appointment only, give librarian as much info as possible so they can compile the info beforehand
○ Municipal Archives (31 Chambers St, @ Centre St Surrogate’s Court Building, rm 103)
■ no appointment necessary
● What does heritage designation mean for property owners? http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/faq_meaning.shtml
○ Will landmark designation prevent all alterations and new construction?
■ No. Landmark designation does not "freeze" a building or an area. Alterations, demolition, and new construction continue to take place, but the Landmarks Commission must review the proposed changes and find them to be appropriate. This procedure helps ensure that the special qualities of the designated buildings are not compromised or destroyed.
■ In addition, new construction may occur when an owner of a vacant lot or building of no significance in a historic district wishes to construct a new building on the site. The Commission has approved such proposals when the design of the new building was found to be appropriate to the character of the historic district.
○ SO, here is the nugget, I think. ● The PlaceMatters site seems like a good resource to help organize efforts to establish historical
places, almost before going to the L(andmark) P(reservation) C(ommission)
189
Troy’s Visit to Charlotte’s Place – 9/20/12 1:00pm
Through our heritage research, and our desire to apply it directly to La Uníon. In terms of what this means as far as property is concerned, we determined that if we were to find La Union a space, it was extremely important to understand how that space would be programmed. As a result, I began to look into what property or space means to other non-profit organizations. The most compelling case-study I could find is a space called “Charlotte’s Place” located in lower Manhattan. Charlotte’s Place is an outpost so-to-speak, or an off-shoot of, and primarily funded through, Trinity Church, and in fact, is located in a unit on Greenwich Street with a large store-front that was once used as storage space for the church. What is particularly interesting is its goal. On the space’s blog, executive director Jennifer Chin describes it as, “a free gathering space to anyone in lower Manhattan. At Charlotte’s Place, you can make the space whatever you want to do. Come draw in the walls, attend an art workshop, listen to music, read a book, use the free wifi, watch a movie, or what ever else comes to mind.” (Chin) The space is in essence a public space located completely within the private domain. This of course was particularly interesting as it challenges the status quo of the complete separation of public and private space, and I thought it must be too good to be true. On Thursday, September 20th, I decided to visit space, which according to its blog is only open weekdays between 12pm and 2pm, with the hope of getting to speak with Ms. Chin directly about the space, its mission, its history, its challenges and successes. The storefront on street is quite open and passers-by can’t help but get invited into the large space, by first, out of their own curiosity as it resembles a large kindergarten classroom populated with adults milling about, and second, through the sign on the door inviting in strangers from the street to come in and relax. When I entered, I felt a little awkward because having never been there before, or anywhere else like it, I didn’t know the proper social protocol. Also, I could see Ms. Chin sitting at table next to the entrance on the street level in discussion with a man, who I
Photos courtesy of Charlottes Place blog
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
190
think was also a volunteer of some sort. We exchanged smiles and I walked in, descended the stairs into the main room and looked around. The first thing I noticed was its child-like appearance. There are drawings and art projects all over the walls and hanging from the ceiling. There was also very ‘soothing’ music playing, providing a sort of white noise effect. There were round tables with a couple of chairs around them throughout the entire space. I sat down at one of them. In one corner, there was a pillar with computers set up on all four sides comprising the wifi station, in use by two elderly and disheveled looking people. The adjacent corner closer to the entrance, a man who looked to be in 30s with long hair and torn clothing was organizing a library of children’s books. On his clothes were hand drawn ‘OWS’ emblems, signifying to me he was an Occupy Wall Street protestor (the space is very close to Zuccotti Park). On the other side of the space, a younger girl (early 20s), dressed fashionably was being photographed in poses in front of larger mural by two other adults. While at the table, I formulated some questions I was hoping to ask Chin, who was still speaking with the man. I was particularly interested in finding out who owns the space, liabilities or legal hurdles they faced, as well as the importance of the relationship with Trinity Church. After about ten minutes or so, I decided that I would need to approach Ms. Chin about setting up a meeting, either then or in the future. I briefly explained who I was, and a brief description on our project. She was very receptive to meeting with me, but acknowledged that she had a crazy schedule and then was not a good time. She walked me over to her desk where she gave me her business card, email address, and her cell phone number. I promptly sent an email, giving more details of our project, what I hoped to achieve from meeting with her, and Miguel’s contact information (his letter), in case she was concerned in any way. Nevertheless, I have been waiting for several weeks now, and have not had a response. Still planning make a second visit, I decided it was best to gather as much information as I possibly could from the multitude of blog postings by Chin. The blog postings gave further insight into the mission of the space, which is currently focused on 5 points: providing free wifi, providing a “clean, beautiful space,” maintaining a lack of commercial agenda (Chin calls this a “spa-effect”), providing variety of programming, and improving its visibility. Some of the programming includes, Lunchtime concerts, Creative Business Solutions workshops, and workshops held by local artists. It is staffed with volunteers from Trinity Church, a point I found particularly interesting, because I realized that the space, while “lacking a commercial agenda” is essentially an outpost for the church, and functions as a space of engagement, ultimately inviting a open dialogue between the church—or rather members of community identifying with the church, and non-identifying members of the surrounding community. I instantly felt La Union could benefit by using a space in a similar manner. What is most revealing in the blog postings, however, is the inadvertent role the space played during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement last fall. As the space is touted as being “open to all,” protestors began to use it as break room for resting and getting out of the cold, as well as a sort of ‘war’ room where they used it for planning the actual movement and checking emails, etc. In a posting, Chin acknowledged that when they were conceiving the space, they didn’t “think that these would be the type of people” that would be using it, but conceded to their over-arching goal of being open to all. By allowing OWS to use the space was not endorsing or deriding their message, but
191
being hospitable. Throughout the course of the movement, OWStreeters, developed a working relationship with the space, and even began acting as volunteers, greeters, and organizers. When the police decided to clear the park out, the Charlottes Place then responded by temporarily relaxing their “no sleeping” rule (which is meant as a mechanism to prevent the space from being overrun by the homeless “encouraging use by everyone”).
Over time however, the organization felt they could be also used as viaduct for mediation with the “other side” and held a panel discussion promoting “loving-kindness,” which by their own judgment was a success. The use by OWS declined dramatically after the space closed for two weeks during the Christmas holiday season. However in a retrospective blog posting, Chin offers her insight, “The lesson is that Charlotte’s Pace is constantly defined and redefined by who walks in the door. This is a paradox. As new visitors populate Charlotte’s Place, we have to shift our style of welcome to remain true to our sense of unconditional openness and hospitality.” Blog http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/news/blogs/charlottes-place
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
192
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.
CO
MM
UN
ITY
GA
RD
ENS
AN
D P
OLI
TIC
S O
F SC
ALE
IN N
EW Y
OR
K C
ITY
*Sm
ith, C
hris
toph
er M
Geo
grap
hica
l Rev
iew
; Apr
200
3; 9
3, 2
; PR
ISM
A (P
ublic
acio
nes y
Rev
ista
s Soc
iale
s y H
uman
ístic
as)
pg. 1
93
193
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
194
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
195
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
196
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
197
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
198
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
199
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
200
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
201
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.R
epro
duce
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on o
f the
cop
yrig
ht o
wne
r. F
urth
er re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out p
erm
issi
on.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
202
Rep
rodu
ced
with
per
mis
sion
of t
he c
opyr
ight
ow
ner.
Fur
ther
repr
oduc
tion
proh
ibite
d w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
.
203
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 1 of 21
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process
A summary of feedback from community workshops hosted by City Councilmember Sara Gonzalez and Community Board 7,
along with analysis of related issues.
Prepared by the Pratt Center for Community Development
December 17, 2007
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
204
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 2 of 21
Executive Summary As Sunset Park awaits the results of a zoning study being conducted by the NYC Department of City Planning, City Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez and Brooklyn Community Board 7 co-sponsored one community education workshop and two community conversations about development issues and the anticipated rezoning in October and November or 2007. The workshop and conversations were conducted by the Pratt Center for Community Development. Residents expressed a wide variety of goals and concerns about development, in small group conversations, two “dot-voting” exercises,” and public speak-outs at the two community workshops. This report provides a summary of the issues and perspectives raised, along with some analysis of related issues by the Pratt Center. • There was unified concern expressed about out-of-scale development. It is worth
noting, though, that this did not emerge as the top “vote-getter” in the dot-voting exercise. Out-of-context development received 31 dot-votes, while displacement of current residents received 151, parking 100, traffic 58, and overcrowded schools 57.
• Protection of the view from Sunset Park, which literally gives the neighborhood its name, was voiced passionately and consistently.
• While it was not included in the dot-voting, numerous residents urged that commercial overlays be limited only to the building that fronts on the commercial avenue, and not – as it is in many cases now – to any buildings on the side-streets (in general, this means reducing the commercial overlay from 150 feet to 100 feet).
• Issues of affordable housing and displacement evoked the most concern, with displacement of current residents receiving by far the most dot-votes (151) when residents were asked their concerns about development. However, there was not uniform opinion about what this meant or how it should be addressed. Some residents expressed openness to additional development, with a goal of creating affordable units, especially in the southeastern portion of the community (i.e. 7th & 8th Avenues, in the 50s). The top two dot-vote-getters on issues of affordable housing were creating new affordable homeownership units (127) and new affordable rental units (110). Other residents expressed concern that new development would likely be market-rate, and could actually make the current affordable housing crisis worse for existing residents. Saving existing rental housing received 100 dot-votes. Some speakers noted that recent patterns of development on 4th Avenue in Park Slope suggest that (a) developers may not utilize the “inclusionary housing bonus,” since none are doing so in the South Park Slope rezoning area, despite several new buildings, and (b) several hundred rent-regulated units in Sunset Park (especially along 4th Avenue) might be at risk of demolition and replacement by market-rate, non-rent-regulated units if upzoning were to occur. These residents called variously for not upzoning the commercial avenues, for mandatory affordable housing requirements, and/or for strong protections against demolition, harassment, and displacement.
205
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 3 of 21
Part I: Background Sunset Park, Brooklyn is a diverse neighborhood that is beginning to face the pressures of development. Immigrants (largely from Latin America and Asia) helped revive the community after a decline in the 1960s and 1970s. After hitting a low of 98,567 in 1980, population grew to 120,063 in 2000 – an increase of 22% (New York City’s growth rate during this period was 13%).i Development pressures and real estate prices have also increased in recent years. In 2005, Sunset Park was 6th out of NYC’s 53 community districts in housing price appreciation, with the median sales price of a home growing from approximately $400,000 in 2003 to over $700,000 in 2007.ii Certificates of Occupancy rose from just 13 in 2002 to 124 in 2005.iii Much of the new development has taken place in the northern (between 15th and 24th Street) and southeastern (7th and 8th Avenues in the 50s) sections of the neighborhood (see Appendix A for maps of recent development activity). In early 2007 community members learned of developer Kenneth Wong’s plans to construct a twelve-story residential building in the middle of the block between Fourth and Fifth Avenues at 420 42nd Street. Concerned that the 120-foot tall structure would block views of the iconic St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Church from Sunset Park (as well as be four times higher than a typical building on the block), residents, community groups, and elected officials organized strong opposition to the project. Their hard work paid off: the developer ultimately acquiesced to community concern and agreed to reduce the building’s height by half and construct a six-story structure instead. While this represented a major victory for this grassroots campaign, it also generated substantial local interest around the need to comprehensively rezone Sunset Park. Because the current “R6” zoning that predominates in Sunset Park does not have a contextual height limit, residents were concerned that developers would continue to propose out-of-scale buildings. Residents also voiced concern that most new development would be market-rate, at prices far beyond the reach of neighborhood residents, and might lead to the loss of existing affordable units and accelerate displacement. Especially given the City’s recent actions in 2005 to contextually rezone the adjacent neighborhoods of South Park Slope and Bay Ridge, advocates realized that Sunset Park was left particularly vulnerable to out-of-scale development. Therefore, after the 42nd Street battle, they petitioned the City to study the area for a rezoning. At a town hall meeting with Mayor Bloomberg in March 2007, the Department of City Planning committed to studying the neighborhood for a potential future rezoning. Part II: Project Purpose and Process In order to provide community members with an opportunity to voice their goals and concerns about current and future development in Sunset Park – and thus to inform the Department of City Planning as it conducts its zoning study – Councilwoman Sara M. Gonzalez and Community Board 7 engaged the Pratt Center for Community Development. To educate and engage community stakeholders about zoning and how it affects development, Pratt Center staff held a “Zoning 101” workshop in late October at
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
206
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 4 of 21
Community Board 7 to kick off the public outreach component of this project. Community members learned about zoning basics, specific zoning tools to meet neighborhood development goals, and how the rezoning process works in New York City. The workshop portion of the evening provided an opportunity for participants to clarify information that was presented and discuss other related topics. In October and November, the Pratt Center facilitated two “community conversations,” hosted by CB7 and Councilmember Gonzalez in geographically disparate parts of the neighborhood to ensure maximum participation (the Sunset Park Recreation Center and Our Lady of Perpetual Help). Participants heard an abridged version of the previously presented “Zoning 101” and then broke out into small working groups to discuss where future building should and should not take place, their concerns and hopes for future development, affordable housing, etc. This report, prepared by the Pratt Center, documents the residents’ goals and concerns about the future, as expressed in those three community meetings. It also contains (in Appendices A – D) supplemental background research related to current development trends in Sunset Park. Its purpose is to summarize the residents’ feedback in order to help inform the rezoning study now underway by the Department of City Planning. In the next section, feedback from these community conversations has been summarized into main themes. Zoning-related considerations and options are discussed to address the issues raised. The report’s appendix has a compilation of (a) research information and maps that highlight some of the issues raised, and (b) tabulated feedback from two “dot voting” exercises. Two important caveats: First, the feedback summarized here is that of the 200+ residents who attended one or both of the community conversations. While these residents represented a broad cross-section of Sunset Park’s population, and while many community groups were represented, this is less than one-half of one percent of the neighborhood’s population. In addition to this report, several community organizations and coalitions are preparing their own positions and principles on issues surrounding the rezoning. Second, it is important to note that zoning alone can in no way meet all of the community’s concerns about development and the neighborhood’s future – particularly around issues of housing affordability. Because the Department of City Planning is working on its rezoning study, this report is designed to apply residents’ goals and concerns to rezoning issues. If the goal is to address not only zoning-related issues, but broader issues of affordability, then other tools will be needed.
207
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 5 of 21
Part III. Community Goals and the Sunset Park Rezoning The following themes encapsulate the primary goals and concerns that residents expressed at the community conversations, and how they might be applied in the rezoning:
1. Preventing out-of-scale development As the City’s population rises and the residential real estate market continues its boom, the appetite to develop new housing has spread to Sunset Park. This has helped encourage a significant increase in development activity in the neighborhood over the last several years, much of which is out of context with the existing low-rise nature of the neighborhood’s traditional building stock. The current R6 zoning designation that covers the vast majority of the upland portion of Sunset Park (i.e., east of Third Avenue) does not have a fixed height limit, so in many cases as of late developers have been able to construct buildings that tower over neighboring buildings. This has created a strong community response from residents concerned about new buildings that do not mesh well with the existing character – in terms of scale and aesthetics – of the existing built environment. While out-of-context development was not the highest dot-vote getter, it did emerge as a generally uniform concern in discussion. Relationship to zoning • Changing the current R6 zoning and mapping contextual zoning districts – generally
R6B on side-streets and R6A on the avenues – would help meet an important community goal. This will lead towards ensuring that future, largely infill, development is in keeping with the traditional scale of the existing physical environment. o On the side-streets, the most appropriate option in general is likely R6B, with an
FAR of 2.0 and a height limit of 40 feet at the street wall and 50 feet overall. This generally represents a 16% reduction in FAR, from 2.43 to 2.0.
o On the avenues not designated for growth, the most appropriate option in general is R6A, with an FAR of and a 3.0 height limit of 60 feet at the street wall and 70 feet overall. This maintains the current FAR, and establishes a height limit that is modestly higher than most current buildings (which are generally 40 – 60 feet), but substantially lower than what is currently allowed with R6 zoning (under which buildings can rise to 12 or even 17 stories).
• Several residents expressed concern about construction nuisances from new development. This issue cannot be addressed directly through zoning. CB7 has an active committee that works to address construction nuisance issues and other problems related to the Department of Buildings, which is a good venue to address these concerns (though some are related to larger policy and staffing issues at DOB).
• Numerous residents expressed concern with the aesthetics of new infill development. This cannot be addressed directly through zoning. One approach to addressing this issue would be the establishment of one or more historic districts in the area that would recognize the history and building patterns of the neighborhood.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
208
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 6 of 21
• Based upon the experiences of other neighborhoods, some residents expressed concern that developers might accelerate the pace of new construction under the current rules (and, therefore, more likely to be out-of-scale) if they perceive that a “downzoning” is likely. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about this problem. While some other Brooklyn residents have called for a moratorium on development, there are questions about the constitutionality of such a step, and it is considered very unlikely politically.
2. Preserving the view corridors from Sunset Park
One of the neighborhood’s biggest assets is its namesake, Sunset Park. The park provides essential passive and active recreation green space for a diverse set of users, and it boasts panoramic views of New York Harbor, Lower Manhattan, and the Statue of Liberty. Its hilly topography makes it the second highest spot in Brooklyn, and local residents are impassioned about the need to ensure that future development does not block views from the park. As an 85-foot wide street with excellent public transportation, Fourth Avenue is the street in Sunset Park that is most able to support a density increase. However, future development on Fourth Avenue could impair the view from Sunset Park. Under the current R6 zoning, development could rise as high as 17 stories. Relationship to zoning • In order to ensure that future development does not hinder the spectacular views from
Sunset Park, Fourth Avenue should be rezoning in a fine-tuned way so as to maintain the current view from the Park. A preliminary view-shed analysis (summarized in Appendix D; a fuller set of images is available) suggests that: o Rezoning Fourth Avenue in the 40s to R8A (following the model of the Park Slope
and South Park Slope Rezonings), with a 120 foot overall height limit, especially on the blocks below Sunset Park, would have an impairing effect on the view from the park to the Harbor and Lower Manhattan.
o Rezoning Fourth Avenue in the 40s to R7A, with an 80 foot height limit, would have only a very modest impact on the view from the park. Because of the significant drop in elevation from Fifth Avenue to Fourth Avenue, 80’ foot-tall buildings on Fourth Avenue would be only modestly visible over the existing buildings on Fifth Avenue and would do little to block the view of the Harbor and Lower Manhattan.
3. Reducing the depth of commercial overlays
During the community conversations that were held as part of this process, residents expressed concerns about over-long commercial overlays, going back 150 feet to include not only the building on the commercial avenue, but one or two additional buildings. These over-long overlays have several negative impacts. In some cases, they encourage developers to acquire these residential buildings for assemblage and demolition. In other cases, the result is long stretches of windowless building sides that contain commercial uses. Such structures disrupt the strong residential building pattern of several of the neighborhood’s side streets by creating a long, often brick, wall between commercial
209
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 7 of 21
avenues and side streets. In addition, they tend to negatively affect the quality of life by encouraging the build-up of garbage and street litter. Relationship to zoning The commercial overlay zoning districts that currently exist on many of the avenues are 150 feet long. Restricting them to the depth of the single building on the commercial avenue at the corner – generally 100 feet – would significantly address this community concern. Existing businesses that are operating in spaces which are more than 100 feet from the avenue would be “grandfathered” and allowed to continue to operate.
4. Creating and preserving affordable housing The fight against out-of-context development was the catalyst that sparked diverse sections of the community to consider rezoning Sunset Park. Early and subsequent conversations about rezoning, however, also created a forum for people to discuss other important desires about development and how it relates to their future vision of the neighborhood. The biggest issue that residents voiced during the public outreach forums of this process was affordable housing. Whereas the neighborhood has long been a place where many working-class and immigrant households could find safe, adequate, and affordable housing, this is less and less the case as people being priced out of more expensive areas such as neighboring Park Slope have begun to discover relatively affordable rent levels in Sunset Park. As its population grows and rents grow out of the economic reach of many households, both tenants and landlords are dealing with the shortage of affordable housing units in a variety of ways. Apartment overcrowding, illegal subdivisions of existing homes, and maintenance deficiencies are all symptoms of the affordability problem. Another indicator of the shortage of affordable units is households being forced to deal with severe rent burdens: in 2005, one out of five Sunset Park renter households spent more than half of their income for rent. Local stakeholders expressed deep concern about the fact that a vast majority of new residential development – much of it marketed as luxury condos or rentals – is far beyond the economic reach of the typical Sunset Park household. They also voiced anxiety about how future development on the avenues could lead to a loss of the existing rent-regulated building stock, one of the most important existing resources of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Relationship to zoning While zoning alone cannot adequately respond to the affordable housing challenge, it does offer a relatively new tool in New York City, inclusionary zoning, for leveraging the private real estate market to create new units of housing that are permanently below market-rate. Under the inclusionary zoning model mapped in several recent rezonings (Greenpoint-Williamsburg, South Park Slope, Woodside/Maspeth), developers can receive a 33% density bonus (although the height limit remains the same) if they include 20% affordable units. The affordable units are targeted to households making less than 80% of Area Median Income (about $57,000 for a family of four).
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
210
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 8 of 21
Several residents expressed concern that the “affordable” housing created through inclusionary zoning is not affordable to the majority of residents of Sunset Park – where the median income is approximately $30,000 (i.e. about 40% of AMI). While this is indeed true of the inclusionary housing program, it is worth noting that many developments in other communities that utilize the IZ bonus also take advantage of either low-income housing tax credits or 421-a tax benefits, which reduce the maximum income to 50% of AMI (or $35,000 for family of 4). During community conversations, some residents expressed that more density would be acceptable if it led to the creation of affordable housing. These residents identified Fourth Avenue, as well as Seventh and Eighth Avenues in the 50s, as potential areas for additional development. Fourth Avenue has both the width and the transit infrastructure to support additional development. Rezoning to a higher density, with inclusionary zoning, and coupling this with a contextual rezoning of the side streets could provide a balanced framework for accommodating development in appropriate areas while preserving Sunset Park’s built and socio-economic character. However, other residents – and several representatives of community-based organizations – were concerned that an upzoning of these avenues, even with the City’s voluntary inclusionary zoning program, could make the affordable housing problem worse rather than better. Developers are not required to take the density bonus; thus far, none of the several new buildings along the section of Fourth Avenue in South Park Slope that was rezoned with inclusionary zoning have taken the bonus to provide affordable housing. In addition, the recent demolition of multiple rent-regulated buildings at Fourth Avenue (between Baltic and Butler Streets), to be replaced by market-rate development under the R8A zoning, has raised concerns that developers might acquire and demolish existing rent-regulated housing and replace it with exclusively market-rate development. Within the rezoning study area, there are currently approximately 332 rent-regulated units on 4th Avenue, 204 on 7th Avenue, and 102 on 8th Avenue. In Appendix B, we analyze how many of these units would be built to less than 50% of the allowable floor area under R7A and R8A rezoning scenarios, and therefore especially vulnerable to demolition (under an R7A rezoning scenario: 30 on 4th Avenue, 47 on 7th Avenue, 0 on 8th Avenue; under an R8A rezoning scenario: 202 on 4th Avenue, 175 on 7th Avenue, 47 on 8th Avenue). Because there was a diversity of opinions expressed at the community workshops, it is not possible to provide a consensus on this issue. Instead, we therefore present the various options which might be contemplated by City Planning, with some discussion of how each addresses issues of affordability. • Rezone Fourth Avenue from R6 to R8A with Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning.
Rezoning Fourth Avenue (outside of the view corridor from Sunset Park noted above) from R6 to R8A with Inclusionary Zoning would significantly increase the amount of allowable density: from the current maximum FAR of 3.0 to a maximum FAR of 5.4 for market-rate development, or 7.2 in return for making 20% of the units affordable to households making up to 80% of Area Median Income. While this option would create additional density on Fourth Avenue, it would also implement a fixed height cap of 120 feet where one does not currently exist. However, as noted, there is some reason for concern that (a) developers may not take the optional inclusionary housing program, (b) the density increase in this zoning
211
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 9 of 21
scenario would pose a threat to the long-term existence of at least the 202 rent-regulated units on 4th Avenue in building that would be built at less than 50% of the new allowable density, and possibly to more of the 332 existing rent regulated units. Developers would be incentivized to demolish buildings to make way for new, larger residential buildings; and (c) while many IZ units, if built, might be built at lower rents/income levels, the 80% of AMI threshold of $57,000 for a family of 4 is 200% of the neighborhood’s median income of approximately $30,000.
• Rezone Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Avenues from R6 to R6A. Rezoning to R6A would maintain the same level of density (3.0 FAR) but create a fixed height cap of 70 feet where one does not currently exist. The rezoning would therefore modestly reduce incentives for development. Therefore, it would limit the likelihood of new development and as such would not likely lead to any significant loss of the existing housing stock, much of which is rent-regulated. At the same time, however, this scenario would not lead to the creation of new units of affordable housing.
• Rezone Fourth, and portions of Seventh and Eighth Avenues from R6 to R7A, with Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning. Rezoning to R7A would give a 20% as-of-right density increase (from 3.0 to 3.6 FAR), but impose a height limit of 80 feet. Developers who included affordable housing could receive an additional 33% density bonus to 4.5 FAR (while still maintaining an 80 foot height limit). Such a rezoning would provide a modest additional incentive for development over what exists today – this limiting both the likelihood of demolition and displacement, and the potential for the new development of affordable units.
• Include provisions for anti-harassment and anti-demolition. If the rezoning includes upzoning which might incentivize developers to acquire and demolish existing buildings that currently provide rent-regulated or other reasonably-priced housing for low and moderate-income residents, the City could include various anti-harassment, anti-demolition, and anti-deregulation provisions: o Anti-harassment provisions were included in the recent rezonings of Greenpoint-
Williamsburg and Hudson Yards (as part of broader special districts that were mapped in those areas). These provisions require owners to obtain a “certificate of no harassment” before receiving a building permit for new development. If it is determined that harassment occurred, the developer must provide 20% affordable housing in the new development (or 27% of the existing building, whichever is greater). This 20% does not provide any density bonus; a developer seeking that bonus would have to provide 40% affordable units.
o Anti-demolition provisions have not been included in the recent rezonings by the Department of City Planning, but were included in the 1974 Clinton Special District and have been adopted in other cities around the country. In Clinton, special permits are required for most demolition and construction, with particularly stringent permit application processes for demolishing sound residential buildings.
o Rent-regulation preservation could be part of an anti-demolition provision and might provide that developers be required to replace any rent-regulated units that they demolish, and provide an equal number of rent-regulated units for existing residents of those buildings in any new development.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
212
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 10 of 21
• Apply mandatory Inclusionary Zoning to Fourth Avenue: Mandatory inclusionary zoning would require that all new development on Fourth Avenue contain a component of affordable housing units. The new zoning could be contextual, with fixed height caps in place. The City of New York does not have a mandatory inclusionary zoning program, and the Bloomberg Administration has indicated that it is not open to this policy. However, it does exist in several hundred cities around the country, including Boston, San Francisco, Denver, and Washington, D.C.
• Adjust the income targets – either in the inclusionary zoning program, or by mapping the 421-a exclusion zone (which has an income limit of 60% of the AMI, or $44,000 for a family of four) – in order to insure that the affordable housing created is within the reach of most Sunset Park residents. As noted above, the Sunset Park median income is about $30,000, which is far below the threshold needed to be able to afford most of the “affordable” units under the inclusionary housing program.
NOTE: There are other potential, non-zoning strategies that might help achieve the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Sunset Park. In several recent rezonings, some non-zoning strategies were adopted simultaneously with a rezoning. These have included:
• Extension of the 421-a “exclusion zone” (i.e. the area within which developers must include at least 20% affordable units in order to receive a property tax break for new development). Although the exclusion zone was expanded by the City Council and State Legislature in 2007 (going into effect 7/1/08), it still only goes to 36th Street in the residential areas of the neighborhood. Extending the exclusion zone would make it more likely that new development would include affordable units (the new 421-a map is included .
• Dedication of City-owned land for affordable housing development.
• Commitment of public financing for affordable housing development on sites owned by not-for-profit or religious organizations.
• Commitment of resources for housing preservation and tenant organizing. The potential application of these strategies should be explored in more detail as the rezoning process moves forward.
213
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 11 of 21
Appendix A: Recent Development Activity The two maps on the subsequent pages show Department of Building permit activity for the period between 2000 and the middle of 2007 as a way of illustrating recent development in Sunset Park. The legend indicates how many stories are associated with new building permits. There are several concentrations of development surrounding Greenwood Cemetery, especially northwest of it. Much of the taller development (i.e., above 6 stories) is concentrated in this area as well as in the lower 50’s near Seventh and Eighth Avenues.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
214
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 12 of 21
Appendix A, con’t.: Recent Development Activity
215
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 13 of 21
Appendix A, con’t.: Recent Development Activity
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
216
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 14 of 21
Appendix B: Rent-Stabilized Housing on 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues In the community conversations about rezoning, 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues were identified as potential locations for upzoning. However, some residents expressed concern that this could lead to the demolition of existing rent stabilized housing units, and their replacement by market-rate development. We therefore analyzed existing rent-stabilized housing on those avenues – looking at how much rent-stabilized housing stock exists, and how many of those units are in buildings that would be “underbuilt” (i.e. current built floor area would be less than 50% of the allowable floor area), and therefore especially at risk of demolition. First, we looked simply at how many rent stabilized units are on 4th, 7th, or 8th Avenues within the rezoning study area:
Rent-Stabilized Housing Stock in Rezoning Area, 2006
Total buildings Total unitsFourth Avenue 37 332Seventh Avenue 21 204Eighth Avenue 10 102
total 68 638
Source: NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal via NYC Rent Guidelines Board, 2006 Next, in order to better understand how many existing rent-stabilized buildings might be at risk under a new zoning scenario with increased density, we looked at the number of buildings whose current built floor area is less than half of what would be allowed under new R7A and R8A zoning: Vulnerable Rent-Stabilized Housing Stock in Rezoning Area, 2006
Buildings Units Buildings UnitsFourth Avenue 5 30 26 202Seventh Avenue 8 47 n/a n/aEighth Avenue 0 0 n/a n/a
total 13 77 26 202
Source: NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal via NYC Rent Guidelines Board, 2006; PLUTO tax lot database, NYC Department of City Planning, 2006.
Less than 50% of Maximum Allowable
FAR under R7A
Less than 50% of Maximum Allowable
FAR under R8A
217
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 15 of 21
Appendix B, con’t.: Rent-Stabilized Housing on 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues
The following map shows the location of rent-stabilized buildings within the rezoning study area that are located on Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Avenues. On subsequent pages, tables that correspond to this map display the number of rent-stabilized units in these buildings and their built FAR.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
218
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 16 of 21
Appendix B, con’t.: Rent-Stabilized Housing on 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues
The tables on this and the next page correspond to the map of rent-stabilized buildings on page 15.
Fourth Avenue:
Map # Address Rent-stabilized units Built FAR1 891 4th Avenue 6 1.552 893 4th Avenue 6 1.553 922 4th Avenue 7 2.504 992 4th Avenue 6 1.825 4110 4th Avenue 6 3.566 4311 4th Avenue 6 2.127 4706 4th Avenue 16 2.788 4707 4th Avenue 8 2.559 4802 4th Avenue 8 3.3910 4820 4th Avenue 18 3.3611 4815 4th Avenue 12 3.0412 4819 4th Avenue 11 3.0413 5013 4th Avenue 8 2.7314 5015 4th Avenue 8 2.7315 5019 4th Avenue 8 2.7316 5310 4th Avenue 12 2.6517 5411 4th Avenue 6 2.2818 5413 4th Avenue 6 2.2819 5513 4th Avenue 6 2.2020 5519 4th Avenue 5 2.5021 5516 4th Avenue 9 3.8622 5520 4th Avenue 15 2.9123 5610 4th Avenue 9 2.4624 5614 4th Avenue 5 2.5525 5618 4th Avenue 5 2.5526 5622 4th Avenue 7 2.5527 5705 4th Avenue 6 2.3728 5707 4th Avenue 6 2.3729 5713 4th Avenue 4 3.3830 5717 4th Avenue 6 2.8031 5907 4th Avenue 7 3.0532 5915 4th Avenue 8 3.6333 6005 4th Avenue 17 2.8534 6008 4th Avenue 6 1.6535 6012 4th Avenue 6 1.6536 6310 4th Avenue 23 3.5237 6316 4th Avenue 23 3.52
219
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 17 of 21
Appendix B, con’t.: Rent-Stabilized Housing on 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues
Seventh Avenue:
Map # Address Rent-stabilized units Built FAR1 4103 7th Avenue 20 3.212 4109 7th Avenue 15 2.933 4121 7th Avenue 16 2.934 4219 7th Avenue 16 2.755 4808 7th Avenue 6 1.766 4812 7th Avenue 6 1.767 4818 7th Avenue 6 1.768 4820 7th Avenue 6 1.769 5105 7th Avenue 6 1.9510 5117 7th Avenue 6 1.9211 5312 7th Avenue 6 1.5012 5413 7th Avenue 30 2.9613 5511 7th Avenue 6 2.0214 5515 7th Avenue 6 2.0215 5517 7th Avenue 4 2.0216 5519 7th Avenue 6 2.1317 5523 7th Avenue 6 2.5418 5903 7th Avenue 6 2.6319 5907 7th Avenue 5 2.6320 5909 7th Avenue 6 2.6321 5911 7th Avenue 6 2.63
Eighth Avenue:
Map # Address Rent-stabilized units Built FAR1 4013 8th Avenue 7 3.082 4116 8th Avenue 8 2.493 4118 8th Avenue 7 2.494 4205 8th Avenue 7 2.545 4207 8th Avenue 7 2.546 4211 8th Avenue 7 2.587 4901 8th Avenue 35 3.208 5021 8th Avenue 5 2.519 5202 8th Avenue 6 3.6010 5224 8th Avenue 6 3.53
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
220
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 18 of 21
Appendix C: Sunset Park View Shed Analysis The two pairs Google Sketchup images below are meant to compare current conditions with future potential zoning scenarios for Fourth Avenue.
Current built conditions
Full R7A build-out on Fourth Avenue
221
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 19 of 21
Appendix C, con’t.: Sunset Park View Shed Analysis
Current built conditions
Full R8A build-out on Fourth Avenue
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
222
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 20 of 21
Appendix D: Community Feedback The following tallies show the results of dot vote exercises that people engaged in during the community conversations that were held to solicit community feedback about future development in Sunset Park. Concerns about development
Total dot votes
Displacement of current residents 151Lack of parking 100More traffic 58Overcrowded schools 57Garbage 46Other: Illegal Conversions 42Overcrowded buses and subways 40Construction nuisances 36Other: non-contextual development 31Water pressure issues 25Sewage issues 25Other: Preservation 19Other: loss of affordable housing 16Other: quality of life/safety/healthy place 12Other: Zoning 12Other: Blocked View of Harbor 12Other: increase outreach 9Other: Illegal Residences 9Other: affordable housing 9Other: Altering Character of Community (P) 7Other: Sidewalk Crowding 6Other: Strains on Electrical System 5Other: overcrowded apartments 2Other: Pollution 2Other: More Development 6-8 Aves 1Other: Lack of Affordable Housing 1 Concerns related to affordable housing
Total dot votes
Creating new affordable homeownership units 127Creating new affordable rental units 110Saving existing affordable housing in rent stabilized buildings (6+ units) 100Improving poor conditions in exisiting low-Income housing 73Stopping harrassment of tenants by landlords 72Saving existing affordable housing in small, unregualted buildings (1-5 units) 52Saving existing affordable housing in the five Section 8 buildings in the district 40Dealing with foreclosures and predatory lending 30Other: Increasing housing advocacy organizations 6Other: Creating more jobs 1Other: More development on 6th through 8th Avenues 1
223
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 21 of 21
Appendix E: Revision of the 421-a Exclusion Zone
i Population figures are from the NYC Department of City Planning, and are for Brooklyn Community Board 7 as a whole, which includes Windsor Terrace as well as Sunset Park. ii Ibid, and Trulia.com It remains to be seen what effect the current foreclosure crisis will have on Sunset Park, where there is meaningful evidence of subprime lending and foreclosures (see maps prepared by the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project at www.nedap.org).iii State of NYC’s Housing and Neighborhoods 2006, Furman Center for Real Estate at NYU.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
224
ImageImage
October 27, 2007October 27, 2007
Sponsored by Councilmember Sara M. GonzalezSponsored by Councilmember Sara M. Gonzalezand Community Board 7and Community Board 7
Sunset ParkSunset ParkCommunity Conversation on RezoningCommunity Conversation on Rezoning
Goals
• To provide an overview on zoning in New York City
• To explore options for utilizing zoning & land use tools to create and preserve affordable housing and community character in Sunset Park
• To gather community input regarding rezoning priorities
• To gather community input on non-zoning issues that affect Sunset Park’s future
225
Zoning shapes the city.
Through zoning, a city regulates building size, density and the way land is used. Each “zoning district” sets allowable:
• Land uses
• Building size
• Design
Zoning 101
Zoning 101: Floor Area Ratio
FAR is the ratio of the allowable built floor area of a building to the area of the lot it sits on. The above examples are of a 1:1, or 1.0 FAR.
Lot SF FAR Allowable Bldg SF
10,000 (100 x 100) 1.0 10,000 SF
10,000 (100 x 100) 4.0 40,000 SF
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
226
Current Zoning in Sunset Park
Zone Resid’lFAR
Comm’lFAR
CommunityFacilityFAR
ManufFAR
HeightLimits
R6 2.43 Byoverlay
4.8 0
C4-3 2.43 3.4 4.8 0 None
M1-2 0 2.0 4.8 2.0 None
2.0
None
M2-1 0 2.0 0 None
R6
Current Issue: Development Pressure
Populationgrowth …
NYC Population
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Mill
ions
227
Current Issue: Development Pressure
Populationgrowth …
+gentrification
Current Issue: Development Pressure
Populationgrowth …
+gentrification
=
development pressure
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
228
Sunset Park: Development Activity in the North
Sunset Park: Development Activity in the South
229
Problems with Current Development
– Out of scale / no fixed height limit – Quality-of-life concerns
• School overcrowding, subways/buses, traffic, parking
– Loss of affordability• Most new development is market-rate• Little incentive for new affordable development• Direct/indirect displacement of existing affordable
housing
Rezoning Sunset Park
What Zoning Can Do– Limit building heights– Create new areas for
housing development– Make a small
percentage of new housing affordable
What Zoning Cannot Do
– Preserve existing affordable housing
– Guarantee that most new housing is affordable
– Address infrastructure, service, traffic and quality-of-life issues
– Save particular small businesses
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
230
Issue: Out-of-context development
New Tool: Contextual Zoning
Non- Contextual zone (e.g. R6)
Mapped in 1961 zoning
Contextual zone (e.g. R6A)Can be mapped in
rezonings
231
Contextual Zoning: Examples
R6A
R8AR7A
R6B
Issue: Housing Affordability
• Many households pay more than half of their income on rent
• Escalating rents: One-bedrooms going for $1,000
• Limits of zoning to address the issue
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
232
New Tool: Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary Zoning:South Park Slope (15th – 22nd Streets)
233
“Standard” NYC Inclusionary Zoning Elements
• Voluntary program: Developers can choose the bonus or not.• 33% FAR bonus (no height bonus)
• Affordability requirements:20% of total units for households between 0 and $56,720
- or -
10% of total units for households between 0 and $56,720, and15% of total units for households at or below $88,625
• Units must be permanently affordable.
• Options for: onsite, offsite new construction, offsite preservation (within ½ mile radius or same community district).
Inclusionary Zoning: Issues
• Voluntary, not mandatory• Only being applied with upzonings• Affordable homeownership not included in
recent rezonings.• Uneven use by developers:
Upland Greenpoint-WilliamsburgSouth Park Slope
• Anti-harassment/anti-demolition provisions not generally included
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
234
Sunset Park Rezoning:Opportunities & Questions
• Are there areas where new development should be limited?
• Are there appropriate areas for new development?
• What planning, infrastructure, and services are needed to accommodate growth?
• What can the Sunset Park community gain through growth and development?
• Where should inclusionary zoning be applied?
• How else can affordable housing be preserved & created?• Anti-harassment or anti-demolition provisions
• Non-zoning-related steps
ImageImage
October 27, 2007October 27, 2007
Sponsored by Councilmember Sara M. GonzalezSponsored by Councilmember Sara M. Gonzalezand Community Board 7and Community Board 7
Sunset ParkSunset ParkCommunity Conversation on RezoningCommunity Conversation on Rezoning
235
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
• Zoning study• Community
meetings• Development
on initial proposal
• Scope of work for DEIS
• DraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement
Potential Steps Prior to ULURP
Context: Sunset Park “197-a” Plan• “197-a” is a community
planning effort– Led by CB 7– Plan completed, soon to
undergo public review– Advisory: will not change
zoning• Covers waterfront area
– Preservation of manufacturing/industrial
– New waterfront open space
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
236
Anti-displacement measures• “Anti-harassment” zoning text
– Gives tenants an opportunity to prove harassment. If owners are found guilty, they must include 28% affordable units in new building (not including the 20% necessary for inclusionary zoning)
– Application• Used effectively in Special Clinton Preservation District
(1974)• Applied in Greenpoint-Williamsburg and Hudson Yards
special districts• Not applied in South Park Slope rezoning, and not
considered part of standard “IZ program.”
• Anti-demolition provision• Included in Special Clinton Preservation District in 1974,
but not by the Bloomberg Administration in any rezonings
New Tool: Special Purpose Districts
• Fine-tuned customized zoning districts • Mapped in defined areas with unique
characteristics• Zoning requirements and/or incentives are
tailored to an area’s distinctive qualities• Example: Downtown Brooklyn Special District
(2001)Urban design guidelines and flexible height
and setback regulations for mixed use development on irregularly shaped blocks.
• May not be applicable to Sunset Park
237
M ManufacturingR ResidentialC CommercialMX Mixed use
Various “use groups” are permitted in different zoning districts.
Zoning 101: Regulating Uses
R6
M ManufacturingR ResidentialC Commercial (overlays)MX Mixed use
Various “use groups” are permitted in different zoning districts.
Zoning 101: Regulating Uses
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
238
Zoning 101: Building Size
South Slope Rezoning (2005)
Previous Zoning New Zoning
239
/// Wk. 10.21.12I. Reading DiagramII. Report #7: • Heritage • Non-Proft
Organizations • Cultural Identity • CIC DiagramIII. Sunset Park Historic
District Diagram
/// ArticlesI. Sunset Park Historic
District Nomination FormII. “An Integrative Model
of Contact, Identity and Conflict (CIC): Application to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization”
III. “Cultures of Resistence: another world is in the making”
IV. “The toxic tonic: Narratives of Xenophobia”
V. “Government and Nonprofit Space Aquisition”
VI. “El Centro Unveils Its New Home”
VII. “Historic Tax Credit Talking Points”
7.
Explanation of the DiagramOur mountain of knowledge has really begun to come into focus this week. The Sunset Park Historic District Nomination Form provided key pieces of information which could allow La Unión to present a narrative of cultural preservation to make a case for funding. Additionally, research group identity and xenophobia helped provide insight as to what direction that narrative should go.
241
Reading Diagram
Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World’s Least Sustainable City, Ch. 3 “The Battle for Downtown.” Andrew Ross.
HeritageLand Trusts
Non-profit
Funding Opportunities
Strong historic connection between historic district and the industrial waterfront
Homeless Housing
Government Grants and Tax Credits
Sustainable Cities
Historically Significant
Architecture
NY Restoration Project
Finnish Coops first of its kind in NYC
General
Localized
Common Ground
Mission of housingPreservation of a working class neighbhorhood
La Unión
Low Income Housing
Immigration
Sunset Park Federal Historic District
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
242
Cityzens – Research Report 10.21.12 Heritage We received from the National Register of Historic Places the original nomination form for the Sunset Park Federal Historic District (SPHD) designation. The 67-page document was very revealing and provides grounds not only for the designation of specific historic structures in the district, but also grounds for the preservation of the district as a working class neighborhood. Much of the past week was spent sorting through the document to determine what was valuable and what wasn’t. We created a summary analysis map of what we determined to be valuable. To begin, the survey research and report was conducted by Andrew Scott Dolkart, a preservationist and according to his Wikipedia page a “James Marston Fitch Associate Professor of Historic Preservation at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP) and Director of the school’s Historic Preservation Program,” and filed with the New York State Department of Parks and Recreation and Historic Places in April 1988 and approved by the deputy commissioner in July 1988. Dolkart might be worth speaking with as he has won several awards for his publications on historic tenement housing and row houses in New York. Additionally, one of his publications “Homes for People: Non-Profit Cooperatives in New York, 1916-1929” should be looked at within the next week. There is apparently a rich history of these cooperatives in the city and should be researched as part of a possible overall solution for meeting the needs of La Uníon. His work seems primarily architecturally motivated, but in the SPHD nomination form he does touch upon some key issues relating to the historic population of Sunset Park. The document itself contains a survey of every structure in the district, and—sorted by address and street block—listing all the known contributing characteristics, mostly architectural in nature. Cityzen is not sure if there is value in mapping the historical characteristics of each address for a couple of reasons, but mainly we feel our time could be better spent on other researching other resources: 1) The district is already a historical district, so any effort to look at specific property would simply entail referencing the original document 2) For the most part, the district is residential in nature and most of the dwellings are two-story or two-story plus raised basement type built out of brick and stone in the neo-Renaissance style during the 1890’s through very early 20th century. 3) The evidence is mostly architectural in nature. In addition to the aforementioned dwellings, there are also a few, but not many intermixed wood frame type dwellings, which are among the earliest structures in the area, built throughout the 1880’s in the neo-Grec style. There are also some intermixed mixed-use commercial/residential multiple unit structures, mainly concentrated along the Avenues, but there are some on the side streets as well. None of the builds are taller than 5 stories. Also of note were the several civic buildings—churches, schools, banks, court house, built in Classical Revival, neo-Romanesque, and neo-Gothic styles, all of which were completed by 1930. Summarizing Dolkart’s 8-page report, what is interesting is that the styles of the dwellings are among the last built of each respective style in Brooklyn and the row houses were all built to be at least two unit dwellings and are for the most part not designed by any well known architects of the time. At the time, the styles were losing favor with the affluent in Brooklyn’s core as they began to prefer single family units in areas like Prospect Park South and Ditmas Park, however with the opening of several new transportation lines, including the 5th Avenue elevated and the BMT 4th Ave subway line, made the area ripe for working class people to own a home for the first time in their lives. Dolkart argues that the neighborhood architecture suggests it was specifically designed by land speculators (of whom the architects were employed by) to be a working class neighborhood. “Ironically, it was amidst this exodus of the middleclass from Brooklyn’s older row house neighborhoods, that the row homes of Sunset Park were erected. The reason for the success of the Sunset Park development it that the new buildings in this neighborhood were, in general, not planned for affluent middle-class people, but were designed to attract people of moderate means who could not afford to live in a large single-family row house or one of the new suburban neighborhoods.” Also of note are the specific natures of the neighborhood population, Dolkart writes:
“The early residents of the Sunset Park houses were an ethnically mixed group. The census shows that the majority of residents were American born, but that large numbers were of Irish, English, Scottish, English/Canadian, or Norwegian birth or descent- with smaller numbers from Holland,
243
Denmark, Germany, Austria, end Sweden. Almost all were working people. Many of the residents were involved with jobs related to the waterfront. At the turn of the century the Sunset Park shoreline became heavily developed as freight piers were erected. Bush Terminal opened, and factories were built. Many people who worked in the commercial and industrial area west of Third Avenue moved into the new, conveniently located Sunset Park homes.”
This also makes a case for a potential tie-in with the waterfront redevelopment and its own designation of historical significance. We need to look at others’ research into the Waterfront redevelopment project as well as document historical significance on our tour on Monday. Of the immigrant populations, the Finnish made the most unusual impact on the neighborhood as many of them, “out of a critical housing shortage” banded together to build the first housing co-ops in America, but a typical model in Finland. Additionally, some buildings that were built in the typical speculative manner were purchased by this group and converted to co-ops, establishing a precedent of our objective with La Union. These co-ops still exist in the area around the actual Sunset Park. These co-ops are also architecturally significant: “Several of the cooperatives erected by the Finns were planned in the most progressive manner with careful attention given to the issues of light, air, and privacy. Most of the coops have large light-filled open courts reached through an entryway along the street.” Dolkart also describes the working model for the co-ops:
“…the cooperative society holds title to the building and individuals subscribe to shares. Cooperators hold a perpetual lease on their apartment. When a cooperator moves, the society buys back the shares at the same price as originally paid and the lease is cancelled. No profit is made, thus ensuring that the apartment will continue to be affordable to a working family.”
Nonprofit This then makes a connection to our non-profit/identity branch of research. On Thursday, Brenda Rosen from Common Ground gave a lecture as part of the Colloquium. During the lecture she outlined the model for her organization as building “beautiful buildings” to provide temporary and permanent supportive housing for the homeless and low-income populations of New York. Common Ground also began as a sort of historic preservation group as their original goal at the time of their founding in 1990 was to purchase the historic Times Square Hotel and convert it to housing for the homeless. Rosen however also discussed how the project was also a contributor to the development of the Times Square neighborhood as whole. Common Ground, in addition to historic preservation, looks for vacant land in which they can build new buildings. . She spoke of Common Ground’s area of excellence in designing progressive structures that are both livable and sustainable. Like the Finns a century ago, Common Ground also utilizes the courtyard amongst other more modern techniques to provide natural light into the building. Luckily, Rosen was able to extend her stay to answer questions in Jessica, Troy and Aubrey’s discussion group. Questions, or particular interest to our research group pertained to their model and their funding. Our group feels funding is the key to making our case for a historic designation of a building in Sunset Park. Rosen acknowledges their model hinges upon funding from federal, state and local government grants and tax credits, as well as from other private foundations. On the other hand, she acknowledged that her group is constantly evaluating and reevaluating their model to ensure it remains sustainable in the long run; as these grants and funding opportunities begin to, for various reasons but mostly conservative spending in tough economy, decline. Common Ground currently utilizes a cost-savings ideology for the buildings. The original capital costs may be higher for green buildings, but Rosen insists it is better in the long-term cost-saving paradigm. Also their tenants really benefit from the morale of living in such gorgeous, eco-friendly buildings. In addition to cost savings, Rosen also mentioned that she doesn’t know the future of funding and there has not yet been an instance in which they had to sacrifice major aspects of their project vision to meet a budget. She does, however, acknowledge the need to start an endowment, but cites the challenges of convincing their donors to contribute to a “rainy day fund.” A paradox exists in the sense that the more successful their sustainability model is, the less sustainable it becomes.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
244
We also looked at a document, provided by Tom Lane, of reBound, highlighting the talking points making the case for the preservation of the Historic Tax Credit. Here are some, which make a connection back to getting a heritage designation for a building in Sunset Park:
• Over the last 32 years, the program has revived 38,000 vacant or underutilized buildings created 2.2 million jobs and attracted nearly $100 billion in private investment. • Furthermore, in 2011, the HTC generated roughly 64,000 jobs nationally, including 23,000 jobs in construction and 14,500 jobs in manufacturing; it was responsible for $3.7 billion in GDP, including $1.2 billion and $1.0 billion GDP increments in the construction and manufacturing sectors respectively. • The HTC more than pays for itself: the cost of the credit has been $19.2 billion over its life and it has generated $24.4 billion in federal taxes. • The HTC is a proven job-creating, community revitalizing investment in sustainable communities. • Rehabilitating historic buildings is more labor intensive than new construction and creates more, better-paying jobs. • Additionally, developers of historic buildings buy local and hire local: more than 75 percent of the economic benefits of historic rehabilitation remain in the state and local economies.
Cultural Identity Funding is also a central theme in the identity research. In the quest to make a case for proposing a model similar to Jeanne van Heeswijk’s in which the Sunset Park community is actively engaged in building a cooperative sustained by the marketing of some sort of cultural product, either through a restaurant, gallery, shop, or combination of one or more to these etc. Van Heeswijk writes in The Artist Will Decided Whom to Serve, “there is a growing faith, by the various parties that deal with developing the city, in the potential for developing models and instruments that enable communities to participate in building their city. Yet this faith ignores the fact that their idea of transformation is being based rather naively on a harmonious concept of togetherness.” Murray Bookchin also addresses the idea of the responsibility of citizenship being participatory in Urbanization Without Cities. In his presentation of ‘social ecology’ he suggests that social change is hinged on the active engagement of citizenship in municipalities and argues for the decentralization of authority, but acknowledges that complete self-sufficiency could lead to an insularity that promotes segregation and racism. The objective is to be integrative. With that said, we looked into possible invisible barriers and challenges La Uníon faces, particularly the idea of culture and identity in terms of being integrative, as well as narratives of xenophobia. In “An Integrative Model of Ethnic Contact Identity and Conflict (CIC): Application to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization,” a study by Yueh-Ting Lee, Joann Quiñones-Perdomo, and Edison Perdomo of Minnesota State University published in Ethnic Studies Review in 2002, the researchers look at the CIC model and apply it directly to historical immigration policies and cultural group conflict in the United States. First, they delineate the difference between race, ethnicity and culture—terms that are often used interchangeably. Race refers specifically to physical characteristics of the population, and can comprise a single ethnicity or a single culture, or be a part of multiple ethnicities/and or multiple cultures, creating a hierarchy as well as an equality between ethnicity and culture where first is allowed to influence the latter and vice versa. In the CIC model race, culture and ethnicity equate to identity and conflict ensues when groups not comprised of all three have contact. See diagram. This particular study was aimed at looking at why differing groups migrate or have contact, and what happens when they do, using the United States as an example and globalization as its reasoning. Over the course of U.S. immigration history there are two types of models. Assimilation occurs When Group A + Group B + Group C = Group A, meaning the other groups adopt the culture of the original or dominant group, as it could be B or C in different circumstance, such as who wins a war, etc. This model was particularly applicable with other ethnicities of the same race (Caucasian) in the United States like the Irish, German, Italian and Russian populations, but also in a more negative context, such as the elimination of Native American tribes in the year after European colonization of the Americas. Cultural pluralism is another model, A+B+C=A+B+C, which has occurred in the United States, and purports that groups can retain their particular cultures or ethnicities while sharing a common identity (i.e. American), such as the case with Hispanic populations in America. This presupposes that “people accept and understand
245
differences” in culture and maintain a self-segregated but equal phenomenon. This of course does not actually happen, and conflict ensues. The study looked at how the majority population (Caucasian) uses legislative acts to create a harmony while maintaining power and ensure a third type, A+B+C=D—in the eyes of the majority—social upheaval—does not occur. To make a more direct connection with the Latino population of La Uníon, we looked at Rosaura Sánchez’s 2011 article “The toxic tonic: Narratives of xenophobia” in Latino Studies. Sánchez examines “narratives of xenophobia” in order to frame “the explanation of current economic and political situations in terms of placing blame on particular groups, especially Latinos and undocumented immigrants.” She argues the Latino population is used a scapegoat for the failures of the neo-liberal political and economic climate. Like the CIC study in which the majority population—out of fear of social upheaval”—impose their power on those groups that are at a disadvantage or not as well-established, in this case, the “spectre of Latinidad.” She identifies a paradox that exists in neo-liberalism, which requires powerful nations to exploit the debt-ridden nations of the South, and cites David Harvey’s work on capital migration when speaking about the effective ‘forced’ migrations North. At the same, these groups after arriving are villainized as ‘illegals’ and the cause of the problem. The villainization has become codified such as with the recent laws passed in Arizona. Sanchez writes, “this desire to exclude the undocumented fails to acknowledge that undocumented and documented immigrant Latinos are a key part of the labor force of this country.” She concludes stating the narrative of xenophobia needs to be acknowledged as a “false explanation of the social and economic problems in this country.” Brenda Rosen of Common Ground also acknowledged that hoopla regarding undocumented citizens has made it difficult for her organization to provide permanent housing because of rules requiring proof of citizenship to obtain leases.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
246
247
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
248
249
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
250
251
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
252
253
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
254
255
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
256
257
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
258
259
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
260
261
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
262
263
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
264
265
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
266
267
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
268
269
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
270
271
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
272
273
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
274
275
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
276
277
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
278
279
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
280
281
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
282
283
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ETHNIC CONTACT, IDENTITY, AND CONFLICT (CIC): ...Yueh-Ting, Lee;Joann Quiñones-Perdomo;Perdomo, EdisonEthnic Studies Review; 2002; 25, 2; Ethnic NewsWatchpg. 57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
284
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
285
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
286
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
287
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
288
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
289
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
290
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
291
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
292
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
293
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
294
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
295
Editorial
Culture
sofre
sista
nce:Anoth
er
worldis
inth
emakin
gy
LatinoStudies(2011)9,5–9
.doi:10.1057/lst.2011.18
Themass
socialmovem
ents
aroundtheworld–from
Tunisia,EgyptandLibya
toPuerto
Rico,WisconsinandOhio
–are
encouragingin
variousways.
They
presageachange,
astruggle
for–rather
thanagainst
–ourownhumanity–
indeed,a
declaration
ofwaragainst
theinhumanity
thatforthepast
few
decades
seem
sto
haveheldhostage,
people’shopes,dreamsandexpectations.
Theseedsofresistance
havesproutedinto
variousform
sofprotest,andtoday
hold
thepromiseofforginganew
culture
ofhumandignity(Baroud,2010).
Forthehundredsofthousandswhoare
strugglingagainst
thegreed
ofthe
wealthyandthepowerfulin
theworld,thepeacefulprotestsare
anaffirmation
ofpeople’s
rightto
haverights,arejectionoftherulesandregulationsthat,
inpractice,
herald
people’s
redundancy
and
disposability.
Wesaw
theearly
stirringsofthis
resistance
inthe
United
Statesin
2006,when
millionsof
Latino/astook
tothestreetsto
dem
and
thathuman
dignity
berespected.
Despitetheinvolvem
entofthousandsofworkingpeople,themarches
of2006–
2007wereneither
forhigher
wages
norforbetterworkingconditions.
They
wereinstead
acall
fortherecognition
ofpeople’s
dignity
and
humanity
–
markingtherepudiation
ofthecrim
inalization
ofhonesthard
work
inour
society.
AsJohnBetancurandMaricela
Garcia
arguein
thisissue,
mass
action
and
theorganizationalcapacity
ofthecommunityitself,rather
than
form
al
organizations,ultim
ately
directedtheim
migrantrights
movem
entsandensured
theirsignificance.They
weretheexpressionsofwhatEdward
Said
defined
asa
“culture”ofresistance,thatis,“culture
[as]awayoffightingagainstextinction
andobliteration”(inBaroud,2010).
Today,in
Wisconsinas
inother
parts
oftheworld,wearewitnessingsimilar
actions,
asimilar
organ
izational
capacity
born
oftheaffirm
ation
ofhuman
dignity.
Itis
amovementenergizedbyhundredsofthousandsofpeople
whoin
that
state,
aswellas
across
thecountry,areinsistingontheirrigh
tto
haverigh
ts.
LikeLatino/asin
Arizonaan
delsewhere–who
continueto
resist
draconian
legislationgrounded
inhatean
dexclusion,to
mobilizean
dcallforcomprehensive
immigrationreform
legalization,forthereunificationoffamilies,therigh
tto
goto
college,
workplace
righ
tsan
dcivilliberties
forall–workingmen
andwomen
of
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,5–9
www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
296
Wisconsintooareseeking,
inBetan
curan
dGarcia’swords,“support
forreform
everyw
herethey
(can
).”
Undoubtedly
weare
inadifferenterathanthatofthe1960smovem
ents
for
CivilRights;itisanerain
whichtheyouth,in
particular,havetranscended
the
polarizingleft
andrightofthepast
insearchoftheaffirmationoftheir(our)
humanityandbelonging.Thissearch–andaffirmation–iscertainly
presentin
theirindividualactsofcouragethroughoutthecountry–whether
inthose
of
undocu
mentedLatino/a
youth
whoare
comingoutoftheshadowsto
insist
on
thepassageoftheDREAM
Act
–asymboloftheirrightto
belonging–orof
youth
liketheenvironmen
talist,Tim
DeC
hristopher,whoare
single-handedly
declaringwaronthose
whoare
destroyingourcommonfuture.Indeed,Latino/a
youth
andothersare
challengingto
varyingextents
andin
differentwaysand
realm
s,theprevailingculturalnorm
sonboth
theleft
andtheright.
UrayoanNoel’sessaysuggests
thatdespitedifferences,theyoungNuyorican
poetsofthepost1990sslam-era
generationdoshow
someculturalandaesthetic
continuitieswith
theNuyorican
poetry
movem
ents
ofthe1960s;
according
toNoel,more
than
establishingradicalbreaks,
theworksoftoday’s
young
poetsseek
thenegotiationof“amiddle
groundbetween1960s-and1970s-style
anti-colonialism
and
post
1960smarket
pragmatism
.”Hence,Noel
argues,
“thework
ofthesepoetssuggests
thatthedifference
between
thefounding
Nuyoricanpoetries
ofthe1960sand1970sandtheso-called
‘post-N
uyorican’
or‘D
iasporican’poetries
ofthe1990sand
beyond
yshould
notocclude
importantcontinuitiesthatallow
usto
conceiveofaNuyoricanaesthetics,
on
andoff
thepage,
from
the1960sto
thepresent.”
Certainly,
as
Noel
suggests,
the
transcen
den
tpermanen
ceand
the
continuitiesofcu
lture
cannotbeunder-estim
ated,anditspower
interm
sof
both
its
liberating
and
repressive
ramifications
must
be
reco
gnized
.As
Lawrence
Goodwyn(1978)ex
plained
more
than30years
ago,in
theUnited
States,
the
masses
traditionally
do
not
rebel
because
they
have
been
“cu
lturallyorganized
notto
rebel.”
This
hashadseriousco
nsequen
cesfor
ourexperience
andunderstan
dingofDem
ocracyitself,despiteofficialrhetoric
totheco
ntrary.
Sarita
Gaytanengages
thesignificance
ofculture
interm
softheconsumption
ofcommoditiesand
usesher
analysisofthetransnationalconsumption
of
tequilato
discu
ssthewaysthatconsumptionstructurescollectiveidentities
and
relations,andculturalpractices,simultaneouslyreinforcingthepast
even
while
(re)shapingthepresent.Sheargues
formore
recognitionofthesignificance
of
“commoditiesandtheirconsumptionaspotentialsitesforunderstandingthe
nuancesofhow
individuals
manage
complex
websofrelationsthathave
cultural,social,andpoliticalim
plications.”
Key
tounderstandingwhatis
atstakein
themobilizationsofthecurrent
periodistheorganizationofrace
instructuringlabordynamicsandhierarchies
intheUnited
States.
Undoubtedly,asRosaura
Sanchez
argues
inher
essayin
Editorial
6r
2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,5–9
ElForo,thereis
todayaframing“master
narrative”
ofxen
ophobia
thatnow
serves
tolocate
immigrants
inthe
American
imaginary,“asthreats
toa
particularwayoflife,”
forcingLatinosinto
thepositionofscapegoats
inthe
broader
narrative,understandingandpractices
ofthose
whoseek
toexplain
–to
justify–thecurrentsocialandeconomic
neoliberalism
thatis
sosuccessfully
(re)structuringUSsocietyandexpectations.
That
the
underlying
premise
of
this
master
narrative
of
xenophobia,
particularlyagainst
Latino/as,isgrounded
more
inracism
,thanin
legalstatus,
canbeeasily
verifiedbyresearchontheim
pact
thatthepresence
ofPuerto
Ricancitizensmighthavein
contributingto
“whiteflight”
inspecific
cities.
Michael
Sacks’
analysis
ofthe
gentrification
process
intw
onortheastern
cities
suggeststhattheresulting“ethnicgroupsegregationwasinfluen
cedbythe
Puerto
Rican
presence,even
when
controlling
forthe
economic
statusof
Hispanics.”Certainly,asRosaura
San
chez
correctlypoints
out,
“In
each
and
everycase
ofscapegoatingthecircumstancesare
different;theconditionsthat
giverise
tothem
are
different,andthestate,in
moderntimes
inparticular,has
specific
ties
tothepracticeofscapegoatingor,more
precisely,to
theproduction
ofagiven
xenophobia
narrative.”
Atthebeginningofthetw
enty-firstcentury,TheNew
York
Tim
espublished
a
searingdescriptionandcritiqueoftheraciallysegregatinglaborpractices
ata
pork
productionslaughterhouse
inSpringfield,NorthCarolina,ostensibly
the
largestin
theworld
(LeD
uff,2000).
Thelaborpractices
attheSpringfield
slaughterhouse
followed
thetraditionalraciallyhierarchized
jobdistribution–
with
Whites
havingsupervisory
rolesand
NativeAmericanshaving“clean”
menialjobs,
leaving
theworstmenialjobsforBlack
sand
Mex
icans.
The
culturalim
plicationsforboth
theworkplace
andthefactory
oftheuse
ofrace
in
thedivideandconquer
strategyin
laborrelationscannotbeignored.Asthe
authornoted,“WhileSmithfield0 sprofitsnearlydoubledin
thepastyear,wages
haveremained
flaty
Butmore
thanmanagem
ent,theworkersseeoneanother
astheproblem,andthey
seethecompetitionin
skin
tones.Thelocker
roomsare
self-segregated
andso
isthecafeteria.Theenmityspills
outinto
thetowns.
Theracesgenerally
keep
tothem
selves.Along
Interstate
95
thereare
four
tumbledownbars,oneforeach
color:white,
black,redandbrown.Languageis
alsoadivider”(LeD
uff,2000).In
thisrespect,itisinterestingto
seetheextent
towhichracialpractices
inthelabormarket
havechanged
inthepast
decade,
withthedefinitiveshiftfrom
manufacturingto
servicesectorem
ploymentin
cities
such
asNew
York.Norm
aFuentes-Mayorga’sarticle
showsthattoday
“racialsorting”takes
place
beyondthereach
oflaborlegislation,as“em
ployers
use
race,gender
andim
migrantstatusto
positionworkersin
frontorback
stage
jobs,
depen
dingontheextentoftheirinteractionwithmainstream
clientele.”
Theuse
ofrace
asa
meansofperpetuating
divideand
conquer
strategies,
reinforces
andatleast
partiallyexem
plifies
theprocess
bywhichthemasses
continueto
be“culturallyorganized
notto
rebel.”
Editorial
7r
2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,5–9
297
Still,aswebegin
thesecond
decadeofthetw
enty-first
century,whatis
perhapsmost
encouraging
isthatthroughoutthe
world,youth,studen
ts,
workersandtheirsupportersare
increasingly
pushingback
against
thevirulent
corporate
onslaughtoftherecentpast.In
theUnited
States,
thereare
growing
numbersofcommunity-basedorganizationsandcenters
forworkers’advocacy,
populareducationandpoliticalcampaigns,such
asthatdescribed
byMichelle
Tellez,
CristinaSanidadandNicolasdela
Fuente,in
this
issue’sVIV
ENCIA
S:
Reportsfrom
thefieldsection.Thesecenters
contribute
tobuilda“movem
ent
ofworkers,communitymem
bers,communitiesoffaithandstudentsin
order
to
effect
changein
thelives
ofworkers,
largelyundocumentedmigrants.”
Citizens,
immigrants,workersand
students
and
theiralliesin
theUnited
Statesare
takingastand.In
Puerto
Rico,studentproteststhatbeganin
April
of
2010
against
the
cancelation
of
waivers
at
the
University
of
Puerto
Rico(U
PR),whichcurrentlyserves
over
65000students,havetoday,
oneyear
later,mushroomed
into
abroadanddiversified
socialmovem
entto
address
the
governmen
t’sneoliberalpolicies,including
privatization,austerity
measures,
firings,University
program
andother
cuts,andnew
tuitionandother
fees.One
womanexplained
her
participationin
thefollowingterm
s,“‘I’m
conservative
andIwork
forthisgovernmen
ty
ButIgrew
upin
asm
alltown,andIowemy
economicbetterm
entto
myUPReducation,andmychildrenwerealsoeducated
here,’‘pointingto
thecampuswhereheavilyarm
edpolicemen
werestationed
.
“‘W
hatthegovernmentisdoingisjust
plain
wrong,’”(Stanchich,2011).
Sim
ilarly,
inArizona,students,youth,teachersandtheirsupportersin
the
communityare
protestingtheclosure
ofEthnic
Studiesprogramsin
theschools
ofthatstate,asignofthestate
government’seffortsto
further
marginalize
and
excludepeople
ofMexicandescent–again,regardless
oflegalstatus.HB2281,
theArizo
nabillthateffectivelybanstheteachingofEthnic
Studiescameinto
effect
on1January
2011.W
illittoospreadto
other
partsofthecountry,
like
Arizona’sSB1070has?
AsRandallAmster
correctlypoints
out,“WhereasSB
1070
focused
primarily
on
the
ostensible
controlofbodies,
HB
2281
is
predominantlyaboutcontrollingminds”
(Amster,2010)and,therefore,these
protestsinvolvetheverybeingoftheirparticipants.In
thisrespect,they
are
then
trueprecu
rsors
ofanascentculture.
Like
the
currentinternationalmobilizations
and
the
significantacts
of
courageofvariousgroupsandindividualsin
theUnited
States,theactions,both
individualandcollective,
ofLatino/asneedto
beacknowledged
–whether
in
theirchallenges
toneoliberalism
,thepoliticalwarthey
are
wagingagainst
the
culture
ofdisposability
imposed
on
Latino/asin
variousarenas,
and
their
repudiationofthe“master
narrativeofxenophobia”thatasSanchez
describes,
increasingly
frames
andencompasses
thenation’sim
aginary.
Theseactsmeritourfullsupport,particularlythetw
enty-first
century
youth
protests.Itisessentialthatwealltakeastand–forjustice,
forhumandignity,
forourcommonfuture
–andthatwemakeourcontributionto
theunfoldingof
Editorial
8r
2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,5–9
thisculture
ofresistance.Forgenuinecollectiveresistance
is“aculm
inationof
experiencesthatunitetheindividualto
thecollective,
theirconsciousand
subco
nscious,
theirrelationshipswiththeirim
mediate
surroundingsandwith
thatwhichis
notso
immediate,all
collidingandexplodinginto
afury
that
cannotbe
suppressed”
(Baroud,2010)–
butwithoutwhich
“dem
ocracy”
remainseither
apurely
form
allegalistic
conceptoradistantmirage.
Saludos!
Refe
rences
Amster,R.2010.Arizona
bansethnic
studiesand,along
with
it,reason
and
justice.
Truthout .http://w
ww.truth-out.org/arizona-ban
s-ethnic-studies-and-along-with-it-reason-
and-justice66340,accessed
24February2011.
Baroud,R.2010.Beyond
violence
and
nonviolence:Resistance
asaculture.Truthout.
http://w
ww.truth-out.org/beyond-violence-and-nonviolence-resistance-a-culture61623,
accessed7M
arch2011.
Goodwyn,L.1978.ThePopulist
Moment:
ASh
ort
History
oftheAgrarian
Revolt
inAmerica.
New
York:Oxford
University
Press.
LeD
uff,C.C.2000.Ataslaughterhouse,somethingsnever
die:W
ho
kills,who
cuts,
whobosses
candependonrace.In
How
Raceis
Lived
inAmerica.
TheNew
York
Tim
es.http://w
ww.nytim
es.com/library/national/race/061600leduff-m
eat.htm
l,accessed
7M
arch
2011.
Stanchich,M
.2011.M
assiveturnoutagainst
police
occupationofUniversity
ofPuerto
Rico,http://w
ww.huffingtonpost.com/m
aritza-stanchich-phd/20000-m
arch-to-end-police_
b_8
22735.htm
l,accessed
15February2011.
SuzanneOboler
JohnJayCollegeofCriminalJustice,
New
York,NY
E-m
ail:soboler@
jjay.cuny.edu
Editorial
9r
2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,5–9
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
298
ElForo
Theto
xic
tonic:Narrativesof
xenophobia
Rosaura
Sanchez
University
ofCalifornia
atSanDiego,California.
LatinoStudies(2011)9,126–1
44.doi:10.1057/lst.2011.11
Recen
teven
tsthroughoutthis
countryand
inArizo
na,in
particular,
have
made
clear
that
anarrative
of
xen
ophobia
iswidespread
throughout
theUnited
States.
Thefact
thatthis
narrativeorsetofnarratives
hasbeen
aco
nstant
throughout
the
better
part
of
human
history,
being
often
accompanied
by
gen
ocide,
isnotco
mforting,especially
inview
oflate
twen
tiethandearlytw
enty-first
century
episodes
ofethnic
cleansing,bethey
theRwandanmassacres,violence
intheCongoWars
andtheBalkanwars,
ormore
recentlyin
conflicts
inKyrgyzstanandeven
inChinain
theXinjiang
region.Earliercasesare
manifold,ofco
urse,
and
UShistory
registers
all
too
manyinstanceswhereBlack
s,Chineseim
migrants,Tejano-M
exicanos,
CaliforniosandespeciallyNativeAmericanshavesuffered
theco
nsequen
ces
ofxen
ophobia.Each
case
is,however,differentandhistoricallyspecific.W
hat
marksthem
allnonethelessis
thatin
each
case
thereare
conditionscreated
orex
istentin
aparticularnationthatboth
giverise
toandrequireillusions.1
Theseare
illusionsoftransparency
2thatserveasfalseex
planatory
narratives
incasesofcrises
and
thatplace
blame
on
someo
ne
orsome
group
for
whatailsthemajority
community.
Asnoted
by
Zizek
,uncertainties,like
the
financialmeltdown
of2008,elicit
narratives
thatfocu
snoton
the
globalcapitalist
system
(anditsco
nstitutionalcrises)butrather
seek
toplace
the
blame
elsewhere
(Callinicos,
2010,17).
Xen
ophobia,I
suggest,
is
onesuch
narrative;
itcu
rren
tlyoffersapoor,
shortsighted,and
ultim
ately
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/
1Iam
here
borrowingfrom
MarxviaCallinicos
(2010,x).
2Notionexplained
inLefebvre
(1991,27).
299
falseex
planationfortheeconomic
andpoliticalupheavalsunder
way,butone
thatproves
especiallyattractiveto
conservatives
andright-wingerseven
aswe
all
suffer
under
this
most
recentfull-scale
globaleconomic
and
financial
crisis.
Inmyanalysisofxen
ophobia
asanarrativeIam
usingtheterm
“narrative”
torefernotto
aspecific
work
offiction,butto
atheo
retical/discu
rsive
framew
ork,an
underlying
master
disco
urse.
Here
Iam
borrowing,of
course,
from
Jameson
(1981,28),
and
his
use
of“narrative”
toreferto
aframew
ork
ormaster
disco
urseofanalysis.
Inthis
case,whatIcall
the
“xen
ophobia
narrative”
isadisco
ursethatframes
theex
planationofcu
rren
t
economic
and
politicalsituationsin
term
sofplacing
blameon
particular
groups,
especiallyLatinosand
undocu
men
ted
immigrants.To
operate
best,
anarrativeofxen
ophobia
cannotack
nowledgethatit
isanillusion,thatis,
afalsenarrative,
northatit
isxen
ophobic
inco
ntradictorily
placingblame
on
those
thatare
them
selves
sufferingmost
from
theeconomic
meltdown.
Thefunctionofthenarrativeofxen
ophobia
isto
framethewayparticular
groupsare
representedasthreats
toaparticularwayoflife,ataneconomic
and/or
culturallevel.For
instance,in
Huntington’s
(2004)
essay,
“The
Hispanic
Challen
ge,”
inview
ofthe
dem
ographic
growth
ofthe
Latino
population,heworriesaboutLatinos’unwillingnessto
conform
to“America’s
traditionaliden
tity,”
inother
words,
asathreatto
dominantAnglo-Saxon
Protestantcu
lture.3
Thefact
thattheneo
liberalmodel
hasfailed
asunem
ploymen
trises,banks
plummet,bankruptciesaboundandrecessiondominatestheeconomyis
by
all
rights
an
issuethatcallsforan
in-dep
thanalysis,
butforsome,
those
sufferingthefallacy
ofillusions,thereis–andmustbe–clearlysomegroupto
blame.
Addto
thistheeviden
cethattheUnited
Stateshasfailed
inIraqandis
failingin
Afghanistan,andtheproblem
isco
mpounded
.Citizen
s,increasingly
withnativism,aswellasco
nvincedoftheirlimited
sayin
nationalpolitical
and
economic
matters,
look
locallyin
search
ofpolicies
they
can
control,
measuresthey
can
approve,
and
scapegoats
thatcan
be
blamed
forthe
nation’s
problems.
Inthis
case,the
prime
target
isthe
undocu
men
ted
immigrant,
who
iscrim
inalized
and
made
the
object
of
persecu
tion,
harassmen
tand
victimization.We
see
this
most
egregiously
inArizo
na,
whereGovernorBrewer,after
signingtheco
ntroversialSB
1070
law,has
stated
thatmost
undocu
men
ted
immigrants
are
mules,
used
by
thedrug
cartelsto
bringin
drugsinto
thestate
(Daven
port,2010).Criminalizationis
onekey
aspectofthecu
rren
txen
ophobia
narrativeasit
offersjustification
fortheplotofim
minen
tthreatfrom
immigrants.Xen
ophobia
intheUnited
Stateshasalw
aysbeenlinked
toadefen
seoftheterritory
andofjobsand
privileges
forparticularEuro-ethnic
groups.
Forthis
reason,xen
ophobia
hasalw
aysgonehandin
handwithracist
policies
andpractices
–andwith
nativism,thenarrativethatthose
who
are
native-born
are
theonly
ones
3Another
perspective
ontheissueisthat
ofsocial
threat
theory
that
offers
apsychological
analysisof
interethnic
friction
(see
Stephan
and
Renfro,2002).
Narratives
ofxenophobia
127
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
entitled
tothenation’sben
efitsandresources,anotionthathistoricallyhas
notex
tended
tonatives
whoare
raciallyorethnicallydifferentnor,ofco
urse,
did
itsavetheNativeAmericansfrom
nearex
term
ination.Nativism
thus
favors
particular“natives”andsees
othersasworthyofrejectionfrom
the
collectivity.
While
the
currentxenophobia
narrative
emerges
from
criticaleconomic
conditions,
itis
buttressed
byanother
phenomenon,andthatis
thespectreof
Latinidad.W
hen
Marx
writesofaspectrehauntingnineteenth
century
Europe
(Marx
andEngels,1972),heisnotreferringto
aspectreofthepast.ForM
arx,
thespectrehauntingEuropeisnotmem
ory
orknowledgeofsocialinjustice,ala
AveryGordon(1997),but,rather
proleptically,
“thespectreofCommunism.”
Theghost
isthethreatofupheavalofthesocialorder
anditstransform
ation.
Insomemeasure
Marx’sphantasm
could
beseen
asutopian,butheenvisionsit
as,in
fact,arealmovem
entofworkers,athreatposedbyarealcollectiveanti-
capitalist
power
vis-a-visthestatusquoin
Europe.
Thisspectrehasnotceased
toexist,
despiteitsrumored
dem
ise.
Thereare,however,other
spectres
in
history,other
menacesfeared
bythestatusquo.Thesespectres
are
seen
as
challen
gingdominantpowersormajority
populations;
itis
ultim
ately
fearof
thesespectres
–alw
ayscollective–thatleadto
ethniccleansingandgenocide,as
wehaveseen
inRwandaandelsewhere.
Oneneednotscratch
thesurface
toodeeply
toconcludethataspecteris
indeed
hauntingtheUnited
Statestoday,
thespectreofLatino
dem
ographic
growth
and
empowerment.
Itis
theLatino
ascen
dancy
thatis
hauntingthe
entire
country,
butespecially
theSouthwest,
wherelocal,
state
and
federal
governmen
tagencies
are
entering
into
an
unholy
alliance
ofghost-busters,
so-to-speak,asiseviden
tin
avarietyofxenophobicmeasuresandpractices.The
spectreofLatinidad,described
by
med
iaand
rightw
ing
actors
interm
sof
perceived
hordes
ofundocu
mentedworkerstakingover
entire
communitiesand
states,
isfundamen
tally
dem
ographic,asLatino/asdon’t
wield
substantive
power,asofyet,butare
numericallystronger
–some49million–everyday,4
and
expected
tobesome133
million
by
20505,about30
per
centofthe
anticipatedUSpopulation.Theparadoxlies
inthefact
thatwe,
Latino/as,
are
thespectreand
yet
weare
simultaneously
real.
Insomesense,weare
an
incarnationofthefuture
butin
another
more
immed
iate
way,real;weare
flesh
and
blood
and
ourgrowing
numbers,
whether
through
high
birthratesor
immigration,willundoubtedly
tran
sform
thiscountry,in
thelongrun,culturally,
perhapslinguistically,
andhopefullypoliticallyandeconomically(Sanchez
and
Pita,2006,25–54).Butclearly,the“clearandpresentdanger”thatthisspectre
posesto
someistakingtheform
ofxenophobia
ateverylevelofsociety.Itisthis
growing
xenophobia
thatconcernsme
here,
and
the
Arizo
na
example
is,
unfortunately,only
oneofmanythatwecould
pointto
today,
asfront-line
statesenact
lawsthatinflametensionsand
promote
xenophobic
taunts
and
angry
protests(SPLC
Rep
ort).
4ThemayorofM
esa
inArizonaquoted
intheL.A.Tim
es,
bestexpresses
the
fearofthemajority
population:
“Youhavewhole
neighborhoodsthat
havetransitioned
into
primarily
Hispanic,”
Smith
said:“W
hether
rightorwrong,
people
saw
things
werechanging”
(see
AnnaGorm
an
andNicholas
Riccardi,2010).
5See
relatedarticle
inRoberts
(2008).
Sanchez
128
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
300
Xenophobia
Just
whatexactly
isxen
ophobia?Theterm
derives
from
theGreek
phobos,an
exaggeratedfear,an
dxenos,strangerorforeigner.Seldom
isit,however,ablanket,
generalfearofforeigners.
California’s
currentgovernor,
Schwarzen
egger,is
foreign-born
butheisnot–generally–theobject
offearorloathing.Thesame
could
besaid
formanyother
foreignersthathaveplayed
key
rolesin
politics,
sports,
orthefilm
and
musicindustry.Asa
rule,only
aparticularsetof
foreignersis
the
object
ofxenophobia,like
the
Chinese
inthe
nineteenth
century,ortheJapaneseduringWorldWarII.It
bears
notingthatthose
who
havebeensubjected
toxenophobia
are
them
selves
perfectly
capable
ofbeing
xenophobicin
adifferentcontext,asin
thepresentcase
oftheIsraeliresponse
to
Palestinians.Xenophobia
could
besaid
tobeyet
another
variantmanifestation
ofracism
.Itis,in
part,thattoo,butmuch
more,since
itisdirectedspecifically
tooustfrom
agiven
space,andnotmerelyto
subordinate,oppress
orsegregate,
acollectivityofforeignersorthose
perceived
tobeforeigners.Xen
ophobia
can
thusbedirectedagainstthose
ofthesamerace
butdifferentreligionordifferent
class
asevidentin
Rwanda.Thepersontargeted
could
beanative,
asin
the
case
ofPalestiniansorNativeAmericans.Thepolitics
ofxenophobia
hasasits
endresultstheeffect
ofstigmatizing,ofplacingparticularforeigners/im
migrants
or“im
migrant-looking”people
inaprecarioussituation,subject
tobeingmis-
treated,harassed,detained,expelledoreven
killedbythemajority
population,
orthestate.When
thekillingpractices
are
applied
toanentire
collectivity,
we
moveto
thescale
ofgenocide,
ofwhichunfortunately,thereare
alltoomany
historicalexamples.
WhatIam
term
ingthenarrativeofxenophobia
isdirectlylinked
tothe
presence
ofthemillionsthathaveim
migratedNorthfrom
theSouth.Whatin
largemeasure
goes
unexamined
iswhy
this
phenomen
on
ofmigration
has
emerged
worldwide
atthis
historicaljuncture.Whathasbecome
clearto
economists
isthat
the
same
neoliberal
model
that
isnow
failing
and
impoverishingworkersthroughouttheworldis
theunderlyingcause
ofmass
migration.Theprocess
beginswhen
thehighly
developed
economiesfacing
overaccumulationdealwithsurpluscapitalbyim
posingneoliberalfree-m
arket
policies
and
practices
on
other
nation-statesthrough
avariety
ofmeans:
military,economic
orpolitical.6In
theprocess,they
dictate
economic
policies
ondebt-ridden
nationsthatforcethem
toprivatize
publicindustries
orland,
thatis,establish
“enclosures”
orwhatHarvey
calls,
“accumulation
bydis-
possession”(H
arvey,2003,137).In
sodoing,capitaldispossessesanddisplaces
workersthatthen
need
tomigrate
insearch
ofsubsisten
ce.According
to
United
NationsPopulation
Statistics,
in2005
therewereabout191
million
internationalmigrants.In
manycases,
those
stayingbehindin
dysfunctional
economies,
the
Mexican
case
isbutone
ofmany,
survive
strictly
on
the
remittancessentbythose
emigratingto
more
developed
regions.7
6AsHarvey(2007)
notes:“Battering
downtheclosed
doors
ofother
nations,bymilitary,
economic,political,
subversiveor
culturalmeans
continues
tobe
central
totheway
Narratives
ofxenophobia
129
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
Thus,
initssearchforanincreasingly
globalizedspatialfix,capitalcrosses
bordersandgen
eratesmigration,producingamobilecircuit
oflaborthatit
attractsnorth,ex
ploitsbypayinglow
wages,andusesagainst
organized
labor
intheUnited
Statesandabroad.Within
this
cycle,
itappears
ironic
thatthe
very
states,
bethey
theUnited
Statesorin
Europe,
thatgiverise
tothis
migration
from
thesouth
and
create
asubservient,
poorlypaid
and
badly
serviced
laborsectorwithin
theirownco
untries,then
turn
aroundanden
gage
inxen
ophobic
practices
against
theseveryim
migrants.Eviden
ceofthis
can
befoundin
theim
migrationraidsthathavebeencarriedout,
forex
ample,
throughouttheUnited
States,8aswellasin
numerousother
“developed
”
nations.9
Thesecontrad
ictory
statepolicies
are
inpartaresponse
todomesticpressures,
especiallyduringaperiodofrecession,massive
lay-offsan
dhighunem
ployment.
Politicalfactors
andtheap
peasementofapublicsufferingfrom
deindustrializa-
tionandrecessionare
undoubtedly
linked
tostate-san
ctioned
scapegoating.In
anation-state
where
there
are
millionsofundocumented
workers,
raiding
workplacesandprosecutinghundreds,
militarizingtheborder,buildingfences,
andharassingthose
that
fitaparticularracial
profile
as“illegalim
migrants”are
only
afew
indicators
ofthestate-initiatedscap
egoatingpractices
generated
to
show
commitmentto
stoppingtheflow
ofundocumented
immigration
while
divertingattentionfrom
theissues.Thebenefitsaretw
ofold:thegovernment
provides
achan
nelingofthepopulace’s
discontentwithan
identifiab
letarget,
whilealso
appearingto
beactivelyinvo
lved
insolvingtheproblems.
Capitalhasalw
ayssoughtfixes,spatialanddem
ographic.Theim
migrantas
scapegoatisthus,ontheonehand,theproduct
ofcapital,butso
isthenarrative
ofxenophobia,directedatthescapegoat.Thelinchpin
ofmodernxenophobia
is
thuscapital.In
whatway,
then,is
recentscapegoatingofim
migrants
different
from
thatofthenineteenth
century?Thenarrativeofxenophobia
hasclearly
beenaconstantthroughoutUShistory,butscapegoatingofim
migrantstodayis
inseveralwaysmore
widespreadandinsidious,asthestate
standsidly
bywhile
asignificantsegmen
tofthepopulationthatcontributesto
theeconomywithits
laborandtaxes
isdeniedprotectionandsocialrights.10Notonly
are
right-wing
groups,
Tea
PartyActivists
(Cooper,2010,A4)andvigilante
groupslikethe
Minutemen
creatinghysteria
over
Latino/a
immigration,butso
are
thefederal
governmen
t,State
governments
andmunicipalities
thathaveadoptedmeasures
thatharass
Latino/as,
nativeand
immigrantalike,
challen
geautomaticUS
citizenship
forchildren
ofundocu
mented
immigrants,and
feed
this
hysteria
whilefomentingnativism.
Theincrease
instate-sanctioned
activitiesagainst
immigrants
today
isin
somerespects
notunlikestate
actionsin
thelate
nineteenth
century
andearly
twen
tiethcentury
11to
excludeAsians(C
hinese,
Japanese,
FilipinosandAsian
Indians)
from
immigrating,keepingthem
aswellfrom
attainingcitizenship
or
holdingproperty.Asian
immigrants,however,suffered
hostility,
harassment,
USim
perialism
both
worksan
d
legitimises
itsglobal
actions.”
7Population
Reference
Bureau
(2008).
8Seerelatedarticlein
Gao
uette
(2008a)
andalso
Nearly
600detained
in
Mississippiraid,
(2008)SD
North
County
Tim
es,
July
20,A–1
6.
9France
isnow
also
raidingRoma
migrant(gypsy)
campsto
evict
them
(see
Devorah
Lauter,2010,A3).
10
Foradiscussionof
thepligh
tof
undocumented
immigrants
inthe
contextof
universalhuman
righ
ts(see
Adelaidadel
Castillo,2007).
11
See
LisaLowe,
ImmigrantActs
forareview
of
theseactsand
violence.
Sanchez
130
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
301
mob
violence
and
evictionslargelyatthehandsofminers,
tradeunionists,
politicalparties,
construction
workers
and
city/town
governmen
ts.Saxton
remindsusthattherole
ofthefederalgovernmen
tduringthis
period
“was
confused”
and
“in
somerespects
contradictory,”
passing
theExclusion
Act
of1882
and
thepermanentChineseExclusion
Act
of1902,yet
intending,
according
tothe
historian,to
halt
further
Chinese
immigration
without
affectingthose
Chinesealreadylivingin
theWest(Saxton,1995,230,249).
Likew
ise,
exclusionofJapanesestudents
from
SanFranciscoschools
in1906
andassaultsonJapaneseresidents
werecontested
bythefederalgovernment,
although–contradictorily
–in
1924itpassed
theAlien
ExclusionAct
thatnot
only
excluded
theJapanesebutalso
prohibited
theirowning
land
(Saxton,
1995,254–257).
After
theJapaneseattack
on
Pearl
Harborin
1941,war
hysteria
ledto
ExecutiveOrder
9066in
1942orderingtheconcentrationofthe
USJapanese-origin
populationin
internmentcamps;some120,000wereforced
toabandontheirhomes
until1945when
they
wereallowed
toreturn.12
Theseseem
ingly
contradictory
governmentalpractices
havelongbeeneviden
t
intheUnited
States.
Thestate,when
itwasn’t
itself
militarily
involved
in
nineteenth
century
violence
against
Indiansorstrikers,
turned
ablindeyeto
thelynchingof“foreign”minersduringtheGold
Rush,thelynch
ingofBlack
s,
thelynch
ingofMex
icanoTejanos,theraidsonNuevomexicanofarm
ersandthe
beatingofstrikingworkers.13Thestate
continued
orallowed
manyofthese
practices
tocontinuewellinto
thetw
entiethcentury,in
whichthelynchingof
African
Americanswasstillcommonpractice,
theJapanesewereherded
off
into
reservations,
andpoliticaldissiden
tswerearrestedandblack
listed
under
McC
arthyism.Mexicanim
migrants
weredeported
enmasse
inthe1930sand
1950s,
decades
ofeconomic
turm
oilaswell,and,notunrelatedly,decades
of
raidsanddeportationsoftheMexicanorigin
population,includingUScitizens
ofMexican-origin,in
ArizonaandthroughouttheSouthwest.14
Today,
thestate,in
collusion
with
theInternationalMonetary
Fund
and
WorldBank,im
posesstructuraladjustmen
tpolicies
andfree
tradeagreem
ents
ontheglobalsouth
thatproduce
unem
ployment,dispossession,privatizationof
publicservices
andem
igration,drawingtheunem
ployed
tothiscountryto
work
aslow-w
agelaborwhiledenyingthem
themost
basicrights
andben
efits.Once
herethedisplacedandundocu
mentedMexicanandother
Latino/a
immigrants
are
subjected,notto
exclusion
per
se,butto
imprisonment,
expulsionsand
harassment,
notfrom
vigilante
groupsandlaborunions,
butatthehandsof
thestate
itself.The“longarm
ofUSlaw”currentlyoperates22Im
migration
and
Customs
Enforcem
ent
(ICE)
immigrant
deten
tion
centers
inTexas,
California
andArizona(63deten
tioncenters
nationwide)
andhousespeople
inhundredsofother
jailsorprisons,
sitesthatshare
manyofthetraitsof
concentrationcamps(Taxin,2009,B4).Whatthusappears
contradictory
isin
fact
quitelogical;thenation-state’slogic
allowsforlocalviolence
against
these
transnationalworkersthatserveasscapegoats
aslongasit
doesn’t
infringe
12
See
www
.historyonthenet
.com/W
W2/
japan_
internment_
camps.htm
.
13
Itisinteresting
thatthese
unofficialor
non-state
cases
ofscapegoating
are
aproduct
of
civilsocietyatits
most
uncivil
worst.
14
Francisco
Balderrama,
Chicanostudies
professoratCal
State
LosAngeles
estimates
that
asmanyas
60per
centof
those
deported
wereUScitizens
(Balderrama
citedin
Gorm
an,
2010,A16).
Narratives
ofxenophobia
131
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
upon
federaljurisdiction.Atthe
same
time,
the
federalgovernmen
titself
engages
inborder
violence,raidsand
incarceration
inmattersthatit
deems
under
itspurview.
Thelatest
instance
ofthis
xenophobia
narrativeis,ofcourse,
theArizona
SB1070
law.Thespecific
detailsoftheArizonaexample
requirereview,as
they
pointto
how
xenophobia
becomes
anattractiveandviable
narrativefor
right-wingpoliticianslikeSB1070
authorRussellPearce.
Butbefore
getting
there,
weneedto
recallthatxenophobia,whilefocu
singontheharassmentand
extirpationofforeignersfrom
particularterritories,isaprocess
thatalsoallows
natives
tobeconcomitantlysubjected
toestrangem
ent,to
beingforeignized
,as
Seguın,thenativeTejano,wellputitwhen
hecalled
him
selfaforeigner
inhis
nativeland(Seguin,1858,177–182).NativeAmericanswereforeignized
since
theseventeen
thcentury
andpushed
outoftheirterritories;in
fact,manytribes
are
legallyreco
gnized
assovereign
Indian
nations,
although
SupremeCourt
JusticeMarshallin
Worcesterv.
Georgia
(1823)in
afeminizingturn
ofphrase
called
them
“domestic
dependen
tnations”
(Banner,
2005,
220).
Native
Americanswerenotgranted
citizenship
until1924,thatis,to
Indiansborn
after
thatdate,anditwasnotuntiltheNationality
Act
of1940thatallNative
Americansweregrantedcitizenship,althougheven
then
they
wereforeignized
insomestatesand
notgranted
full
votingrights
until1948
(Haney
Lopez,
1996,41).Citizen
ship
isthusavariableconstruct,arightthatcanbegrantedor
taken
away.
Inthecase
ofxenophobia,particularforeigners,
definitelynot
all
foreigners,
and
even
native-born
individuals
thatare
foreignized
can
be
disenfranchised
andmadeinto
scapegoats,into
outsiders,andassigned
therole
ofculprits
tobeousted
bythemajority.Often
thenarrativeofscapegoatingis
deemed
universal,andmuch
hasbeenwritten
onthesubject,byDerrida(1981),
byGirard
(1986,1977),amongothers.Iwould
liketo
questionthepremisethat
naturalizesthepracticeofscapegoatingandviewsitasaspeciesproblem,that
is,asinnate
tohumanbeings;itisinstead,Iargue,
inheren
tlyin
each
instance
a
socio-politicalproblem
thatarisesoutofspecific
historicalconditions.
Ineach
andeverycase
ofscapegoatingthecircumstancesare
different;theconditions
thatgiverise
tothem
are
different,andthestate,in
moderntimes
inparticular,
hasspecific
ties
tothe
practiceofscapegoating
or,
more
precisely,to
the
productionofagiven
xenophobia
narrative.
Interestingly,within
thecurrentUScontext,
thefigure
ofthescapegoatis
decidedly
fluid;itcantaketheform
notonly
oftheim
migrant,butalsoofthose
perceived
byhegem
onic
forces
asinternalordomesticthreats
(theso-called
gangmem
ber,theHIV
orTBpositivepatien
t,thepoliticalactivist,theracialized
andgendered
other,aswellasthepoorandhomeless).Myfocushere,
however,
isontheim
migrant,especiallytheundocumen
tedim
migrantin
theUScontext.
Thisnarrative
ofscap
egoating“illegals”–elevatingan
adjectiveto
nounstatus–
thisxenophobia,is,in
thesetimes,so
obviousandpervasive,
somuch
apart
of
the“conven
tionalwisdom,”
thatit
becomes
internalized
tothepointthat
Sanchez
132
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
302
scapegoatingoccurs
within
ourownLatino/a
communities,
aswestrikeout
against
each
other,pittingonegenerationoroneethnic
groupagainst
another.
Whether
from
withoutorinternally
directed,scapegoating
bringsoutand
enablespolice
brutality,murderousactsanddehumanization,often
resultingin
self-hate
andpsychologicaltrauma.
TheScapegoatNarrative
Hostileattitudes
towardsim
migrants
are,ofcourse,
notlimited
totheUnited
States.In
Europe,
theEU
Parliamen
thasapproved
rulesforexpellingundocu
-
mented
immigrants,with
deten
tion
ofup
to18
monthsforthose
unwilling
toleave
voluntarily.15
InRussia
xenophobia
isrampantagainst
Muslim
s
(Thornburgh,2010,30–35).AndMexico,forexample,is
noless
xenophobic
with
regard
tomigrants
on
itssouthern
borders.
Aspreviously
mentioned,
ethnic
minorities
canbesubjected
tobeingforeignized
andin
theprocess
be
madeinto
scapegoats.In
fact,history
reveals
thatthedesignationofoutsiders
asscapegoats
isnothingnew
,thatmost
everysocietyhasgeneratedwhatthe
ancien
tGreek
sreferred
toasthepharm
akos,thescapegoat,andthatthetarget
hasoften
beenthose
considered
foronereasonoranother
outsiders.
Inmore
ancien
tcases,thescapegoatwassometim
esananim
al,but,more
often,aperson
orpersons.
IntheBook
ofLeviticus,
Chapter16,theBible
notesthatGod
instructed
MosesandAaronto
makeayearlyofferingofacalfandtw
ogoats.
Oneofthegoats
would
besacrificed
forthesinsofthepeople
andthesecond,
thescapegoat,carryingtheweightofallthesinsofthechildrenofIsrael,would
besentoutinto
thedesert.Whatis
significanthereandoften
conflatedin
the
notionisthatthescapegoatwasnotthegoatkilled,notthesacrificiallamb,but
theoneonwhom
thesinswereprojected
andonwhom
thecommunitycould
cast
aspersion
and
blame.
Scapegoats
havelongserved
forsocialcatharsis,
although
thetargeted
population,theconditionsunder
which
scapegoating
occurs,andthetypeofaggression(andatwhose
hands)
thatensues
against
the
scapegoatare
variable
across
timeandspace.
Inattem
pting
togo
beyond
the
necessary
den
unciation
ofthe
curren
t
narrativeofxen
ophobia,this
essaywould
liketo
bringto
bearthenotionof
pharm
akosinto
thediscu
ssionofLatino/a
immigrants
intheUnited
States,
drawingonthework
ofDerrida,amongothers,asitproves
productiveforthe
insights
itoffersin
examiningissues
ofim
migrationin
abroader,theo
retical
andanalyticalframe.
Inhis
work
onPlato’sPhaed
rus,
Derridaex
ploresthe
polysemyoftheterm
pharm
akon,whichis
adrugthatcanbeboth
aremed
y
and
apoison
(Derrida,1981,99).
Itis,bydefinition,both
perniciousand
foreign(“because
itdoesn’tco
mefrom
aroundhere.
Itco
mes
from
afar;
itis
externaloralien
”)and,atthe
same
time,
ben
eficial(104),
atonce,or
alternatively,
both
good
and
bad.In
Socrates’
dialog
with
Phaed
rusthe
15
See
relatedarticle
inJanSilva
(2008,A-11).
Narratives
ofxenophobia
133
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
difference
between
spoken
speech
and
writing
isalso
posited
interm
sof
apharm
akon.ForSocrates,
writingis
adrug,apharm
akon,anarrativethat
leadsoneastray(D
errida,1981,71),much
likethenarratives
ofxen
ophobia.
Written
orgraphic
representationbew
itch
es;it
isafalsedisco
urse,
amere
simulacrum.W
hatis
realandtruthfulforSocratesis
speech
(Derrida,1981,
149).Itisthislatter
aspectoftheterm
(writingasapharm
akonthat,assuch
,
can
beboth
harm
fulorben
eficial)
thatproves
particularlyrevealingwhen
applied
tonarratives
surroundingundocu
men
ted
immigration
inthesense
thatthenarrativeofxen
ophobia
isfalsebutdesirable
even
iftoxic;itprovides
theillusionofex
plicatory
adeq
uacy
whilepromotingstigmaandrepudiation
ofothers.
Sim
ilarlyusefulin
thisregard
istheterm
pharmak
os,omittedbyPlato
inhis
semantic
chain,
aterm
that
Derrida
(1981)
notes
issynonymous
with
pharmakeus,thewizard,magicianorpoisoner,theonethatdealsin
pharmak
a
andwhose
power
restsonone’sfearofdeath
120)Pharmak
ositself,Derrida
argues,is
anoverdetermined
term
andassigned
acomplexmeaningorrole.
Itrefers
notonly
tothewizard,butto
thescapegoat,theevilonewhostands
both
outsideandwithin,from
whereitisto
beexpelled(130).In
Athens,where
Athenians,
liketheHebrews,
practiced
therite
ofthepharmak
osforpuri-
fication
ofthecity,theAthenian
collectivityled
thehuman
pharmak
os,
the
individuals
selected
asscapegoats,outofthecity
walls,
beatthem
(aim
ing
especiallyattheirgenitals),andultim
ately
killedthem
(132).Thebodieswere
burntandtheashes
dispersedin
theairorsea.Herethepharmakosfunctioned
both
assacrificialvictim
and
asscapegoat.
Itis
away,
Derrida
notes,
of
“violentlyexcludingfrom
itsterritory
therepresentativeofanexternalthreator
aggression”(133).
Forourpurpose
ofaddressingthecurrentstate
ofaffairs
regardingLatino/as–both
immigrantandnative–in
theUnited
States,
what
mattersmost
isthatthepharmak
osis
both
within
thecity
walls(inside),and
outsideaswell.It
isthuswhatis
perceived
astoxic,asathreat–identified
significantlyaspresentinternally–thatmust
beexcluded
orexpelled.In
its
more
extrem
emanifestationstheoutcomeofthiscollectivepurgingpracticehas
beenxenophobia
andgenocide.
Societieshavelong
continued
varying
versionsofthis
cathartic
practice,
aseviden
tin
therepeated
examplesofethnic
orracialcleansingand
tribal
decim
ations,
ofculturalandclass
rivalrieswithin
ourowntime.
Thefact
that
therehavealw
aysbeenscapegoats
doesn’tmeanthatscapegoatingis
asingle,
uniform
,unbroken
tradition.One
needsto
be
wary
ofessentializing
the
scapegoatingpractice,
asifitwereinheren
tto
allhumansor,forthatmatter,
nations.Nothingisgained
analyticallybysettingasidethehistoricalspecificity
ofscapegoating;even
nativepopulationscan
bealienated
or“foreignized
,”
ostracized
and
pushed
outofcontested
spacesand
treated
likeSeguı n
asa
“foreigner”in
hisnativeland,16awonderfullysuccinct
oxymoronthatcaptures
theprocess
ofalien-ation,disen
franchisem
entandscapegoating.
16
See
excerpt
byJuan
Sanchez
134
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
303
Thisessayargu
esthat
undocumentedim
migrantshavebecomethepharmak
os,
thescapegoats,par
excellence
intoday’s
narrativeofxenophobia,especially
inpoliticalacts
and
pronouncemen
ts,right-wing
blogs
and
mass
media
representations.
Inthepharmak
os/pharmak
ondynamic
thereis
anunderlying
assumptionofaconditionthatneedsresolutionorremed
iation,callingfora
strong,iftoxic,tonic.Clearly,
aninheren
tproblem
withtheclinicalmetaphor,
underlyingthenotionofthepharmak
os,
isthatit
deals
withmanifestations
ofanailmentorproblem
andnot,
forthemost
part
ornecessarily,withthe
causes.
The
pharmak
os,
when
cast
asinnocentvictim,is
sacrificed
by
a
powerfulsector,orthestate,in
thenameofthegreatercollectivegood,without
inanywayaddressingunderlyingconditionsthatgiverise
tothesymptoms.Itis
this
illusion
ofatransparentsolution
thatis
atthecore
ofthenarrativeof
xenophobia.
Itis
also
crucialto
bearin
mind,in
this
regard,thatthediagnosisofa
“diseased”state
alw
aysassumes
astateofexception.17In
fact,aswillbeeviden
t
inwhatfollows,thismetaphoricalthreatordisease,thestateofexception,has
becomethenorm
inUSsociety(A
gamben
,2005).Benjamin,too,pointsoutthat
“thetraditionoftheoppressed
teaches
usthatthe‘state
ofem
ergency’in
which
weliveisnottheexceptionbuttherule”(Benjamin,1968,257).Assumingthe
ostensible
toxicityofim
migrants
totheUSsocialbodyis,aspreviouslynoted,
amisdiagnosisofthedisease
thatresultsfrom
globalizedcapitalism
,aforce
thatcreatesconditionsthatinduce
individualsto
migrate
inorder
tosurvive.
The
undocumented
worker
and
other
immigrants
orim
migrant-looking
people
intheUnited
Statestodayoccupyacuriouslyambiguousposition;like
thepharmak
os,
they
are
both
outsideandinside,
both
included
andexcluded.
Inmanyways,
theim
migrantin
theUnited
Stateshasfunctioned
inpart
as
thehomosacerthat,accordingto
Agamben,canbekilledforhisacts,butnot
sacrificed,thatis,notkilledbythestate
accordingto
law
(Agamben,1998).The
state,however,permitsthekillingofthehomosacerbyothersandin
effect
enables
and
propitiates
itthrough
discourses
thatidentify
and
vilify
the
immigrantasatoxic
perniciouspresence.Butmatterscan
changeradically
withthecreationofastateofexception,whichis
whatultim
ately
defines
the
structure
ofsovereignty
andthestate’spower
toestablish
thelaw,validate
itself
byit,andyet
gooutsideofit.Anditisherethatthedanger
lies
forUSLatino/as
asa
collectivity.
Under
astateofexception,thestate
itself
isinvolved
in
scapegoating,goingoutsideitsownsetoflaws,such
astheBillofRights.There
are,forexample,lawsin
theUnited
Statesagainst
state
intrusioninto
one’s
private
life,butduringastateofexceptionthestate
candecree,
asithaswith
the2001
PatriotAct,thatit
can
tap
ourphones,seewhatlibrary
books
wecheck
out,
review
whatinternet
siteswevisit
and
establish
avarietyof
surveillance
practices.Under
G.W
.Bush,theOfficeofLegalCounselconsidered
enhancingPresidentialpowersto
enable
thePresiden
tto
conduct
unreasonable
searches
and
sweepingwarrantlesssurveillance
ofthepopulation.Bush
also
Nepomuceno
Seguı n
(1973,
177–181).
17
Accordingto
Agamben,astate
ofexception
occurs
when
the
sovereign
state
standsoutside
thelaw.Thestate,
forexample,can
suspendthe
constitution,
creatingaspace
inwhichthe
juridico-political
order
canhave
validityornot
(see
Giorgio
Agamben,1998,
18–19).
Narratives
ofxenophobia
135
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
struck
downPosseComitatus(w
hichsince
theCivilWarpreven
tsdep
loyment
of
military
forces
for
domestic
law
enforcem
ent)
through
the
Defen
se
Authorization
Act
of2006,readily
approved
by
Congress,thatallowsthe
Presidentto
sendouttroopsforcrowdcontrolandto
impose
martiallaw
on
thecivilianpopulation.A
fullUSArm
yBrigade(theFirst
BrigadeoftheThird
Infantry
Division,3000–4000
soldiers
strong)standsready
tobedeployed
internally,
under
thecommandofthePresidentandathis
discretion(W
olf).
Under
PresidentObama,theBrigadecontinues
toexist,intended
tobeusedin
homeland
scenariosif
deemed
necessary.In
tandem
with
thenarratives
of
xenophobia,thematerialforces
thatthestate
canmarshalagainst
Latino/as
should
notbeunderestimated.
Thereare
indeedalltoomanysignsthatshow
theextentofouralreadyliving
under
astateofexception.Thecomplexityofthesituation,ofcourse,
produces
contradictions;
thus,
forexample,thereis
astanding
policy
against
racial
profiling,asisargued
bythose
against
Arizona’santi-immigrantlaw,butatthe
sametimetheJusticeDep
artmenthasconsidered
allowingtheFBIto
investigate
people
intheUnited
Statesthatmeetwhatis
deemed
aterrorist
profile,like
Muslim
s,Arabsand
others.
Garcıa
Hernandez
(2008)argues
thatalready
the1976federaldecisionUSv.
Martınez
Fuerte
grantedtheBorder
Patrolthe
rightto
stopandquestionpeople
of“apparentMex
icanancestry,”
whatever
thatmightbeconstrued
tobe,within
100miles
oftheborder.18Under
astateof
exception,thestate
itselfsets
upmeans,methodsandlocu
sforthepunishment
ofthehomosacer,asin
theconstructionofdeten
tioncenters
orconcentration
campsbythestate.Whatthestate
hasthepower
todoisnotonly
tosuspend
thePosseComitatusAct,butto
kill,as
notedbyMbem
be(2003).Necropolitics,19
inthelast
instance,producesgenocideanditishegem
onic
power
exercisedby
thestate,orsomeother
powerfulentity,thatdetermines
whocanliveordie,
whoishuman,whohasrights,whowillbebombed,andwhoisto
beexterm
i-
nated.Thestate,however,neednotkilloutrightto
bepunitive,
repressiveor
destructive;italsocreatessituationsthatmakesurvival,in
thesense
ofdailylife,
difficu
ltorim
possible
forsomebyden
yingthem
,forexample,accessto
work,
tolegalrights,to
educationandmedicalservices.Atthediscursivelevel
and
workingin
tandem
with
state
materialpractices
isthestate’s
channelingof
thefrustrationsandresentm
ents
ofthebroader
populationonto
ascapegoat,
asimultaneouslyvulnerable
andvilified“other.”
Agamben’s
notionsofthestateofexception
and
homo
sacer,
alongwith
Derrida’snotionofthepharmak
os,
allow
foradeeper
rethinkingandunder-
standingofthepresentdaystate’srolein
constitutingtheundocu
mentedworker
asscapegoat,
asthepharm
akosthat,
whilenotamem
ber
ofthenation-state
(the
whole),
and
therefore
excluded,is
simultaneously
constitutive
ofthat
whole,asanecessary
sourceoflabor.He/sheisinsidewhilebeingoutside,
and
therefore
theidealscapegoat.
This
condition
ofbeing
included
through
an
exclusion,ofbeingoutsideofmem
bership
andalw
aysin
relationto
something
18
AsGarcı a
Hernan
dez
(2008,28)notes,
“Unlikeother
law
enforcem
ent
agencies
thatare
prohibited
from
engagingin
racial
profiling,the
Border
Patrolis
constitutionally
entitled
todoso.”
19
Accordingto
Mbem
be(2003),
theultim
ate
expressionof
sovereignty
resides
inthe
power
and
capacity
todictate
whomayliveand
whomust
die.
Necropolitics
is
thepolitics
of
death.
Sanchez
136
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
304
from
which
oneis
excluded
(Agamben,1998,26–27),
isin
fact
theglobal
conditionofthemigrant,ofundocu
mentedworkers,
whoare
“marginal”
yet
central,“superfluous”
yet
needed,vilifiedyet
undeniably
key
totheeconomic
operationsoftheincreasingly
fluid
andhighly
stratified
economiesofwhatused
tobeterm
edthe“firstworld,”
now
globallydispersed
(Smith
and
Fausset,
2010,A10).
Consider,forexample,theproposedDream
Act
thatpassed
intheHouse
and
died
inthe
Senate
inDecem
ber
2010.There
are
now
about1.2
million
immigrants
whocameto
theUnited
Statesbefore
theageof16years
andwho,
ifthebillhadpassed,would
havebeenprovided
apath
tolegalstatusand
eventualcitizenship
ifthey
had
lived
heremore
than
5years
and
attended
collegeorserved
inthemilitary.Capitulatingto
themilitary
servicecomponen
t
wasopposed
bypro-immigrantgroups,
buteven
with
this
and
other
modi-
ficationsthatwould
havemadeim
migrantstudentswaitatleast10years
before
beingeligibleforpermanentlegalresiden
tstatusandforpublicbenefits,thebill
stillfailed
topass.Rep
ublicansin
Congress,andsomeDem
ocrats
aswell,are
more
interested
intargeting
undocumen
ted
immigrants
and
ingoing
even
further
inchallengingtheprovisionthatgrants
citizenship
tothose
born
inthe
United
Statesthanin
recognizingthattheseyoungpeople
havespen
tmost
of
theirlives
inthis
country.
Iftheseright-wingmem
bersofCongress
hadtheir
way,
they
would
deport
everyundocu
mentedim
migrantin
thecountry.
This
desireto
excludetheundocumentedfailsto
acknowledgethatundocu
mented
anddocumen
tedim
migrantLatinosare
akey
part
ofthelaborforceofthis
country,
especially
inthe
service
sector,
agriculture
and
caring
industries;
thereare
thusmultiple
attem
pts
toexcludethem
even
whileincludingin
the
laborforce.
Even
anti-immigrantTVcommentators,likeLouDobbs,havebeen
shown
tohireundocumented
workerson
theirestates(M
acD
onald,2010,
11–15).
Immigrants,both
documentedandundocu
mented,havealsobecome
asignificantpopulationin
ruralareas.
Studiesshow
thatthedownward
spiral
ofpopulation
loss
intheruralareasis
beingmitigated
byaLatino
influx;
immigrants
gothereto
work
inthefieldsandother
agricu
lturalindustries
and
havebecomean
importantpresence
inruralcounties
across
thenation.In
severalurbanareasofthecountry,Latinosnow
outnumber
whites,even
inareas
likeEscondidoandVista
inCalifornia
whereanti-immigrantandanti-Latino
measures,includingrentalban
san
dordinancesagainstthehiringofday
laborers
atshoppingcenters,havebeenpassed(G
arrick,2010,A1,A5).Theseim
migrants
arethusconsidered
undesirab
les,byCongressm
enlikeTexasRepublicanLam
ar
Smith,whoproposeseven
more
aggressivemeasuresto
deportthem
,yetsough
t-
afteran
dhired
through
outthenation(Bennett,2010,A1,A7).
Atonelevel,thisscenarioappears,atfirstglance,to
presentuswithnothing
new
.Thepharm
akos,thescapegoatofthetw
entiethandtw
enty-first
centuries,
haslongbeentheim
migrant,andin
theUScontext,especiallytheAsianand
Mexicanim
migrant.Asascapegoat,theMexicanim
migrantwasdeported
in
Narratives
ofxenophobia
137
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
the“requisas”
ofthe1930sandagain
inthe1950s.Today,however,im
migrants
are
deported
onadailybasisandmadeto
endure
theongoingstateofexception
thatallowsfordeten
tion,theconstructionof15-footfences,
increasedmili-
tarizationoftheborder,andraidsonim
migrantcommunitiesandplacesof
work
by
local,
aswellasfederalIC
Eagents.Forthis
segmentoftheUS
population,thestateofexceptionhasthusbecomethenorm
inUSsociety;
paradoxically,
the“exceptional,”the“anomalous”
isinstantiatedastherule.
Thepharmakostoday,
however,asthisessayhastriedto
suggest,isin
some
waysadifferentkindofscapegoat.In
thiscrisis-driven
periodoflate
capitalism
,
asglobalcapitalironicallycreatestheveryconditionsforincreasedim
migra-
tion,thescapegoatis
collectivized,20and
crim
inalized
.Undocumented
entry
andespeciallyre-entryare
subject
todeportationandincreasingly
tolong-term
incarceration,21asthescapegoatedcollectivityispersecutedbyextensiveraids
atworkplaces,
revocation
ofgreen
cardsand
harassmentattraffic
stops,
shopsandlaborcontractingsites.Thattheseanti-immigrantpractices
are
ever-
increasing
inscope
and
scale
worldwide
isdisturbing
and
points
tothe
globalized
character
ofthephenomen
on.Whatis
ironic,butlogicalwithin
capital,isthattheseundocumentedworkersin
theUnited
Statesandelsewhere
are
also
soughtafter
“human
resources,”
desired
by
localindustries,agri-
businessandeven
thecitizenry
ingeneralin
needofnannies,
cooks,
maids,
gardeners,
carpen
ters/painters
and
handymen.In
view
ofthe
multiple
and
contradictory
valence
ofthepharmak
os,
aswellasthepharmak
on(rem
edy/
poison),
countering
thenarrativeorpharmak
on
ofxenophobia
iscounter-
intuitivewithin
thelogicoftheeconomicandpoliticalsystem
oflate
capitalism
.
Theconundrum
isthatlate
capitalism
cannotdowithoutthepharmak
osorthe
pharmakon,thatis,withoutthenarrativeofxen
ophobia
(pharmakon)andits
object,theim
migrantworker
(pharmak
os).Therisksthatthissituationentails
forLatino/asin
theUnited
Statesandforim
migrants
particularlyispatentand
makes
evidenttheurgentneedfordiscursivecorrectives
orpharmak
a,counter-
narratives
outsidethelogic
ofcapitalism
thatquestionandstandagainst
the
dominantxenophobia
narrative.
Atthepoliticallevel,form
ingsolidarities
and
atthediscursivelevelform
ulatingantidotesto
scapegoatingnarratives
iscrucial
atthis
menacingmoment.
Accordingto
Derrida(1981),
onepharm
akoncan
beexpelledbybringingitin
contact
withanother
pharmak
on(119),negating
orneutralizingthedeleteriouseffectsofthe“poison”throughanoperationof
exorcism
orcatharsis.Ofcourse,
whatthis
dangerousmomentcallsforis
notapharmak
onthatmerelyneutralizesthepoison,thatis,thescapegoating,
ordisplacesit
on
toanother
object
(to
remed
iate
it),
buta
representation
and
ideologicalsetofstrategiesthatprovidean
analysisofwhatallowsfor
scapegoatingin
thefirstplace
inorder
toeradicate
it.
Thequestionis,then,whatweasLatino/a
writers
candoin
ourwork
when
it
comes
todealingwithscapegoatingin
oursociety.Let
usnotfallfortheillusion
that“itcan’thappen
here.”Towhatextentisourwritingservingasaremedyor
20
Girard(1986)
notesin
hiswork
onscap
egoatsthat
thepersecutors
in
earliertimes
wereacollective
andthat
the
persecutionofa
victim
was
a
collective
rite.
Here,
both
the
victim
san
dthe
victim
izersare
collectivities.
21
See
relatedarticle
bySarahGordon
(2008,A-1,A-5).
Sanchez
138
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
305
antidote
totheprevalentxenophobicdiscourses;whatcanweoffer
asacounter
practice?
Anumber
of
blogs
and
Internet
venues
making
these
counter
arguments
are
fortunately
available
tous.22Networkingandparticipatingin
proteststo
denounce
anti-immigrantlawsand
those
who
defen
dthem
are
encouraged
by
anumber
ofcivil
rights
entities
thathave,
for
example,
condem
ned
theArizonalaw
(Spagat,2010,A7).
TheGro
win
gAnti-immigra
ntHyste
ria
Recen
teven
tsin
Arizo
na
have
made
the
contradictory
nature
of
the
xen
ophobia
narrativeeven
more
manifest.Atamomen
twhen
theIC
Eagen
cy
hasbeeninstructed
byPresiden
tObamato
“makeournationallawsactually
work”andwhen
theIC
Eex
pects
toincrease
dep
ortationsto
about400,000
thisfiscalyear,afigure
10per
centhigher
thanunder
theBush
administration
(Thompson,2010),
Arizo
nahastaken
xen
ophobia
even
further,proposing
withSB1070to
enable
law
enforcem
entto
determinethelegalim
migrationof
those
they
stopordetain,andto
requireindividuals
tocarryproper
iden
ti-
ficationdocu
men
ts.Theobjectiveis
thedep
ortationofasmanyundocu
men
-
tedim
migrants
aspossible.Thefederalgovernmen
t,ontheother
hand,has
challen
ged
thelaw
asablatantviolationoftheConstitution.USDistrictJudge
Susan
Bolton
recentlyblock
edim
plemen
tation
ofsomekey
aspects
ofthe
Arizo
naim
migrationlaw
withatemporary
injunctionarguingthatthelaw
interferes
with
federalim
migration
enforcem
ent,
promotesracialprofiling
andmakes
itacrim
enotto
carrydocu
men
tation.JudgeBoltonalsoblock
ed
measuresin
thelaw
thatwould
makeitacrim
eforundocu
men
tedworkersto
solicitwork.In
response,theArizo
naGovernorandher
allieshaveappealed
the
Bolton
ruling,even
asother
anti-immigrantmeasuresco
ntinue
tobe
implemen
ted
inArizo
naand
considered
insome18
statesin
theco
untry.
SheriffJoeArpaio
ofM
arico
paCounty,Arizo
na,forex
ample,hasvowed
to
continuehis
sweepsandch
ecktheim
migrationstatusofallthose
arrestedor
detained
,despitethefederalinjunction.23
TheArizonalaw
isonly
thetipoftheiceberg.Gorm
anandRiccardirecall
thatArizona’s“firstlegislativeassaultonillegalim
migration”camein
theform
ofmeasuresrestrictingundocumentedim
migrants
from
receivingin-state
tuition,
makingEnglish
theofficiallanguage,
and
threateningto
dissolvebusinesses
repeatedly
hiringundocumen
tedworkers.Alreadyin
1997,thePhoenix
suburb
ofChandlerwassubjected
tomassivesearches
ofundocu
mentedim
migrants;
even
childrenwalkinghomefrom
schoolwerestopped
andquestioned
bypolice
andBorder
Patrolagents
(Gorm
an,2010,A1,A16).
More
recentlyArizona
hasfurther
harassed
theLatinocommunitybyapprovingHB2281makingit
illegalforschooldistrictsto
offer
ethnicstudiesorla
raza
courses
intheschools,
arguing,asexplained
bythethen
state
Sch
oolSuperintendentandnow
state
22
See,forexample:
RudySaves
(hchsc003
@csun.edu);see
alsoWilliam
C.
Velasquez
Institute
(enew
sletter
@wcvi.org),
NationalLatino
Congreso
@latinocongreso
.org),Mexican
American
Political
Association
(new
sletter
@mapa-ca.org)or
www.m
apa.org.
23
InDenver,the
police
also
sough
t
toim
poundcars
if
themotorist
was
unlicensedor
merelysuspected
ofbeingan
“illegalalien,”
traits
that
were
considered
coequal.
Fortunately,the
measure
was
ultim
atelyrejected
Narratives
ofxenophobia
139
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
Attorney
Gen
eralTom
Horne,
thattheseprogramspromote
racialhatred
and
ethnic
chauvinism
(Santa
Cruz,
2010,AA2).
Andnow
Arizonastate
senator
Pearcewantsto
sponsorameasure
repealingthe14th
Amendmen
tanddenying
UScitizenship
tochildrenborn
intheUnited
Statesto
undocu
mentedparents,
aproposalpreviouslysupported
byform
erCalifornia
GovernorPeteWilson
andmore
recentlybySenatorLindseyGraham
,Republicanfrom
South
Carolina,
by
Rand
Paul,
anew
lyelected
Kentuck
yRepublican
Senator,
and
by
The
Federation
forAmerican
Immigration
Reform
.Xenophobia
isthusclearly
linked
toharassmentoftheLatinopopulationandofanyoneculturally/racially
differentwhoseeksto
protect
cultural/linguisticrights.24
Other
states
and
cities
have
passed
measures
toprohibit
renting
to
undocu
mentedworkers,
andhaveestablished
checkpoints
tocheckthelegal
statusofim
migrants,and
restricted
immigrantday
laborers
from
soliciting
work.Non-governmen
talgroupsandpractices
havealsoem
erged
thattakean
ostensibly
“patriotic”
andnativiststance
against
immigrants,including–but
notlimited
to–vigilante
groupsliketheMinutemen.Equallyim
portantare
academ
icapparatuses,
liketheconservativeCenters
forIm
migration
Studies
and
other
knowledge-producing
centers
thatfocuson
vilifying
immigrants
and
seek
thedeterrence
ofundocu
mented
immigration.In
thepublicpress,
too,letter
writers
tonew
spapersin
Southern
California
frequen
tly
launch
xenophobic
tirades
against
immigrants,documen
tedandundocumentedalike,
ascribingto
them
theblameforawide-rangeofproblems.25Theresponse
ofthe
federalgovernmentto
xenophobic
practices
isambivalent,
foreven
asit
challen
ges
theArizonainitiativein
court
withthesupport
ofanumber
ofcivil
rights
groups,
forexample,it
also
continues
toengage
inother
practices
thatrevealitswillingnessto
crim
inalize
particularim
migrants.Since
9/11
(2001)theUSgovernmenthasfomen
tedabroadwidespreadinternalpolitics
of
scapegoatingandxenophobia
throughavarietyofstate
andnon-governmen
tal
apparatuses,
protocols
andtechniques.Whilethesehaveoften
beendirected
against
theMuslim
community,
they
havealsocomedownespeciallyhard
on
Latino/a
undocu
mentedim
migrants
inthiscountry.
Coercivestate
measuresin
theform
oflaws,
sanctions,
thepartialbuildingofa15-foothighsteel-tube
border
fence,26andincreasedfundingforborder
security
(Border
BillSigned
into
Law,LosAngelesTim
es,August
14,2010,A18),additionalBorder
Patrol
agents
and
ICE
agents
are
serving
notonly
tostigmatize
the
immigrant
populationascrim
inalbutalsoto
fantheflames
ofpublicdistrust,fearandhate
ofthispopulation.TheNew
York
Tim
esreportsthatthefederalIC
Eagency
has
signed
agreem
ents
(the287(g)agreem
ent)
with
57
county
and
localpolice
departmen
tsacross
the
country
granting
them
immigration
enforcem
ent
powers,
ashasoccurred
inCalifornia,ArizonaandTennessee(Preston,2008,
A-16),
with
the
foreseeable
effectsoffurther
identifying
the
“alien
”asa
crim
inal.Even
whilechallengingaspectsoftheArizonaanti-immigrantlaw,the
federalgovernmen
tthrough
its
287(g)
agreem
ents,authorizes
these
very
byDenver
residents
(see
Deedee
Correll,
2009,A17).
24
InDallas,too,
thepolice
began
thepracticeof
ticketing
immigrants
for
notspeaking
English
asaway
forlocal
policemen
to
enforcefederal
immigrationlaw
(see
www
.americasvoice
online.org/blog/
entry/ticketing_
for_not_
speaking_
english/).
25
Oneletter
writer
totheSanDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
eswan
ts
borderssecured
andhospitals;
usedby“the
American
swho
paiddearlyto
buildan
d
maintain
them
.”
(Cusuman
o,2010)
Another
writes:
“Arizonahas
it
righ
t.Racial
profilinghas
nothingto
dowith
it.Thefact
is,we
shareaborder
withMexicoan
d
that
border
is
open.Youdon’t
seethesamewith
Sanchez
140
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
306
Refe
rences
Agamben,G.1998.HomoSa
cer:So
vereignPower
andBareLife,
trans.D.Heller-Roazen,
Stanford,CA:Stanford
University
Press.
Agamben,G.2005.StateofException.Chicago,IL:TheUniversity
ofChicago.
Banner,S.2005.How
theIndiansLost
TheirLan
d.Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press,220.
Benjamin,W.1968.Illuminations.
New
York:Schocken
Books.
Bennett,B.2010.Im
migrationReform
EffortAppears
Dead.RepublicansPoised
toRam
pup
Enforcem
ent,SlashLegislation.SanDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
es28Decem
ber:A1,A7.
Callinicos,A.2010.Bonfire
ofIllusions:TheTwin
CrisesoftheLiberal
World.Cambridge:
Polity.
Cooper,J.J.
2010.Tea
PartyActivists
RallyatArizona-M
exicoBorder.Sa
nDiego
North
County
Tim
es16August:A4.
Correll,
D.2009.Denver
Voters
Firmly
RejectCarIm
pound
Mandate.L.A.Tim
es5Novem
ber:A17.
Cusumano,J.
2010.Dream
Act:Spin,Spin,Spin.Letterto
SDNorth
County
Tim
es,
13
Decem
ber,http://w
ww.nctim
es.com/new
s/opinion/letters/article_4
052e41f-ad
88-5e7a-
a401-af3fe04c7064.htm
l.
Davenport,P.
2010.Arizona
GovernorClaim
sM
ost
IllegalM
igrants
Smuggle
Drugs.
SanDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
es26June:
A3.
del
Castillo,A.2007.IllegalStatus
and
SocialCitizenship:Thoughts
on
Mexican
Immigrants
inaPostnationalWorld.In
Women
andMigrationin
theU.S.–Mexico
Borderlands,
eds.D.Segura
andP.
Zavella.Durham,NC:DukeUniversity
Press.
Derrida,J.1981.Dissemination,trans.B.Johnson.Chicago,IL:TheUniversity
ofChicago
Press.
Jameson,F.1981.ThePoliticalUnconscious.Narrative
asaSo
cially
SymbolicAct.Ithaca,
NY:CornellUniversity
Press.
Gaouette,N.2008a.Im
migrationRaid
Case
Scrutinized.L.A.Tim
es1August:A9.
Gaouette,N.2008b.Bush
WidensWorker
Checks.
L.A.Tim
es10June:
A1,A12.
Garcı a
Hernandez,C.C.2008.NoHumanBeingis
Illegal:M
ovingbeyondDeportation
Law.Monthly
Review
60(2):28.
Garrick,D.2010.Dem
ographic
Disparity.New
Data
HighlightNeedto
BridgeCultural,
Economic
Divides.Sa
nDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
es19September:A1,A5.
Girard,R.1986.TheScap
egoat,trans.
Y.Freccero.Baltim
ore,M
D:TheJohnsHopkins
University
Press.
Girard,R.1977.Violence
andtheSa
cred
,trans.
P.Gregory.Baltim
ore,M
D:TheJohns
HopkinsUniversity
Press.
Gordon,A.1
997.G
hostlyMatters:H
auntingan
dtheSo
ciologicalIm
agination.Minneapolis,
MN:University
ofM
innesota.
Gordon,S.2008.CrackdownonRe-entry.S.D.NorthCounty
Tim
es10August:A-1,A-5.
Gorm
an,A.2007.IllegalHiringCrackdownisBlocked.LosAngles
Tim
es11October.
Gorm
an,A.2010.ArizonaIm
migrationLaw
aRem
inder
ofTown’s
Past.LosAngeles
Tim
es6June:
A1,A16.
Gorm
an,A.andN.Riccardi.2010.TheAltered
State
ofArizona.TheLosAngelesTim
es2August:A12.
increasesin
auto
insurance,health
insurance,county
andstatetaxes,
loss
ofjobsto
entrylevel
workersin
the
United
States,
emergency
hospital
costs,
educationcosts,
corruptionan
d
frau
d,an
dthelist
goes
on”(San
ders,
2011).
26
Theinstallation
ofrazor-sharp
triple-stran
d
concertinawire
atopborder
fencingbetween
SanDiegoand
Tijuana,said
to
keepagents
safe,
isclearlymeantto
cause
maxim
um
injury
tothose
daringto
attem
pt
tocross
(see
relatedarticle
in
Richard
Mrosi,
2008,A1,A20).
27
See
relatedarticle
inJerryHirsch
andKim
iYoshino
(2007,C1,C2).
28
Thegovernment
isrequiringall
firm
sdoing
businesswith
thefederal
governmentto
use
agovernment
system
called
E-Verifyto
check
workersforsocial
security
numbers.
Itishaving“no
match”letters
sentfrom
the
SocialSecurity
Administrationto
Sanchez
142
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
Haney
Lopez,I.
1996.W
hiteby
Law
:TheLegal
Construction
ofRace.
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
Harvey,D.2003.TheNew
Imperialism
.Oxford:Oxford
University
Press.
Harvey,D.2007.In
WhatWaysis
“TheNew
Imperialism
”Really
New
?Historical
Materialism
15:57–70.
Hirsch,J.andK.Yoshino.2007.RulesonIllegalWorkersStirFears.L.A.Tim
es4August:
C1,C2.
Huntington,S.P.2004.TheHispanic
Challenge.
ForeignPolicy
March/April:30–45.
Lau
ter,D.2010.France
CracksDownonRomaMigrants.LosAngelesTim
es13Augu
st:A3.
Lefebvre,H.1991.TheProductionofSp
ace,
trans.D.Nicholson-Smith.Cambridge:
Basil
Blackwell.
LosAngelesTim
es.2007.Court
ExtendsStayofIllegal-hiringRule.2October:C3.
LosAngelesTim
es.2010.Border
BillSigned
into
Law.14August:A18.
Lowe,
L.1996.Im
migrantActs.Durham,NC:DukeUniversity
Press.
MacD
onald,I.2010.LouDobbs,AmericanHypocrite.W
hileHeRailed
Against“Illegals,”
They
Tended
toHis
EstatesandPrize
Horses.TheNation25(O
ctober):11–15.
Marx,K.andF.
Engels.
1972.M
anifesto
oftheCommunistParty.
InTheMarx-Engels
Reader,ed.R.C.Tucker,335–362.New
York:W.W.Norton&
Company.
Mbem
be,
A.2003.Necropolitics.PublicCulture
15(1):111–140.
Mrosi,R.2008.RazorWireadded
atM
exicanBorder.L.A.Tim
es17M
ay:A1,A20.
Myers,A.L.2007.SanctionsLaw
HasSomeM
igrantsThinkingofLeaving.NorthCounty
Tim
es16September:A-18.
PopulationReference
Bureau.2008.Rem
ittancesgrow
alongwithinternationalmigration,
http//www.prb.org.Topics/Im
migrationM
igration.aspx?page=3.
Preston,J.
2008.Police
Pact
Allowed
PregnantIm
migrantto
beJailed.New
York
Tim
esarticle
reprintedin
SanDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
es20July:A-16.
Riccardi,N.2008.Arizona’sSlammingDoor.L.A.Tim
es5April:A1,A19.
Roberts,S.2008.By2042,M
inorities
MaybetheM
ajority
inU.S.S.D.NorthCounty
Tim
es14August:A-3.
Sanchez,R.andB.Pita.2006.Theses
ontheLatinoBloc:
ACriticalPerspective.
Aztlan
31(2):25–54.
Sanders,L.2011.WeCan’tWaitforSolutionsontheBorder
Problem.Letterto
theEditor,
SDNorth
County
Tim
es,1
February,http://w
ww.nctim
es.com/new
s/opinion/letters/
article_4782212b-b010-50ee-a117-fbd860203e8c.htm
l.
Santa
Cruz,N.2
010.A
rizonaEthnicStudiesBan
Okdas
Law
.LosAngelesTim
es12May:A
A2.
Saxton,A.1995.TheIndispensable
Enem
y:Lab
oran
dtheAnti-C
hineseMovementin
California.Berkeley,CA:University
ofCalifornia
Press.
S.D.NorthCounty
Tim
es.2008.Nearly600Detained
inMississippiRaid.27Augu
st:A-14.
Seguin,J.N.(18581973).A
Foreigner
inM
yNativeLand.In
Foreignersin
theirNative
Lan
d,ed.D.Weber,177–182.Albuquerque,
NM
:University
ofNew
MexicoPress.
Sifuentes,E.2010.Students
RallyforDream
Act
atCSUSM
.SD
NorthCounty
Tim
es,22
September,http://w
ww.nctim
es.com/new
s/local/sdcounty/article_21beab78-d4de-5574-
a3f8-73b2a64064c3.htm
l.
Silva,J.
2008.EU
LawmakersOK
RulesforExpelling
IllegalIm
migrants.SD
North
County
Tim
es19June:
A-11.
employers
whenever
thereis
adiscrepancy
betweensocial
security
numbers
andnames
(see
Nicole
Gaouette,
2008b,A1,A12).
29
See
relatedarticle
inLosAngeles
Tim
es(2007,C3).
See
alsoAnna
Gorm
an(2007,
annagorm
an@
latimes.com).
30
InArizona,
not
only
are
undocumented
workersdenied
government
services
butthey
alsocannotwin
punitivedamages
inlawsuitsand
cannotpost
bail
forseriouscrim
es
(see
AmandaLee
Myers,2007,A-
18).See
related
article
inNicolas
Riccardi(2008,
A1,A19).
Narratives
ofxenophobia
143
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
practices by law enforcement officers in several States. The federal government
is also increasing the militarization of the border by ordering 1200 additional
National Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents with intelligence,
surveillance, drone flights and reconnaissance support. In addition to continuing
its federal program 287(g), it is also continuing its Secure Communities program
that requires that fingerprints of detained immigrants be sent automatically to
the federal government (Vives, 2010, AA3).
Even more telling has been the recent federal crackdown, especially from
the Department of Homeland Security, on employers hiring undocumented
workers.27 This sanction28 is of concern not only to both undocumented and
documented immigrant workers but to labor unions, which rightfully see it as
a union-busting tactic.29 A new “employer sanctions” law recently put into
effect in Arizona is likewise exacerbating the hostile atmosphere already
prevalent in the State.30 Crackdowns and raids are not however limited to the
US Southwest area; they have become prevalent across the country, from
Pennsylvania to Florida to California. Even documented immigrants and US
citizens of Mexican origin are being subjected to criminalization tactics. What
the so-called Secure Fence Act and the workplace raids do achieve, however,
is feed the ongoing xenophobia and heighten the broader population’s fear
of “hordes from the south” that are seen as a threat to their security, while
subjecting the affected Latino/a populations to a near state of siege environment
in day-to-day experience.
The narrative of xenophobia requires more than denunciation; it needs to be
analyzed as a false explanation of social and economic problems in this country;
blaming immigrants rather than noting to what extent they contribute to the
economy allows federal, state and local governments to feed citizen illusions
that the problem is the immigrant. These are dark times. We can hope that the
xenophobia and hostility against us in the United States never reach a level
where we Latinos/as are rounded up and decimated, but we must be aware of
history and see the threat of all forms of violence as imminent. For this reason,
we need collectively to stand up now to any form of ethnic cleansing in our
society and in the world.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Beatrice Pita for her input and her many comments on this
article. I also appreciate comments from the LS reviewers.
About the Author
Rosaura Sanchez is a professor in the Literature Department at the University of
California, San Diego.
Canada. They
respect our laws.”
(Tyra, 2010)
Another writes:
“How sad that
people can
demand an
education in
America when
they are here
illegally y Not
one other country
in the world
allows an invasion
like we have, not
even Mexico”
(Sifuentes, 2010).
Another writes:
“We owe them
nothing. They are
draining our
school systems
dry. Tell your
beloved country
about your
demands. Get it
through your
heads. This is our
country”
(Sifuentes, 2010).
A San Diego
Minuteman
writes: “End
the Nightmare,
stop illegal
immigration”
(Sifuentes, 2010).
One other writer
places blame on
the undocumented
for a series of
problems:
“Because we do
not control
our borders
sufficiently, there
are thousands of
illegals driving
without insurance
or a license. The
mismanagement
of our borders
brings huge cost
Narratives of xenophobia
141r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126–144
307
Smith,
D.
and
R.
Fausset.
2010.
Rural
America
Gets
Even
Sparser.
L.A.
Tim
es15Decem
ber:A10.
Spagat,
E.2010.Border
StatesDon’t
Embrace
ArizonaLaw.Sa
nDiego
NorthCounty
Tim
es13M
ay:A7.
SouthernPoverty
Law
CenterReport.2010NativistLawsCost
CommunitiesM
illions,
Inflame
Racial
Tension,
http://w
ww.splcenter.org/get-inform
ed/new
s/splc-report-
nativist-laws-cost-communitiesy
,accessed24January
2011.
Stephan,W.F.andC.L
Renfro.2002.TheRole
ofThreatin
IntergroupRelations.In
From
Prejudice
toIntergroup
Emotions,
ed.D.M
ackie
and
E.R.Smith.New
York:
PsychologyPress.
Taxin,A.2009.Report:Im
migration
Detention
Violated
Standards.
San
Diego
North
County
Tim
es29July:B4.
Thompson,K.2010.Im
migrantRightsGroupsAdjustFocusto
PassageofAgJobs,Dream
Act.WashingtonPost
27July,http://w
ww.w
ashingtonpost.com/w
p-dyn/content/article/
2010/0.
Thornburgh,N.2010.Russia’sLong(andBrutal)WaronTerror.Tim
e176(7):30–35.
Tyra,T.2010.WeNeedto
Close
OurBorders.Letterto
TheCalifornian,23M
ay,
http://
www.nctim
es.com/new
s/opinion/letters/article_8ec4b952-5c05-5ed8-b8b0-a6556aec322f
.htm
l.
Vives,R.2010.Activists
Protest
asNapolitanoSpeaks.LosAngelesTim
es17M
ay:AA3.
Wolf,N.2008.ThousandsofTroopsareDeployed
on
U.S.StreetsReadyto
Carry
out
“Crowd
Control”.World
New
sInform
ation
Clearing
House,http://w
ww.inform
ation
clearingh
ouse.info.article20975.htm
,accessed
1June2009.
Sanchez
144
r2011Macm
illanPublishersLtd.1476-3435
LatinoStudies
Vol.9,1,126–144
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
308
Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition
TECHNIQUE EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESNONPROFIT PURCHASE & OWNERSHIP ENTITY OPTIONSNON-PROFIT AQUISITION/CONVEYANCE TO PUBLIC AGENCY
A nonprofit can help to implement govern-ment programs by acquiring and hold-ing land until a public agency is able to purchase
A nonprofit can enter the real estate market more easily than government, and can often sell to government at under fair market value if property was acquired through bargain sale.
Must have a public agency willing and able to buy within a reasonable time frame.
NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/CONVEYANCE TO LAND TRUST
A national or regional non-profit can ac-quire and hold land until a local land trust has been established or is able to finance acquisition.
A nonprofit can finance an immediate acquisition and hold property until a land trust has been established or has acquired funds.
If a land trust does not exist, community must establish one. A land trust needs solid support funding and the ability to manage land.
NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/MANAGEMENT
A national/regional non-profit or local land trust retains ownership and assumes man-agement responsibilities.
Local land trusts allow for ownership within the com-munity: local citizens can provide responsible care and management of site.
Land must fit criteria of acquiring organization. It must be prepared to assume long-term management responsibilities and costs.
NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/SALEBACK OR LEASEBACK
A non-profit can purchase property, limit future development through restrictive easements or covenants, and resell or lease back part or all property. May involve sub-division of property.
Acquisition is financed by resale or leaseback. Resale at less than fair market value (because of restrictions) makes land affordable for buyer. Sale can finance pres-ervation of part of site.
Complex negotiations. A leaseback means the nonprofit retain responsibility for land.
TYPE OF OWNERSHIP OPTIONSFEE SIMPLE Outright purchase of full title to the land
and all rights associated with landOwner has full control of land. Allows for permanent protection and public access.
Acquisition can be costly. Removes land from tax base. Ownership responsibility includes liability and maintenance.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT/DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
A partial interest in property transferred to an appropriate nonprofit or governmental entity either by gift or purchase. As owner-ship changes, the land remains subject to the easement restrictions.
Less expensive for purchasers than fee simple. Land-owner retains ownership and property remains on tax rolls, often at a lower rate because of restricted use. Easement may allow for some development. Potential income and estate tax benefits from donation.
Public access allowed only upon landowner approval. Ease-ment must be enforced. Restricted use may lower resale value.
FEE SIMPLE/LEASEBACK Purchase of full title and leaseback to previ-ous owner or other, subject to restrictions
Allows for comprehensive preservation program of land banking. Income through leaseback. Liability and man-agement responsibilities assigned to lessee.
Leaseback would not necessarily provide public access. Land must be appropriate for leaseback (e.g., agricultural land).
LEASE Short or long-term rental of land Low cost for use of land. Landowner receives income and retains control of property.
Lease does not provide equity and affords only limited con-trol of property. Temporary nature of lease does not assure permanent protection.
UNDIVIDED INTEREST Ownership is split between different own-ers, with each fractional interest extending over the whole parcel. Each owner has equal rights to the entire property
Prevents one owner from acting without the consent of the other(s).
Several landowners can complicate property management issues, especially payment of taxes.
TRANSFER OF TITLE OPTIONS
FAIR MARKET VALUE SALE Land is sold at a price equivalent to its value at highest and best use.
Highest safe income (cash inflow) to seller. Can be expensive to acquire.
BARGAIN SALE Part donation/part sale-property is sold at less than fair market value.
Tax benefits to seller since difference between fair market value and sale price is considered a charitable contribution. Smaller capital gains tax.
Seller must be willing to sell at less than fair market value. Bargain sale price may be high.
OUTRIGHT DONATION A donation by landowners of all or partial interest in property.
Allows for permanent protection without direct public expenditure. Tax benefits to seller since property’s fair market value is considered a charitable contribution.
A receiving agency or donation must be willing to accept donation, and capable of management responsibilities.
OTHER DONATION By Devise: Landowner retains ownership until death.Reserved Life Estate: Landowner donates during lifetime but has lifetime use.
Management responsibility for acquiring entity often deferred until donor’s death. (Reserved Life Estate: Landowner retains use but receives tax benefits from donation.)
Date of acquisition is uncertain with either option. (By De-vise: Donor does not benefit from income tax deductions.)
309
Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition
TECHNIQUE EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESLAND EXCHANGE Public agencies or nonprofits can exchange
developable land for land with high con-servation value.
Relatively cost-free technique if trade parcel is donated. Reduces capital gains tax for original owner of pro-tected land.
Property owner must be willing to accept exchange. Prop-erty must be of comparable value. Complicated and time-consuming transaction.
EMINENT DOMAIN (GOVT.) The right of the government to take private property for public purpose upon payment of just compensation.
Provides government with a tool to acquire desired properties if other acquisition techniques are not work-able.
High acquisition costs. Can result in speculation on target properties. Potentially expensive and time-consuming litiga-tion.
TAX FORECLOSURE (GOVT.) Government acquires land by tax payment default.
Limited government expenditure. Land acquired from tax foreclosure might not be appropri-ate for public open space, but can be sold to provide funds for open space acquisition. Cumbersome process.
AGENCY TRANSFER (GOVT.) Certain government agencies may have surplus property inappropriate for their needs which could be transferred to a parks agency for park use.
Agency transfer eliminates the need for any expendi-tures on parkland acquisition.
Surplus property available may not be appropriate for park use or the owning agency may want to sell to a private party to generate revenues.
RESTRICTED AUCTION (NON-PROFIT)
Government can restrict the future use of their sale property to open space.
Property still sold to highest bidder but restriction low-ers price and competition.
It may be difficult for a nonprofit to convince government that a restriction will serve to benefit the general public. Purchase price may still be expensive.
NONPROFIT FINANCING OPTIONSINSTITUTIONAL LENDER Conventional loan from bank or savings
and loan.Less time-consuming process than fundraising. Long-term financial commitment for nonprofit. Higher
interest costs than owner financing. Mortgage lien.
INSTALLMENT SALE Allows buyer to pay for property over time. If seller-financed, can lower taxes for seller. Buyer can negotiate better sale terms (lower interest rates).
Long-term financial commitment for nonprofit. Mortgage lien.
FUNDRAISING Through foundations, corporations and local community. Program-related invest-ments (foundations), non-standard invest-ments (corporations) or charitable creditors (community) can provide no- or low-inter-est loans for acquisition.
Fundraising creates publicity and support through com-munity.
Obtaining grants and contributions is a long, uncertain and time-consuming process.
REVOLVING FUND/LOANS OR GRANTS
A public or private organization makes grants to localities or nonprofits for land acquisition based on a project’s revenue-generating potential.
Encourages projects with revenue-generating potential. Projects with low revenue-generating potential have lower priority.
PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT/SALE-BACK OR LEASE
A nonprofit can purchase property, limit future development through restrictive covenants, and resell or lease back part or all of property.
Acquisition is financed by resale or leaseback. Resale at less than fair market value (because of restrictions) makes land affordable for buyer. Sale can finance pres-ervation of part of sale.
Complex negotiations. If leaseback, nonprofit retains re-sponsibility for land. Finding a buyer for restricted property may be difficult.
GOVERNMENT FINANCING OPTIONSGENERAL FUND APPROPRIA-TION
Appropriation from general state or local government fund.
Avoids interest and debt service cost. Unpredictably of budget projections. Might not allocatesuf-ficient funds and conflict with other programs.
BOND ACT Borrowing money through issuance of bonds is a common way to provide funds for open space. Usually approved through referendum on a local or statewide basis.
Availability of funds allows for immediate purchase of open space. Distributes cost of acquisition.
Requires approval of voting public. Can be expensive if elec-tions charges are tacked onto cost of project.
LAND AND WATER CONSER-VATION FUND
Federal funds are provided to local gov-ernments on a 50-50 matching basis for acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas.
Cost of acquisition for local government is lowered by subsidy.
Receipt of funds is dependent upon federal approval. Lim-ited funds available. Must have entire cost up front.
STATE GRANT/LOW INTEREST LOANS
States can provide marching grants or low interest loans for municipalities to acquire open space.
State funding encourages localities to preserve im-portant open space by leveraging limited local funds. Donated lands may be used as a match.
Localities must compete for limited funds and be prepared to match state funds.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
310
Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition
TECHNIQUE EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESREAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX Acquisition funds obtained from a tax on
property transfers, which is a small per-centage of purchase price. Percentage and amount exempted varies with locality.
Growth creates a substantial fund for open space acqui-sition. Enables local communities to generate their own funds for open space protection, reducing reliance on scare state funds.
Discriminates between new and existing residents. Can impact real estate values. Works effectively only in growth situations.
LAND GAINS TAX Capital gains tax on sale or exchange of undeveloped land held for a short period of time. Tax rate varies depending on hold-ing period.
Discourages speculative development. Has a regulatory and revenue impact.
Can inflate real estate values in a slow market.
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICA-TION
Local government requires developers to pay an impact fee to a municipal trust fund for open space acquisition.
New construction pays for its impact on open space. Aquistition funds depend on development. may be legal accountability for funds. Usuability of method depends on lrelationship of open space to new development.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DIS-TRICT
Special tax district for area benefitted by an open space project.
Users finance aquisition and management. Increases taxes. Can be costly to implement.
TAX RETURN CHECK-OFF On state income tax forms, a filer may appropriate a small amount of taxes owed toward revenues for natural lands acquisi-tions.
Convenient and successful means of generating suffi-cient financial resources.
Vulnerable to compettion from other worthwhile programs.
OTHER FUNDS/TAXES Taxes on cigarrettes, sales, gasoline and natural resource exploitation as well as revenue from fees and licenses can be used toward park acquistions.
With income from fees and licences for boat, off-road vehicle and snowmobile use, park entry and hunting, users pay for the resources they use.
Revenues from taxes can be diverted for other uses unless firmly dedicated to park and recreation purposes.
SALE OR TRANSFER OF DE-FAULT PROPERTY
Sale of default property can provide a fund for acquisition. Also, if site meets criteria, it can be transferred to appropriate agency for park use.
Funds for acquisition are acquired with little cost to taxpayers.
need to assure that assets from proceeds are specifically al-located to open space acquisition. Very political process.
311
December/diciembre 23, 2011La PrensaPágina 8LORAIN SALES: 440-320-8221
CLEV
ELA
ND
SA
LES:
440-3
20-8
221
Local actors will havetheir moment in the spot-light during open auditionsfor the Lorain CountyCommunity College The-atre department’s springproduction of “An Enemyof the People.”
Auditions will be heldfrom 2-5 p.m., Sunday,January 22, 2012 and from6:30-9:30 p.m., Monday,January 23 in the Stocker
Arts Center Studio Theatre.The play is directed by JRSimons and will run April12-14.
Ten men and two womenare needed for speaking roles.Those who audition shouldprepare a short (one minute orless) contemporary dramaticmonologue from a modernplay written sometime in the20th or 21st century.
Everyone should also be
preparedto readfrom the script and per-form scenes from the playfor auditions and call-backs. For more informa-tion contact director JRSimons [email protected] [email protected],or visit www.stocker-artscenter.com and clickon “Arts and Humanities.”
Auditions for LCCC Production of‘An Enemy of the People’
LORAIN (Dec. 14, 2011):After four years of planning, ElCentro de Servicios Sociales,Inc. fulfilled its vision andunveiled its new headquartersto the public. Plans are in theworks to make its new build-ing a one-stop place for a widevariety of services.
El Centro’s new facility hasa community room, partner-ship offices, a Lorain policesubstation, and will provideSecond Harvest Food Bankfood drives. Plus, LorainCounty Community Collegecould provide services at theagency’s new building in thefuture, but plans are not con-firmed.
Dozens of people gathereddespite the threat of rain towitness the grand re-openingof the Latino social serviceagency El Centro at its newhome, on the corner of PearlAvenue and 28th Street, Lorain,Dec. 14, 2011.
“We are so proud. Here westand as a community. Here isyour building. This is a gift toyou,” said El Centro’s Execu-tive Director Victor Leandrybefore cutting a thick red rib-bon that had been tied to theentrance of the building, at2800 Pearl Avenue. The audi-ence responded with applauseand cheers.
The guests approved whatthey saw. As they made theirway through the building forthe agency’s open house,guests could be heard repeat-ing “This is nice,” and “Québonito.”
Mary Munn, fromApplewood, a children’s men-tal health agency, said the newEl Centro has a “pleasant” feel.“The colors are very soothingand the natural light is won-derful,” Munn said of the of-fices’ large windows and space,“They did a really good job.It’s a pleasant place to work.”
El Centro’s new home in-cludes: police substation, com-munity room and partnershipoffices
El Centro’s first floor greetsguests with a commodious re-ception area adorned by aChristmas tree and houses 13spacious offices which includea community room and part-nership offices – offices ready
El Centro’s Executive Director Victor Leandry, El Centro Board members and publicparticipate in ribbon-cutting ceremony, Dec. 14, 2011.
to be used by partner commu-nity organizations.
The 650 square foot, 50-person capacity community/training room will be rentedand open after hours to com-munity organizations andeven for private use like forweekend birthday parties, saidDan Radocaj, the agency’schief financial officer.
Standing in the commu-nity room, adorned with a bigChristmas tree and green andblue chairs surrounding rect-angular tables, MargieCarrión, a former employeeof El Centro’s El Dorado Se-nior Center for 11 years, saidshe was pleased to learn thecommunity room will allowthe seniors program to nowhave a permanent place tomeet. “I can’t believe it,”Margie Carrión said “It’s per-fect for them.”
The second floor housesnine offices including rent-able space, a conference room,a WIFI-available technologyroom to be soon filled withcomputers and cubicles, anda Lorain Police substation,said Greg Hickman, theagency’s development of-ficer.
Police Chief Cel Riverasaid the police substation willnot be manned at all times,instead will be used as an ad-ditional office space so LorainPolice can lead interviews,have access to translation ser-vices during interviews, andfill out paperwork. El Centro’sstaff however said they wel-come the extra police pres-ence.
Radocaj added part of thefirst and second floor has WIFIaccess but not the entire build-ing.
El Centro will also partnerwith the Second Harvest FoodBank, and once a month, pro-vide food for the community,Radocaj said.
Radocaj added the agencyis considering offering newprograms and services in thefuture including: an angermanagement program, AIDStesting services, and even pos-sibly providing a shuttle ser-vice, but those plans are notdefinite yet. As the LorainCounty Transit has scaled
back its services, “Transporta-tion is a big issue in our com-munity,” Radocaj said.
Present at the open housealso were LCCC President RoyA. Church, LCCC DeanGenerosa López-Molina, Sa-cred Heart Chapel Fr. WilliamThaden, Lorain County Com-missioner Ted Kalo, from theCoalition for Hispanic Issuesand Progress Mike Ferrer andfrom the Lorain Arts CouncilAntonio Barrios.
El Centro: To house aLCCC extended campus?
LCCC President RoyChurch, a board member of ElCentro for 20 years, said I“deeply believe in its missionand role in our community.”When asked if the college plansto bring services or a LCCCbranch campus to El Centro’snew site, Church said he hastalked with the non-profit onpossibly using the new facil-ity to extend their partnership.But no word yet on if and howthe college plans to use theagency’s new building. “Thethinking is to give El Centrosome time to settle in to thenew space, and see how it isbeing utilized. Then, we mayhave a better sense of whatcould be productively sched-uled for delivery at that site,”Church said.
El Centro’s new home: awork in progress for severalyears
With the help of a federalgrant and donations, El Centromanaged to raise nearly $1.3million for the renovation ofthe former bank on Pearl Ave.,and turn it into its new head-quarters after outgrowing its
former 31st street home.But after falling short of its
original $1.5 million capitalcampaign goal, the agency wasforced to scale back on thedesign and renovate two-thirdsof the 11,000 square foot build-ing. The renovation cost theagency $1.2 million.
Leandry said he preferredto fundraise because he didnot want to finance the build-ing.
The remaining unused2,000 square foot section onthe second floor housed tablesand chairs and served as a tem-porary cafeteria for the guestsduring the open house. There,guests were treated to a varietyof food including: rice,pastelillos, appetizers, andsweets.
But that unfinished spacewill be used by the agency ora partner organization in thefuture, said Radocaj.
El Centro entered a build-ing exchange agreement withthe city of Lorain in 2007 torenovate the former bank at
2800 Pearl Ave., and turn itinto its new headquarters. In2008, the agency exchangedits former and outgrown 1888E. 31st Street home and itsformer youth center, for itsnew Pearl Avenue building,that is nearly three times largerwith a bigger parking lot andis handicap-accessible.
El Centro received$584,400 in federal funds,secured by U.S. Sen. SherrodBrown and U.S. Rep. BettySutton, for the renovation ofits new building. Brown andSutton were not present at theopen house, but a representa-tive from Sutton’s office,Katey Breck, attended.
El Centro is a non-profitagency that was founded in1974 with the goal of helpingthe often impoverished andn o n - E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n gLatinos. The agency assiststhe Latino and non-Latinocommunities with a youthprogram which includes tu-toring; adult support serviceswhich includes translation;
money management servicesfor individuals with mental orphysical illness; an employ-ment program; a family vio-lence prevention program;and support services for se-niors under its El Dorado Se-nior Center.
Leandry has said El Centrohelps roughly 2,000 familiesa year, and among those fami-lies, 80 percent do not speakEnglish.
Rey Carrión, from the city’sdevelopment dept., said hewas excited to see El Centrofinish the renovation of itsnew home.“It’s absolutely gorgeous. It’squite an accomplishment,”said Rey Carrión, “This build-ing has been sitting here va-cant for 18 years. Victor hasbeen a great driving force be-hind this. I’m so proud,” hesaid.
See El Centro online: http://www.lorainelcentro.com/Call the agency at (440) 277-8235.
La Prensa’s video cover-age of El Centro: http://w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m /watch?v=9O3qNdyjyqw
El Centro unveils its new homeNew building includes a community room, police substation, possible future LCCC connectionBy Ingrid Marie Rivera, La Prensa Correspondent
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
312
Talking PointsTalking PointsTalking PointsTalking Points
• The historic rehabilitation tax credit (HTC) is the most significant federal financial most significant federal financial most significant federal financial most significant federal financial
commitment to historic preservation. commitment to historic preservation. commitment to historic preservation. commitment to historic preservation.
• Over the last 32 years, the program has revived 38,000 vacant or underutilized buildings created 2.2 million jobs and attracted nearly $100 billion in private investment.
• Furthermore, in 2011, the HTC generated roughly 64,000 jobs nationally, including 23,000 jobs in construction and 14,500 jobs in manufacturing; it was responsible for $3.7 billion in GDP, including $1.2 billion and $1.0 billion GDP increments in the construction and manufacturing sectors respectively.
• The HTC more than pays for itself: the cost of the credit has been $19.2 billion the cost of the credit has been $19.2 billion the cost of the credit has been $19.2 billion the cost of the credit has been $19.2 billion over its life over its life over its life over its life
and it has generated $24.4 billion in federal taxes.and it has generated $24.4 billion in federal taxes.and it has generated $24.4 billion in federal taxes.and it has generated $24.4 billion in federal taxes.
• The HTC is a proven jobproven jobproven jobproven job----creating, community revitalizing investment in sustainable creating, community revitalizing investment in sustainable creating, community revitalizing investment in sustainable creating, community revitalizing investment in sustainable
communities.communities.communities.communities.
• Rehabilitating historic buildings is more labor intensive than new construction and creates more, better-paying jobs.
• Additionally, developers of historic buildings buy local and hire local: more than 75 percent of the economic benefits of historic rehabilitation remain in the state and local economies.
• This tax credit preserves history and some of the nation’s most iconic buildings, defining our heritage and creating a sense of place.
o Include examples of tax credit projects from your district – contact us if you need
assistance.
• The Creating American Prosperity through Preservation (CAPP) Act proposes strategic
adjustments to the HTC that would enhance the credit's economic and sustainability benefits.
Background: The nation’s fiscal crisis is forcing an examination of all government expenditures and
sources of revenue, including tax expenditures such as tax credits and deductions. Some Members of
Congress have targeted the elimination of the historic tax credit and other tax preferences in order to
reform the tax code. The Historic Tax Credit Coalition and National Trust are engaged in an all-hands-
on-deck effort to defend, preserve and enhance the federal historic tax credit. Congress decided
historic preservation was so important that it made this credit permanent in the 1986 tax act and we are
hoping Congress will once again see the wisdom of this program for all the foregoing reasons.
***REMEMBER TO SHOW MAPS OF THE DISTRICT/STATE THAT ARE IN THE PACKET******REMEMBER TO SHOW MAPS OF THE DISTRICT/STATE THAT ARE IN THE PACKET******REMEMBER TO SHOW MAPS OF THE DISTRICT/STATE THAT ARE IN THE PACKET******REMEMBER TO SHOW MAPS OF THE DISTRICT/STATE THAT ARE IN THE PACKET***
Quick Facts about the Historic Tax Credit:
--Created 2.2 million jobs --Generated nearly $100 billion in private investment --The credit generates more federal tax revenues than it costs
The AskThe AskThe AskThe Ask
• Will [member] cosponsor the CAPP Act? It is enormously important to demonstrate wide
support for the credit, and improve it, as we move toward tax reform.
• We believe this credit exemplifies the very best of the tax code and hope you will agree to help
us save it.
• Can we count on you to be with us in tax reform given all the great things the credit has done in
your state/district?
313
8./// Wk. 10.28.12I. Reading DiagramII. Process SketchIII. Sunset Park Deríve 2
EthnographyIV. Research on Limited
Equity CooperativesV. Report #8: • Funding • Heritage
/// ArticlesI. “New York State
Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Grant Program Under the Environmental Protection Act of 1993: Heritage Areas System Development and Planning Program - Application and Instructions”
II. Pan-European Biosyndicate
Explanation of the DiagramThe main focus this week was attempting to bridge historic and cultural preservation with actual opportunity. Sources of funding therefore became a primary target. We found several funds which provide money to organizations who work in heritage preservation. Additionally, we looked at limited equity coops as a means of “maintaining space.” We also took another visit to Sunset Park with the goal of looking at specific properties that could be used in this narrative.
315
La Unión
Reading Diagram
Rethinking Housing, Citizenship and Property. Teddy Cruz.
Heritage
Non-profit
Funding Opportunities
Banks
Limited Equity Coops
Associated Business CooperativeMembership
National Association of Housing Cooperatives
Security of Tenure
Saving Money/Reducing Costs
Mortgage Deductions
Rent Stability
Quality Housing
Allocation of Funds to other programs
Cooperative Heritage Fund
NYS Environmental Protection Fund
LPC Grant Program City Ventures
Historically Significant Architecture
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
316
317
Octob
er 22, 2012
Detail descriptio
n of our eld Work to Sun
set P
ark, Brooklyn
We started ou
r eldw
ork with
a to
ur aroun
d the waterfron
t. The tour was con
ducted
by CB
7 represen
tative Jeremy Laufer.
We met at h
is office (w
hich m
akes part o
f one
of the
designatio
ns site
s) in 4th avenu
e and 53 and
walked do
wn towards th
e Iguana expressway. W
e also had
the op
portun
ity to
see th
e po
lice precinct th
at is across the street from
the CB
7 offi
ces. We
had a conversatio
n ab
out the
expressway and
how
it is a bou
ndary to th
e ne
ighb
orho
od. Jerem
y po
int o
ut m
any pe
rspe
ctive
abou
t the
innu
ence of the
highw
ay to
Sun
set P
ark. In one
hand, th
e Gow
anus has helpe
d to create a high
ly recogn
ized
bo
unda
boun
dary sep
arating the indu
stria
l to the reside
ntial area. This sepa
ratio
n causes for m
any citizen
s in Sun
set P
ark to never go
and visit the
waterfron
t. Also, th
e waterfron
t is a place that is not 24 ho
urs op
en, so at night it is very lone
ly and
dark. The
re are
no restaurants op
en, laund
ry m
ats, or any necessary hou
sing
facilities, so it is diffi
cult to have a reside
ntial area. The
only bu
si-
nesses th
at ope
n in th
e nigh
t are th
e strip
clubs th
at are in th
e area. O
n the othe
r hand, th
is sam
e sepa
ratio
n makes th
e indu
s-trial zon
e still con
tinue
to exist, w
hich brin
gs m
any em
ploymen
ts to
the commun
ity. The
re has been a de
bate abo
ut if th
ere
shou
ld be ho
using in th
at area, but it seems as if th
e CB
7 prefers to m
aintain the area as a soft indu
stry zon
e be
cause it pro-
vide
s many jobs.
Whe
n we arrived
to th
e Bu
sh term
inal we had to wait to have permission
from
the site to
be ab
le to
walk in. Even thou
gh it is
said to
be the on
ly place whe
re th
ey allowed
peo
ple to go in to
see th
e waterfron
t (just in th
e weekend
s), the
who
le security
atmosph
ere pu
ts a barrie
r that m
akes th
e place no
t to be
accessible no
r frie
ndly. O
nce we walked in th
e Bu
sh term
inal, it w
as
surprising to see a Greek restaurant called Alpha. The
sign was in Greek alphabe
t but th
anks to
Thames we were ab
le to
und
er-
stand what it said. The
restaurant m
ust h
ave had be
en th
ere for a very long
time, since th
e Greek were also a great innu
ence to
the Sunset
the Sunset Park po
pulatio
n a long
time ago, but th
is is just an assumption. The
re is also a statue
of Irving Bu
sh, the
foun
der o
f the Bu
sh term
inal area. The
waterfron
t is a very calm place, even thou
gh it is an indu
stria
l site
and
one
of the
largest in the
area. Som
e cars and
trucks passed by, but apa
rt from
the un
freq
uented
traffi
c, it is a very calm
place. The
re is an incred
ible
view
of the
Statue of Liberty and
Manhattans do
wntow
ns skyline. The
place seems ab
ando
ned, but we gu
ess that also had to
do with
the project the
y are bu
ilding rig
ht now
. The
idea is to
make a pa
rk in th
e waterfron
t so the Sunset pop
ulation can
enj
enjoy the that area, th
e go
al is to
develop
pub
lic spa
ce for recreational purpo
ses.
The pa
rk is m
eant to
have soccer elds and
baseb
all elds and
walking
and
bike pa
ths. Be
cause the area had
been ab
an-
done
d for such a long
time du
e to illegal dum
ping
, a new
ecosystem
has started
, which has created
veg
etation and
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
318
migratory bird
s. For this reason
they want to take advantage
of this ne
w ecosystem
and
try to m
ake an enviro
nmen
tal/e
duca-
tional cen
ter inside the pa
rk. Also, th
ey th
ink this is ano
ther way of attracting bird watching tourist.
Whe
n we asked Jeremy Laufer if th
ey were preten
ding
to designate som
e of th
e Bu
sh term
inal building as a historical site
, he
respon
ded that it is in th
eir future plan, but once the pa
rk is nished
. He also explained
that th
e waterfron
t has a great history
that wou
ld de nitely m
ake it to be a case for a historical land
mark. For instance, Sun
set P
ark’s waterfron
t was a m
ilitary site
, be-
cause of th
is m
ost o
f the
soldiers who
were go
ing to World War II and
other wars, were em
barking at th
ese do
cks. He even
joked
that Elvis was one
of the
impo
rtant characters to have be
en th
ere. He explaine
d they are focusing
, by no
w, in 4th Av
enue. The
y wa
want to make some historical site
s in th
is avenu
e to help make that avenu
e a little
bit more pe
destria
n friend
ly. This also is im
-po
rtant b
ecause th
ere are many scho
ols and the Pu
blic Library th
at are situ
ated
in th
is area, th
at he argu
es it is im
portant to
have sidew
alks for the
kids to walk on
. We also asked
Mr. Laufer abo
ut th
e Fede
ral D
esignatio
n Sunset has. H
e respon
ded they do no
t get any ben
e ts from
it. H
e even
said that it is worst because if th
ey wanted to chang
e something
in th
e façade
they wou
ld not have Fede
ral m
oney but it
had to be private de
velopm
ent (we did no
t und
erstand what h
e meant with
this, but he change
d the subject). W
e asked him
abou
t the
ben
e ts of the
designatio
n (tax redu
ctions) and
he was surprised
there existed be
ne ts, he
had
never heard abo
ut
them
. Once we n
ishe
d the tour, w
e de
cide
d to go as a group
to th
e waterfron
t again. W
hen we walked throug
h the ab
ando
ned
buildings, w
e meet a guy th
at worked for the
city and
was testing the water. It is a very predo
minant m
an site
, tho
ugh still th
ere
were no
t a lot o
f peo
ple in th
e streets. The place feels lone
ly even thou
gh we wen
t a Mon
day in th
e working
hou
rs; it feels
nobo
dy works, tho
ugh Jeremy do
es emph
asizes on ho
w th
e indu
strie
s ge
nerates a lot o
f working
opp
ortunitie
s to th
e pe
ople of
the ne
ighb
orho
od. M
any of th
e cars are parked in th
e side
s of th
e street, as do
many garbage trucks. Jerem
y did men
tion Sunset
Park buys and sells th
e citie
s garbage and that is why th
ere are so m
any.
Whe
n we left th
e constructio
n site, w
e walked up
52 street. W
e de
cide
d to have lunch in an Ecuado
rian restaurant. The
lunch
special w
as 7 dollars, it include
d a chicken soup
, rise, beans, salad
and
chicken
, plus a sm
all orang
e juice which resulte
d to be
Tang
. The
peo
ple that were in th
e restaurant were all from Ecuad
or, but spo
ke Eng
lish. The
new
s was on, but th
ey were in Spa
n-ish and at th
e en
d of th
e lunch they played some Meren
gue music. Jessica asked
the waitress if she knew
abo
ut La Union
, or if
she mad
e pa
rt of any group
or Latino organizatio
n, she
did not neither m
ade pa
rt of any organization no
r had
heard abo
ut La
Unión
. Whe
n we left th
e restaurant we no
ticed
a pink corner hou
se (4th avenu
e and 51 st.), w
hich cou
ld be a great site
to designate
as a historic building. The
current use is for storage
, but nob
ody knew
much of th
e bu
ilding. Diago
nal to it, was also a be
autiful
constructio
n used
by Ch
ase ba
nk.
319
As a grou
p we de
cide
d we were go
ing to walk throug
h the Fede
ral designatio
n district loo
king
for b
uildings th
at wou
ld be
good
to designate as historical site
s. We de
cide
d to go throug
h the already historical district b
ecause th
is wou
ld mean there
wou
ld alre
ady be
a process we can use for a designatio
n.
As we walked thru 4av, w
e saw many bu
ilding that cou
ld be an option, but non
e of th
em stood
as much as th
e rst pink
building. Whe
n we go
t to a prim
ary scho
ol, in 60st, w
e de
cide
d we wanted to go to th
e commercial area whe
re th
ere were
more pe
ople. 4th ave is an aven
ue th
at has a lot o
f traffic, th
ough
it is still quiet calm, but th
ere is not much activity hap
pen-
ing in th
e streets. It feels it is more a transit street than a place to be. We walked all the
way 60th street at n
oticed
the change
s in th
e ne
ighb
orho
od. W
e en
tered a more reside
ntial zon
e, very calm
. The
Chine
se pop
ulation was growing and this cou
ld be
seen
seen
by the sign
s in mandarin
and
som
e cultu
ral practices th
ey do in th
e streets like taking
out food
(which seemed
to be
cabb
age) to
dry it.
We pa
ssed
throug
h the big Ch
urch and
visite
d Ch
arlie´s old hom
e. We also wen
t to La Unión
´s offices just to
see whe
re th
ey
are. As we walked thru th
e streets of th
e family reside
ntial neigh
borhoo
d, th
ere was an eviden
t cultural frictio
n be
tween the
diffe
rent cultures. The ne
ighb
orho
od in 59th street aroun
d the Ch
urch was a mixed
neigh
borhoo
d of Latinos and
Chine
s. In
one of th
e ho
uses (w
hich was inhabitant by Pu
erto Rican, the
y had ags all over th
eir façade) we saw a sign that asked
for a
more respectful neigh
borhoo
d. The
sign po
inted ou
t som
e cultu
ral practices th
at neede
d to be reserved
so that th
ere wou
ld-
n´t b
e disa
n´t b
e disagreemen
t. One
was th
at all the cloths sho
uld be
drie
d inside
the ho
use. That you
sho
uldn
´t spit o
n the streets, use
prop
er use of the
garba
ge, use you
r bike correctly, and
that smoking ne
ar windo
ws or hou
ses shou
ld not be allowed
. The
sign
s were written in Eng
lish, Chine
s and Sp
anish. Tho
ugh there is a mixed
pop
ulation, it seems as if th
ere were no
relatio
ns
betw
een them
. The
re are certain cultural sho
cks, bu
t it seems as if everyon
e just accep
ts th
eir n
eigh
bor. It seem
s like the cul-
tures do
not mix at all.
We de
cide
d to head to see La Unión
´s garde
n bu
t we de
cide
d to walk thru 5th Avenu
e. We no
ticed
how
this avenu
e makes
part of the
Business Im
provem
ent D
istrict B
ID, because of all the sign
s hang
ed in th
e be
autiful ligh
ts. The
ligh
ts of the
streets
resemble to be old and they do no
t loo
k like any othe
r lights of th
e ne
ighb
orho
od, m
aking that avenu
e to have a diffe
rent
look and
impo
rtance. It w
ould seem 5th avenu
e is th
e commercial street, and that th
ere are no
t many othe
r places whe
re
that hap
pens rather th
an th
at street.
What sho
cked
us the most in 5th Av
enue
was how
in th
e second
oo
r of every building the windo
ws were shut dow
n with
bricks, w
oods or advertising sign
s. The use of spa
ce of the
secon
d o
or th
roug
h ou
t the
Avenu
e was restricted and useless.
There were a lot o
f peo
ple walking
in th
e streets. Most o
f the
pop
ulation is Latino and Ch
inese; th
ere is hardly any white or
black po
pulatio
n. Many of th
e sign
s are in Spa
nish or C
hine
se, or b
oth. Tho
ugh most o
f the
places are Latin
(and
mostly Mexi-
can) or C
hine
se, the
re are som
e places th
at fu
sion
both cultu
re and
dire
cted
their spa
ce to
both commun
ities.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
320
As we walked thru 5th avenu
e anothe
r building struck us to be a po
ssible designatio
n site. This was an old re gh
ter h
ouse. It
seem
ed like th
ey were no
t using
it at all, but it was in great con
ditio
ns. The
reho
use was in 53rd and 5th aven
ue. In this street m
any
mini m
arkets started
to app
ear. The varie
ty of fruits and
veg
etab
les was im
men
sely and
it respon
ded to th
e cultu
ral diet o
f the
Chi-
nese and
Latinos, tho
ugh most o
f the
m were for the
Latino pu
blic. Tun
as (cactus o
wers), yucca, jalap
eños, w
ere some of th
e vege
-tables we do
not see th
at freq
uently in other New
York mini m
arkets.
Whe
n we go
t to the Sunset Park, we de
cide
d it was im
portant for us to see th
e rst coo
ps th
at every existed
in United States. W
e en
tered the pa
rk and
also saw th
e de
sign
ation sites that are in it (the
poo
l cen
ter and
recreatio
n center). We ad
mire
d the be
autiful
view
, and
noticed
that th
e pa
rk was greatly used by all the mem
bers of the
com
mun
ity, from all ages, gen
der and
race. The
re were
parents with
their kids in th
e playgrou
nd, bikes, tai chi practition
ers, and ba
seba
ll players, pe
ople walking
their d
ogs or just walking
. As we were in th
e pa
rk th
ere was som
ething
beautifu
l of the
place th
at felt that Sun
set P
ark to be more of an authen
tic neigh
bor-
hoo
hood
. The
re weren
´t any to
urist, fashion statem
ents, hipsters, or artsy places or peo
ple. It felt the place was lived by its reside
nt and
that it was alive. It felt there was a sen
se of com
mun
ity. And
as we said before, th
ough
there it feels the Ch
inese and the Latin
o do
no
t mix, the
re is a stron
g sense of com
mun
ity of b
oth of th
e po
pulatio
n.
The bu
ildings of the
Coo
ps are beautifu
l. We had the chance to
talk brie
y to
a white m
othe
r abo
ut her experience in th
e Co
ops.
She had recently m
oved
in recently to
the 40th st. (also called Finlandia street) 7th avenu
e, she
was incred
ible hap
py with
her apa
rt-
men
t. Sh
e had reno
vated it, but was surprisingly conten
t with
the state of th
e who
le building. Tho
ugh throug
h ou
r research it is said
that th
ere is not m
any pe
ople sale the ap
artm
ents in th
e Co
ops and most o
f the
m con
tinue
to be the family m
embe
rs of the
one
s that started
it, w
ith th
e visit w
e no
ticed
there had be
en som
e change
s. As we continue
our walk to la Unión
´s garde
n, we no
ticed
there was ano
ther type
of p
opulation that we had no
t seen as m
uch in
othe
r places: th
e Arab po
pulatio
n. We know
they were Arabs because of the
ir dresses and ob
viou
s cultu
ral traits like th
e hijab. We
stop
ped by a very nice coff
ee sho
p, which had
a differen
t aesthetic in com
parison
to th
e othe
r stores in 5th avenu
e. Troy en
tered
the shop
and
talked
to one
of the
owne
rs. As he
then
told th
e grou
p the ow
ner h
ad said Sunset Park was going
to be the “next W
il-liamsburg bu
t with
out the
dou
cheb
ags”.
We walked do
wn the hill and wen
t on top of part o
f the
cem
etery. As we n
ally got to
the garden
, we were surprised
on ho
w little
it was. It w
as closed and we were no
t able to walk in, but as we looked
throug
h the gates we could see some vege
tables. W
e also ap-
preciated the autumn de
coratio
n they had
in th
e en
trance.
We left Sun
set P
ark by m
etro, Charlie used
his bikes. As we conclude
d ou
r visit we talked
abo
ut som
e im
portant top
ics we shou
ld
do som
e furthe
r investig
ation for the
upcom
ing weeks:
1. Find
more ab
out the
pink ho
use in 51st and
4th Avenu
e. Try to
see if we can n
d who
´s th
e ow
ner and
som
e inform
ation ab
out
the archite
ct and
building.
2. Try to do n
d the same inform
ation to th
e othe
r buildings we saw in 4th avenu
e and the reh
ouse.
3. We want to center in th
e fede
ral designatio
n district, as it seems the waterfron
t is rede
veloping
and
the CB
7 and commun
ity
mem
ber alre
ady have som
ething
thou
ght for th
at area. Also, with
an antecede
nt abo
ut th
e de
sign
ation, we can pick up with
their
Discourse to
con
tinue
or see if we can de
sign
ate a site.
4. Loo
k more ab
out the
Coo
ps; see how
they work no
wad
ays bu
t also ho
w th
ey started
. Try to
use th
eir rhe
toric to
do something
similar as an option of hou
sing
for the
neigh
borhoo
d.
5. Make an interview to
the pe
rson
who
did th
e Fede
ral D
esignatio
n.
321
Limited Equity Cooperatives: What are they: -Affordable, resident controlled housing model-“Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives (LEHCs) are business corporations in which residents share ownership of a building. Co-op members work together to reach mutual goals based on democratic control and decision-making.”1
Advantages of Cooperative Housing: Cooperatives create economic and social benefits: 2
● Security of tenure. By removing the owner or landlord, the residents control their own living environment and gain homeownership opportunity.
● Lower housing costs. Eliminating landlords' rental profits and lowering operating costs through members' contributions to management activities, maintenance and bookkeeping can significantly reduce monthly housing costs.
● Ability to accrue savings. While equity in the housing is limited, the differential between lower monthly charges and market rents allows residents savings that can build other forms of assets.
● Mortgage deductions. Coop members may deduct mortgage interest and property taxes from income taxes like other homeowners.
● Rent subsidies. Cooperative members can qualify for Section 8 rental subsidy to support their monthly housing costs.
● Membership. Cooperative members can build inclusive communities through the process that guides selection of new membership.
● Quality of housing. Cooperative members can initiate property upgrades that would not be possible in private rental housing.
● Long-term affordability. Cooperative members can ensure that their property will remain affordable over time to other low-income people.
● Surrounding neighborhood conditions. Cooperative members can develop, participate in, and allocate funds to local neighborhood improvement projects.
Characteristics: -Shared Ownership-Buy Shares (membership), not property-Share cost and ownership responsibilities-Affordable cost
-price for a share is maintained by a certain formula (limited return on sale of share) - this is one feature that separates LEHCs from market rate cooperatives where memberships can be sold at market rate.-Apartments are taken off the speculative market1
-Operate as non-profits but are not 501(c)(3) certified and therefore not tax exempt (though, legally, cooperatives in general can be non-profit or for-profit)-LEHC units can be concentrated or interspersed among privately owned housing.2
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
322
Structures: Financial Structure- -Affordable Housing Cooperative Financing comes from private banks, local financing, Federal Home Loan Bank, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, federal community block grants3 *** I will look more into the definitions for all of these, possibly to add to our resource list*** -corporation obtains a blanket mortgage* for the initial costs of the property-members can obtain share loans* for financing their particular units-new purchaser may need to obtain a share loan in order to finance the increased value of the selling member's unit2- Social Structure- -Democratic Structure-Elected Board of Directors (Do they always have a Board of Directors? Is this a part of incorporation?)-Cooperative owners live by "Rochdale Principles" developed by the International Cooperative Alliance.2
-Named for the Rochdale Cooperative (business and then housing)-Video about the Rochdale “New Pioneers”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KYPe5xJAm5w4
-Established in Rochdale England 1844-Adopted by the International Co-Operative Alliance:
-1937 as the Rochdale Principles of Co-operation-1966 as the Co-operative Principles (updated version)-1995 as part of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity.
- To read the principles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles5
Examples: - “Some of the best examples of LEHCs occur when apartment building tenants join together to purchase their buildings and share in permanently affordable and democratically controlled home ownership. Renters in a class action lawsuit over the uninhabitable conditions of their Columbia Heights apartments in Washington D.C. reached a settlement to acquire ownership of one building for one dollar. They are forming a limited equity cooperative to formalize resident ownership and make longed-for improvements on the building.”2
323
2
***I need to look into what they mean by Sponsors***
RESOURCES: 1. WeOwn.Net - Site with resources about affordable, resident controlled housing:http://www.weown.net/LimitedEquityCoops.htm 2. Policy Link - National research and action institute advancing economic and social equity:http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137049/k.A9DF/Limited_Equity_Housing_Coop.htm 3. The San Francisco Community Land Trust - History of Housing Coops:http://www.slideshare.net/unochun/history-of-housing-co-ops-presentation-march-1-2012-full-slides 4. New Pioneers - Video about the Rochdale “New Pioneers”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPe5xJAm5wCommissioned for the Rochdale Pioneers Museum and Co-operative Heritage Trust as part of the Co-operative outreach work ongoing in the North West. 5. The Rochdale Principles on Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
324
TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER Mixed-Use Coop Wins Queens & Bronx Building Association Award:http://www.maparchitects.com/pages/pdf/news/Mixed-Use%20Coop%20Wins%20Queens%20&%20Bronx%20Building%20Association%20Award%20080204.pdf http://furmancenter.org/institute/directory/entry/affordable-cooperative-housing-program/ National Association of Housing Cooperativeshttp://www.coophousing.org/DisplayPage.aspx?id=716&bMenu=174&bItem=716
Cooperative Heritage Fund:
http://www.co-op.ac.uk/our-heritage/national-co-operative-archive/support/co-operative-heritage-fund/
Heritage Lottery Fund:
http://www.hlf.org.uk/ourproject/Pages/index.aspx
New Pioneers Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPe5xJAm5w&feature=share
The New Pioneers animation was commissioned for the Rochdale Pioneers Museum and Co-operative Heritage Trust as part of the Co-operative outreach work ongoing in the North West.
325
The reason we are studying and focusing on heritage property is because of the resources available for the acquisition and upkeep of the property. Originally the heritage designation was seen as a detriment to property acquisition, but in reality there are similar if not more benefits associated with the designation, especially in regards to common acquisition and culturally relevant stuff... right? The National Trust for Historic Preservation has a nice take on ‘Preservation’ here
● “It enhances our sense of community and brings us closer together: saving the places where we take our children to school, buy our groceries, and stop for coffee – preserving the stories of ancient cultures found in landmarks and landscapes we visit – protecting the memories of people, places, and events honored in our national monuments.”
FUNDING
● Finding○
● Accessing (specifically Buying/Acquiring)○ New York State office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
■ Environmental Protection Fund’s “Historic Property Acquisition, Preservation and Planning Program”
○ EPF Grant Guidance Doc○ EPF Specific Rules & Regulations
● Property must be on the State or National Register of Historic Places - Sunset Park already is
● “The Historic Preservation application is to be used to improve, protect, preserve, rehabilitate, restore or acquire properties listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places” (highlights added)
● “MATCHING FUND REQUIREMENTS / DEADLINES: Successful applicants are reimbursed for 50% of their eligible expenditures. For projects located in impoverished areas (as defined by 10 percent or more of the population below the poverty level according to most recent Census data), the reimbursement can be up to 75 percent of the project cost. All applicants are expected to raise their share within one year of the award, or risk cancellation of the grant. “
■ FAQs & Workshops Q&A ■ Also Opportunities for Maintaining property
○ NYC Dept of Housing Preservation & Development
■ Financing Tools list● NYC Acquisition Fund explanation
○ loans to developers & NFPs to acquire private property for the construction and preservation of affordable housing in NYC
■ Also opportunities for Maintaining property
● Maintaining○ New York State office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
326
■ Environmental Protection Fund’s “Historic Property Acquisition, Preservation and Planning Program” (mentioned above)
● Can also be used to rehabilitate and restore properties, which is relevant because an organization can have multiple requests/grants open with NYSPRH at a given time
○ New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission■ Historic Preservation Grant Program here
● Grants for homeowners and non-profits to restore severely deteriorated facades
○ Preference for orgs using their own funds along with the grant funds to restore the facade
● application form here○ New York Landmarks Conservancy here
■ City Ventures Fund here● assists NYC NFP orgs, community development orgs, social
services agencies, and other w bricks & mortar funding for low-income housing projects and other efforts
○ $5k-$30k grants can be supplemented by low-interest loans
○ for actual building expenses, i.e. ‘brick & mortar’● Could be used in conjunction with LPC Preservation Grants, no?
■ Historic Properties Fund here● Loans for projects similar to the CVF just above
○ New York State Council for the Arts■ ‘Architecture + Design supports organizations and individuals working to further
innovation and excellence in the design arts, to preserve New York State’s architectural + design heritage and to encourage the development of design literacy for all New Yorkers’
■ Architecture + Design General Support● supports an organization’s ongoing work, supporting activities of
arts & cultural organizations○ no less than $5000, up to 25% of an organization’s budget
■ Architecture + Design Independent Projects● ‘Independent Projects allow for individuals (or a team) to explore
creatively or to research an issue or problem in architecture, design and/or historic preservation which advances that field and contributes to the public’s understanding of design. The category seeks projects that are innovative in nature and emphasize artistry and design excellence.’
● Not for organizations but rather arch + design related professionals looking to do a project
○ full amount of project up to $10,000○ The National Trust for Historic Preservation here
■ National Trust Preservation Fund here● Seed money for preservation projects towards planning, education
& outreach
327
● small $2500 - $5000 grants to catalyze communities into action around preservation
○ must match grant dollar-for-dollar funds■
○ New York Community Trust here
■ Community Development and the Environment here● preserving low-income housing, etc.
■ Art, Education, and Human Justice here● Historic preservation in low-income neighborhoods
○ Preservation League of New York State grants
○ New York State Homes & Community Renewal Agency
■ NYS Affordable Housing Corporation’s ● Affordable Homeownership Development Program here
○ Eligibility: NFPs that have affordable housing or home-improvement as one of their primary purposes
■ used for developing affordable housing or assisting homeowners in funding necessary repairs
■ Grants for up to $35,000 per unit for projects serving individuals or families who generally earn btw 100% and 166% of the HUD Low Income Limits (~$17,430 for 1 person)
● All Affordable Program here○ for the preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable
multifamily rental housing■
Is there funding for... ...asbestos remediation?
● 3 Toledo, OH Historic buildings received $200,000 each○ The money is from the state's Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund, part of $1.8
million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The brownfield fund, administered by the Ohio Department of Development's Urban Development Division, offers below-market rate loans and grants to help cities return the sites to a productive economic use.
… From where?
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
328
1. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - hud.gov
a. Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant, stage 2 for existing buildingsb. Hope VI
2. US Environmental Protection Agency - epa.gova. Brownfields Grant Programs here
i. Brownfields Cleanup Grant here up to $200k 1. require 20% cost share but can be waived on account of hardship
b. … acquisition?
1. NYC Acquisition Funda. here
… historical preservation specifically?
1. National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation herea. “This guide is a clearinghouse of information on Federal historic preservation
support, and also touches upon State, tribal, local, and nonprofit funding sources.”
2. NYS Parks for places on the National Register of Historic Placesi. Preservation Assistance webpage
1. and the list of Funding Sourcesb. Historic Preservation Program in the Environmental Protection Fund
i. up to 50% reimbursement for very relevant places - low-income, minority, women owned/led, etc.
1. FAQs & Workshop Q&A are helpful, talk about much, such as a focus on ‘Green’, broadly, and community/cultural importance
3. NYS Council on the Artsa. funding for building condition studies
i. Architecture + Design Grantii. Independent Arch + Design grant → HISTORIC PRES SPECIFICALLY
4. New York Landmarks Conservancya. Emergency Loan Program provides immediate funding for exterior and structural
repairs at small New York City historic properties in dire needi. $2.5k - $25kii. could be eligible but sounds like more for places in good condition that
need quick repairs in response to somethingb. The City Ventures Fund assists NYC NFP orgs, community development orfs,
social services agencies, and other w bricks & mortar funding for low-income housing projects and other efforts
i. $5k-$30k grants can be supplemented by low-interest loansii. for actual building expenses, i.e. ‘brick & mortar’
c. Historic Properties Fund give low interest loans and technical help to historic property owners/ in districts
329
HERITAGE DESIGNATION: Our research is a work in progressWe think there are 3 steps of ?something? *visual of this*
1. Finding Space2. Access to space
a. Ownershipb. Leasec. Use
3. Maintaining Access Example: your home - finding a place to live Heritage Designation as a Tool
● What is heritage designation?○ Heritage designation provides protection of a place that possesses cultural value
● Heritage designation can help with all three steps of this process, but we have
found the most information on ‘maintaining access’○ this is very important because it pertains to the longevity of the access, moving
beyond the short term of finding and gaining access○ Heritage Designation is a process that requires time, effort, and resources
● Why is heritage designation relevant to Sunset Park & La Union?
○ Because Sunset Park is already designated on the National Register of Historic Places it provides access to various funding opportunities
■ Grants● Acquisition: NYC Acquisition Fund
○ here●
■ Easements■ Tax incentives■ Technical Assistance
● What is historically relevant about Sunset Park?
○ Sunset Park’s history is relevant because of the social, cultural, and economic characteristics that have defined it as a neighborhood
■ SP has always had a diverse, immigrant, working class population■ SP population is intimately connected to the industrial and maritime
identity of the waterfront■ Visual connection to the Statue of Liberty and Manhattan■ Architecturally characteristic of working class, affordable housing■ Early instances of alternative, communal property tenure
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
330
● Co-operative housing is the pooling of resources to access and maintain property
● Partial ownership as a stakeholder in a shared property○ How compelling!
■ What else do we do with this little gem? ● “In addition to Sunset Park’s identity as a neighborhood being a
compelling case for heritage designation it can also be used to unite the community and give them access to other things …”
Historical designation provides an element of protection to an entire district,
● Where do we talk about the ‘Breadth of the Case’ from the board?○
Sunset Park has a compelling history It is relevant because it can be used as both a
331
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
GRANT PROGRAM under the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1993
HERITAGE AREAS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING PROGRAM
APPLICATION and INSTRUCTIONS
Application Deadline: September 1, 2011
State of New York Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Rose Harvey, Commissioner
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
332
- 2 -
CONTENTS
Page General Program Information 3-8
OPRHP Regional Grants Administrators 4 Application Questions and Answers 5-7 Grant Selection Criteria 8
Instructions 9-17
Instructions for Application Forms 9-13 Sample Part C 14 Instructions for Additional Information 16-17
Application Forms 18-22
Application forms, resource materials and other useful documents can be found at www.nysparks.com under Grants. Application forms are also available from Regional Grants Administrators (RGAs—see list on page 4), and from the Albany Grants Bureau. For general questions regarding this grant program, please call your RGA. All potential applicants are encouraged to attend pre-application workshops, which will be held at several locations around the State to explain the process and answer your questions. For the workshop schedule, please check the OPRHP website www.nysparks.com, Grants, Calendar, or call your RGA.
Applications must be postmarked or received in the appropriate regional office no later than close of business September 1, 2011.
Incomplete or illegible applications will NOT be considered for funding.
This is the application for Heritage Areas System Development and Planning Grants.
333
- 3 -
OPRHP Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) Grants Available Applications
Funding is available under Title 9 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1993 for the acquisition, planning, development, and improvement of parks, historic properties, and heritage areas. Municipalities and not-for-profit organizations with an ownership interest in the property are eligible to apply.
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is soliciting grant applications for the following grant programs:
• Park Development and Planning Program - for the development of parks and recreational facilities to preserve, rehabilitate or restore lands, waters or structures for park, recreation or conservation purposes and for structural assessments or planning for such projects. Examples of eligible projects include: playgrounds, courts, rinks, community gardens, and facilities for swimming, boating, picnicking, hunting, fishing, camping or other recreational activities.
• Acquisition Program - for the acquisition of a permanent easement or fee title to lands, waters or structures for park, recreation, conservation or historic preservation purposes and for projects identified in a local heritage area management plan. Some examples of eligible projects include: acquisition of open space for conservation, recreation, or to protect the setting of a property listed on the State or National Register, long-term lease of land for a community garden, and the purchase of a façade easement.
• Historic Property Preservation and Planning Program - to improve, protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore properties listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places and for structural assessments or planning for such projects. Properties not currently listed but are scheduled for nomination review at the State Review Board meeting of October 19, 2011, are eligible to apply for funding. Questions about or proposals for listing on the State or National Register should be directed to the National Register Unit at (518) 237-8643.
• Heritage Areas System Development and Planning Program - for projects to preserve, rehabilitate or restore lands, waters or structures, identified in the approved management plans for Heritage Areas designated under section 33.01 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law and for structural assessments or planning for such projects. The designated Heritage Areas with approved Management Plans are listed below. For exact Heritage Area boundaries, contact the Heritage Area or call (518) 473-7787. * Albany * Harbor Park (NYC) * Sackets Harbor * Seneca Falls * Buffalo * Ossining * Schenectady * Syracuse * Kingston * Rochester * Saratoga Springs * Whitehall * Hudson-Mohawk (Cohoes, Colonie, Green Island, Troy, Waterford Town/Village, Watervliet) * Lake Erie Concord Grape Belt (portions of Chautauqua Co.) * Long Island North Shore Heritage Area (Nassau and Suffolk Cos. north of Rte. 25/I-495) * Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor (Oneida, Herkimer, Montgomery, Fulton,
Schenectady, Schoharie, Saratoga, and Albany Counties, excluding Adirondack Park) * Susquehanna (Broome and Tioga Cos.) * Western Erie Canal Heritage Corridor (Erie, Niagara, Orleans, Monroe and Wayne Cos.)
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
334
- 4 -
Regional Grants Administrators (RGAs)
For general questions regarding this grant program, please call your Regional Grants Administrator (RGA).
Albany Grants Bureau NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Grants Management Bureau Empire State Plaza, Agency One Albany, NY 12238 (518) 474-0427
For applications within the Catskill and Adirondack Parks Allegany Region Lynn LeFeber Allegany State Park ASP Rte 1, Salamanca, NY 14779 (716) 354-9101, FAX (716) 354-2255
COUNTIES: Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua
Central Region Jean Egenhofer Clark Reservation Jamesville, NY 13078-9516 (315) 492-1756, FAX (315) 492-3277
COUNTIES: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Herkimer, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, and Otsego
Finger Lakes Region Laurie Moore 2221 Taughannock Park Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 (607) 387-7041, FAX (607) 387-3390
COUNTIES: Cayuga, Chemung, Ontario, Seneca, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins, Wayne and Yates
Genesee Region Karen Ferguson Letchworth State Park Castile, NY 14427-1124 (585) 493-3613, FAX (585) 493-5272
COUNTIES: Genesee, Livingston Monroe, Orleans, and Wyoming
Long Island Region Traci Christian Belmont Lake State Park PO Box 247 Babylon, NY 11702 (631) 321-3543, FAX (631) 321-3721
COUNTIES: Nassau and Suffolk
Niagara Region Noelle Kardos Niagara Reservation State Park PO Box 1132 Niagara Falls, NY 14303-0132 (716) 278-1761, FAX (716) 278-1744
COUNTIES: Erie and Niagara New York City Region Merrill Hesch NYS OPRHP Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. State Office Building 163 West 125th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10027 (212) 866-2599, FAX (212) 866-3186
COUNTIES: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens and Richmond
Palisades and Taconic Regions Erin O’Neil NYS OPRHP Taconic Regional Office 9 Old Post Road Staatsburg, NY 12580 (845) 889-3866, FAX (845) 889-8321
COUNTIES: Orange, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster Columbia, Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester
Saratoga/Capital District Region Cathy Jepson Saratoga Spa State Park 19 Roosevelt Drive Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-6214 (518) 584-2000, FAX (518) 584-5694
COUNTIES: Albany, Essex, Fulton, Greene, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren and Washington
Thousand Islands Region Gayle Underhill-Plumb Keewaydin State Park Alexandria Bay, NY 13607 (315) 482-2593, FAX (315) 482-9413
COUNTIES: Clinton, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence
335
- 5 -
APPLICATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WHO MAY APPLY? Municipalities, State agencies, public benefit corporations, public authorities and not-for-profit corporations with an ownership interest in the property may apply. Such an interest may be outright ownership (fee simple) or a lesser interest, such as development rights, an easement, or a long-term lease of duration equal to the period of OPRHP’s oversight of the project. All parties with an ownership interest in the property, including lien holders, will be required to sign the project agreement. All lien holders must subordinate their interests to those of the State. Not-for-profit corporations are subject to New York State's Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. In order to apply under this program, a not-for-profit corporation must have a proof of incorporation (or equivalent document) from the NYS Department of State or NYS Board of Regents, a charities registration number from the Office of the Attorney General, and proof of tax-exempt status under the IRS code. Copies of these documents must be submitted with the application.
HOW ARE GRANTS SELECTED FOR AWARD? Each application will be reviewed for eligibility and, if determined eligible, will be rated according to the Grant Selection Criteria (see page 8). Within each region, applications are ranked according to project category, competing only against others in their region and category.
WHAT ARE THIS YEAR’S FUNDING PRIORITIES? Commissioner Harvey has identified the following priorities for Heritage Areas System funding:
• Projects recommended by the regional economic development councils or aligned with regional strategic priorities.
• “Green” improvements that restore, improve and maintain heritage area resources and infrastructure and in doing so promote sustainability, increase energy conservation and/or efficiency, and/or decrease long term maintenance and management costs.
• Special features and/or signage to improve access, programming and interpretation of the heritage area and its natural, cultural and/or historic resources.
• Projects, including landscape and trail improvements, that enhance the public’s access and attraction to significant heritage area resources.
HOW DO I DECIDE WHICH APPLICATION TO USE? There are four application packages available, depending on the type of project proposed. It is suggested that you consider the eligibility and rating criteria for all four programs before deciding which application to use. To view all the applications and rating criteria, go to www.nysparks.com under Grants.
WHEN IS THE APPLICATION DUE, AND WHERE? Three full sets of the application must be postmarked by or received in the appropriate regional office (alternatively, in the case of Catskill and Adirondack Park projects, in the Albany Grants Bureau) no later than close of business on September 1, 2011. Incomplete or illegible applications will not be considered for funding.
WHAT IS MY FIRST STEP? Online registration is required. Go to www.nysparks.com under Grants to complete the registration process. Print your confirmation (Part A of the application) and attach to your
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
336
- 6 -
application. If there are changes between the time of registration and submitting the application, please make handwritten corrections on the confirmation pages submitted with the application.
IS THERE A MAXIMUM GRANT OR A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF GRANTS? There is no statutory limit on the number of grants one property or one applicant may receive. This year, the Commissioner has established a cap of $400,000.
ARE THESE MATCHING GRANTS? Yes. Assistance toward the cost of projects shall not exceed 50% of the approved project cost. Applicants whose projects are located in zip codes with poverty rates of 10% or more can apply for up to 75% of the cost of the project. To view state poverty data, go to www.nysparks.com, Grants, Forms & Resources. After the grant award is made, the funding amount will not be adjusted upward.
WHAT TYPES OF APPLICANT SHARE ARE ELIGIBLE? The applicant's share (also referred to as matching share or, simply, match) includes all funds, other than the grant amount, related to the project and fully documented. The applicant's share may include cash and/or the value of force account labor, real property, professional services, volunteer labor, equipment, supplies and materials.
WHEN MUST MY SHARE BE AVAILABLE? Successful applicants are expected to raise their full share within one year of the grant award. Professional services and materials purchased or donated (and warehoused, not installed) up to three years prior to the application deadline may be applied toward the matching share, as may acquisition costs retroactive up to one year prior to the application deadline.
ARE THERE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS? Yes. Our agency is committed to programs of Affirmative Action. Your RGA will assist you in undertaking Affirmative Action initiatives as you plan your project. Article 15A of the Executive Law pertains to Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises (MWBE)/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). Grant recipients will be required to solicit MWBEs before commencing work and document their efforts involving MWBEs during the project term.
ARE THERE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS? Yes. Before any action to award grants, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) must be met. Specific requirements for SEQR, including the designation of lead agency and classification of actions, can be found on pages 16-17.
ARE THERE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS? For projects that involve properties listed on or eligible for the State and/or National Register, all work undertaken as part of a grant-assisted project must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
WHEN ARE THE GRANT MONIES AVAILABLE? These are reimbursement grants. Once the project agreement is formally approved and conditions met, grant recipients must document project expenditures in order to receive reimbursement [i.e., document 100% of costs to receive up to 50% reimbursement or up to 75%
337
- 7 -
reimbursement for selected high-poverty grants]. Grant recipients must plan their financial arrangements accordingly. An advance of up to 25% of the grant amount may be available.
ARE THERE FISCAL REQUIREMENTS? Project costs will be eligible for reimbursement only if grant work meets State standards and the expenditures are made in compliance with State requirements. Municipalities must comply with General Municipal Law Sections 103 (competitive bidding) and 104-b (procurement policies and procedures). Not-for-profit corporations must follow procurement policies that ensure prudent and economical use of public money (GML Section 440.10). Expenditures that do not meet these standards (including retroactive services and purchases) should not be included in the grant budget.
WHEN CAN I START WORK? Work completed prior to award is not generally eligible for reimbursement or for match (retroactivity exceptions are noted above). Successful applicants are advised NOT to begin work until a project agreement (including a budget, scope of work and performance timeline) has been formalized between OPRHP and the grant recipient and OPRHP has issued all necessary approvals. Conditions of award will include environmental and historic preservation review, OPRHP approval of plans and specifications and bidding documents, competitive bidding, solicitation of MWBEs, etc. Proceeding without advance OPRHP approval could jeopardize grant reimbursement.
WHEN MUST WORK BE ACCOMPLISHED? All projects must be completed within five years from date of award. OPRHP will monitor the progress of project work and will recapture awarded funds if significant progress is not made.
DO THESE GRANTS COME WITH PROVISIONS FOR LONG TERM PROTECTION? Yes. All successful applicants will be required to enter into formal project agreements. Other legal documents that will ensure the long term protection of the property and restrict changes in the use of the property may also be required. Any work involving an historic resource will require that a preservation covenant be conveyed to OPRHP. Any not-for-profit corporation undertaking a park development project will be required to convey a public access covenant to OPRHP. Any not-for-profit acquiring land for recreation or conservation purposes must grant the State a permanent conservation easement to the property.
WHAT OTHER REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET? All projects will need to comply with the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State Labor Law, Workers' Compensation Law and State Historic Preservation Law. Please contact your RGA for information on how these and other applicable statutes may impact your project.
ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THE SAME AS PRIOR YEARS’? No changes have been made since the 2008 amendments, which, among other changes, permitted federal funds as match, provided for 75% grants in high-poverty areas and allowed for stand-alone grants for project planning and structural assessments. The complete text of OPRHP’s EPF regulations can be found at 9 NYCRR Parts 439-443.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
338
- 8 -
HERITAGE AREAS SYSTEM GRANT SELECTION CRITERIA The Heritage Areas System Development and Planning Grant applications will be rated according to the following criteria. A successful proposal is not expected to meet all of these criteria.
• Relative Financial Status (up to 15 points) – based on poverty by zip code (0-10) and population density by Minor Civil Division (0-5) of the area impacted by the project.
• Program Impact (up to 50 points) • Project addresses the needs of the project site/area (0-10) • Project addresses current Heritage Area programs and priorities.(0-10) • Project addresses Heritage Area goals of preservation/conservation
education/interpretation, recreation, and economic revitalization (0-20) • Community Impact (0-10)
• Planning (up to 10 points) – Project is consistent with documented plans for the state, region, and community and demonstrates community support.
• Project Emphasis (up to 15 points) – Project addresses the Commissioner’s priorities: • Projects recommended by the regional economic development councils or aligned with
regional strategic priorities.
• “Green” improvements that restore, improve and maintain heritage area resources and infrastructure and in doing so promote sustainability, increase energy conservation and/or efficiency, and/or decrease long term maintenance and management costs.
• Special features and/or signage to improve access, programming and interpretation of the heritage area and its natural, cultural and/or historic resources.
• Projects, including landscape and trail improvements, that enhance the public’s access and attraction to significant heritage area resources.
• Reasonableness of cost (up to 35 points) – Project planning, administrative structures and budget demonstrate fiscal prudence and readiness to proceed.
MAXIMUM POINTS 125 Additional Considerations: • Regional Assessment (10 points for each region) – Project meets regional needs, by
comparison with other Heritage Areas System applications received within a region.
• Statewide Assessment (10 points) – Project addresses needs of the statewide Heritage Areas system, with special consideration to
• the geographic distribution of other fundable projects in any given application cycle • the extent to which the project will maximize the use and accessibility of a facility • special engineering, environmental and historic preservation concerns or benefits • the past performance, if any, of the project sponsor on previous projects, including its
compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity and Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise programs
• Hudson River Valley Greenway Compact Community (5% bonus)
339
- 9 -
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS A complete application will include the following (THREE copies): APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A. – GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION (copy of online confirmation) PART B. – PROJECT NARRATIVE (no more than 1500 words or 5 pages) PART C. – PROJECT SCHEDULE: SCOPE, BUDGET AND TIMEFRAME PART D. – APPLICANT SHARE AND SOURCES ATTACHMENTS AS DESCRIBED BELOW Required attachments are noted in italics.
Format: Please submit an ORIGINAL (i.e., with original signatures), marked as Original, and TWO COMPLETE COPIES of the application packet. Fasten each copy with a binder clip (or other easily removable device). In the interest of resource conservation, please do not use bulky bindings, dividers, plastic sleeves, etc. Each page of the application should be labeled in the upper right corner with project name, location, application part, and page number.
To the extent possible, all attachments should be no larger than 8½" x 11" format, cross-referenced to the specific application part, and labeled using the following convention: the first page of Part B Project Narrative will be marked B, page 1, etc. ; the first attachment referenced in Part B will be marked Attachment B1, the second B2, etc. Citations in the application form should be annotated accordingly. [For example: “The Plan for City Parks (Attachment B4) suggests …”]
PART A: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION (Complete Part A via online registration at www.nysparks.com; submit copy of printed confirmation)
Applicant: Provide the full official name of the applicant organization. Not-for-profit corporations must include their Federal Employer ID and New York State Charities Registration numbers and attach a copy (1) a letter from the IRS confirming tax-exempt status, and (2) proof of incorporation, i.e., a copy of one of the following: certificate of incorporation stamped by the NYS Department of State, certificate of incorporation issued by the NYS Board of Regents, charter issued by the NYS Board of Regents, or (for out-of-state corporations) application for Authority approved by the NYS Department of State.
Project: Description should be a brief phrase to indicate the type of work being done. Location should indicate the facility, site or property where work will be performed. If the property is listed on the State or National Register, use the official name under which it is registered (the popular name may be shown in parentheses). If the property is also designated under a local preservation ordinance, complete Local Historic Designation with the name under which it is designated and attach evidence of local designation. Minor Civil Division should indicate the city, incorporated village, or (if the location is not in a city or incorporated village) town, as opposed to the postal address.
Total Project Cost/Grant Request: Provide the total project cost (including matching share) and the grant amount being requested, as detailed in Part C.
Legislative Districts: List the NYS Senate, NYS Assembly, and Congressional District of the project location.
Authorized Official: This is the person who should receive official notification about decisions regarding this application.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
340
- 10 -
Contact: This is the person who should be contacted during regular business hours for additional information or questions about this application and project.
PART B: PROJECT NARRATIVE
Format: The Project Narrative may be up to 5 pages (1500 words), each page labeled in the upper right hand corner with Project Name, Location, Part and Page number.
Use the boldface headings shown below to structure the narrative.
Required attachments are noted in italics; additional attachments may be included, as appropriate to illustrate the narrative. Attachments referenced in the narrative should be numbered in the order cited and labeled accordingly. [Example: “The Homeplace property was acquired by the Home Historical Society in 1975 (see deed, attachment B-4), then leased to the Hometown School District (see lease, B-5) for thirty years.”]
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Provide a brief (no more than 150 words) summary of the project, including who you are, the name and significance of the site/property, what work you are proposing, and the resulting public benefit upon completion of the project.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Describe the property, site or facility that is the subject of the grant proposal. Identify the property ownership and any restrictions affecting the property. Provide ownership documentation. Note if there are any restrictions on the use of the property, such as zoning limitations, utility rights-of-way, easements, covenants and grant obligations. Attach documentation (e.g., Title Policy Schedule B). If all or part of a park facility is being disposed of or used for other than public park purposes, attach legislation authorizing the alienation. If this application is from a partner group proposing to undertake work in a State Park or Historic Site, provide documentation of the affiliation AND a letter of support for the project from the facility manager.
Summarize existing conditions affecting the property, including any deficiencies or threats to the property or any special situations or mandates that must be addressed. Provide clear color photograph(s) and site plan(s) of the facilities/areas of project impact.
Describe the type of project and work proposed for grant funding. If the grant proposal is part of a larger project, describe the complete project and identify the portion proposed for current grant funding. If this grant proposal is for a planning project other than the preparation of contract documents (plans and specifications), identify in detail the components of the final product (submit a draft table of contents or equivalent document).
Describe the previous, current and proposed uses of the property, site or facility, including how the project will be operated and maintained. Identify any resources, such as endowments or sources of income, which will be used to maintain and preserve the property in future.
Describe steps taken to identify historic and/or archeological resources that may be impacted by the project and to assure that there is no adverse impact to significant resources. Identify any structures over 50 years old in the project area, explain their significance, and describe how they will be affected by the project.
341
- 11 -
PROGRAM IMPACT
Describe how the proposed project addresses the needs of the property, site, and community and the current needs, priorities and programs of the Heritage Area. If there has been public participation in project planning, provide written documentation.
Describe how the project addresses Heritage Area goals:
• Preservation/Conservation: preserves, restores or enhances resources • Education/Interpretation: increases appreciation/understanding of heritage goals or
interpretive themes • Recreation: provides new or enhanced recreational and leisure opportunities to visitors and
users • Economic Revitalization: contributes to the local economy and established economic
development plans
Explain the impact of the project in the community. Consider any significant economic stimulus, community renewal, local revenue generation, visual appeal, or any other impact.
PROJECT EMPHASIS
Describe the public benefit that will result from completion of the project. Show why the State should participate in the cost of the project. Document how the project meets the Commissioner's funding priorities for 2011, listed on page 8.
PLANNING
Describe local planning efforts specific to this project and how public and community support was accomplished through community participation and/or public outreach. Provide written documentation (e.g., press releases, reports of public meetings, etc.). Provide copies of official project endorsements, partnerships and letters of support. Explain how the project relates to and is consistent with the Heritage Area Management Plan. Provide a letter of endorsement from the Heritage Area Director and highlighted copies of relevant pages of the Management Plan. Explain how the project addresses needs or goals identified in planning documents, needs assessments or policy directives at the local, regional, statewide or national level. Provide highlighted copies of relevant sections of planning/program documents. If the project site has received honors or official designation, so note and attach documentation. For local landmark designation, note whether the local government is a CLG.
REASONABLENESS OF COST
Describe who, what, when and how the project will be accomplished, addressing all work items and expenditures listed in Part C: Project Schedule.
Describe the administrative structures in place to administer the requested grant. Identify individuals who will be responsible for specific tasks such as contract and grants administration, fiscal accounting, and project management; include relationship to the applicant, relevant experience and background of all parties. Describe how the applicant will monitor expenditures during the life of the project to ensure that the project stays on/within budget. List and describe projects of similar scale and/or scope currently underway or previously completed. For acquisition proposals, list and describe other properties successfully purchased and maintained.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
342
- 12 -
Explain the qualifications of managers and professionals working on the project. For those already hired, attach resumes and document the procurement process. For future hires, describe qualifications sought and procurement/hiring method. Describe project status: steps already completed, next steps, and any obstacles to proceeding. Identify (and attach, as appropriate) any research, planning or design documents previously completed for this project, and note if those documents have previously been submitted to and/or approved by OPRHP. If permits are required, identify the permitting agency and the status of the permit applications, with relevant dates. If the project includes acquisition, attach evidence of the seller’s intent to sell. Explain the strategy and resources for going forward after the project is complete; that is, for implementing grant-funded plans, developing and using grant-funded acquisitions, and maintaining grant-funded improvements.
Explain the basis, date, and/or source for estimated costs and timetables included in Part C. For Planning budgets involving just the preparation of plans and specs, provide at least two professional estimates for construction costs or submitted construction bids to justify the proposed consultant costs. For other planning projects (condition studies, etc.) submit justification for consultant costs. The timeline should indentify interim tasks and/or products that will be generated in addition to the date/time necessary to complete the project. Identify the person(s) responsible for compiling the budget; include relevant experience and background of all parties. Budget should be accurate and thorough with no extraneous or ineligible expenses.
Describe the source, type, amount and status of all matching funds, and summarize in Part D: Applicant Share. (For definitions, see instructions to Part D.) Describe any restrictions, such as endowments or grants that can only be used for specific purposes. Describe the overall fundraising strategy for the project, including how much match is on hand at this time, how much is committed, and how the balance will be obtained.
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY GREENWAY SYSTEM
Note if the proposed project is located within a Hudson River Valley Greenway Compact Community. For information, consult the map posted at www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us or contact the Greenway at (518) 473-3835 or [email protected].
PART C: PROJECT SCHEDULE
Provide a detailed scope for the project broken down into general construction specification categories. For each scope element, provide the completion timeframe (calculated in months from the start of the project) and the estimated costs associated with that component. Include only costs that are directly related to and necessary for the project as described in the narrative. Extraneous expenses, such as “contingencies” will not be accepted. Sources and/or basis for cost and time estimates should be in the project narrative or in annotations to this project schedule. If work will take place at more than one site, please provide separate budgets for each site.
Eligible categories and their components are: PRE-DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN Design Fees and other Professional Fees are allowed for the preparation of construction documents and to satisfy other pre-construction requirements. Pre-development costs must be incurred during the project term or in the three years prior to the application deadline. Consultant contracts in excess of $25,000 must be awarded on a competitive basis. If you use a consultant selected on a non-competitive basis, the cost of that contract will not be eligible for
343
- 13 -
grant reimbursement. In general, pre-development costs should not exceed fifteen percent of the construction costs.
Archeology includes field work, report writing, curation of artifacts and interpretation. If your project includes any ground-disturbing activity (e.g., trenching, grading, demolition, new construction, etc.), it is very likely that an archeological survey will be required, unless you can provide adequate documentation of prior ground disturbance. Your budget should take into account the need for an archeological survey. Contact your regional grants administrator to determine the need and anticipated costs for archeology.
CONSTRUCTION Include only work items related to this grant application.
ACQUISITION Provide a breakdown for each parcel showing the type of interest acquired (fee simple, lease, easement, etc.) and method of acquisition (purchase, donation or transferred from another use), number of acres and estimated fair market value of the parcel(s) as determined by a qualified appraiser. A written estimate of value (windshield appraisal/market valuation) for each parcel must be included. Include the value of any land that will be acquired through donation to the project or converted from other purposes. Acquisition costs must be incurred during the project term or up to one year prior to the application deadline. If a grant is awarded, the value of each parcel must be established by a full, self-contained appraisal, the standards for which can be found at www.nysparks.com (under Grants, click on Forms & Resources). For any parcel valued at $300,000 or more, two full, self-contained appraisal reports are required.
Associated acquisition costs should also be included under this category. Eligible items include: the cost of appraisals, surveys, title search, legal fees, title insurance (required for this grant) and, where a conservation easement is required, the cost of title continuation and recordation.
ADMINISTRATION Construction Supervision costs are those associated with the coordination, supervision and scheduling of work and may be provided by a qualified member of the applicant's staff, the design professional who prepared the construction documents, or a clerk of the works.
Grant Administration costs include expenses associated with administering the grant after it is awarded, such as preparing the project agreement, affirmative action, MWBE, and payment request documentation. The cost of preparing this application is NOT eligible. In general, these costs should not exceed ten percent of the grant amount.
Procurement Costs include costs for assuring competitive pricing, such as costs for distributing Requests for Proposals and for public advertising for bids, including the cost of advertising in specialty publications, such as minority newspapers and appropriate construction publications.
Audit: Upon completion of the project, an independent audit performed by a Certified Public Accountant is required for all projects. Prior to final reimbursement, the audit must be submitted to and approved by OPRHP.
Project Sign: All grant-funded projects must have a project sign noting the funding assistance. Signs are available for purchase through the State for approximately $120.
See PART C SAMPLE on the following page.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
344
SAMPLE PART C _Sample Park, Sample Town
Project Name and Location
Part C Page ____1_____
- 14 -
PROJECT SCHEDULE Scope, Budget and Timeframe
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Component *Completion Cost Design fees Month 0-9 $90,000 Archeology Month 0-2 $10,000 Subtotal: $100,000 CONSTRUCTION
Excavation, site prep and grading Month 12-14 $160,000 Site utilities Month 14-16 $65,000 Pathways, sidewalks, paving, fencing Month 15-18 $120,000 Maintenance building and restroom Month 16-22 $375,000 Play equipment Month 20-22 $420,000 Site furnishings Month 20-22 $110,000 Landscaping Month 22-24 $120,000 Subtotal: $1,370,0000 ACQUISITION
(Include the value of any property that will be donated or transferred from another use) Circle/highlight one: donated purchased converted from other purpose 10 acres, former town garage, valued at February, 2011 $285,000 Associated Costs: appraisals, survey, legal fees $15,000
Subtotal: $300,000 ADMINISTRATION
Grant Administration Month 1-24 $30,000
Site Supervision Month 1-24 $90,000 CPA Audit Report Month 24 $5,000 Project Sign Month 1 $120 Subtotal: $125,120
Total Project Cost: $1,895,120 Grant Request: $400,000 *calculated in months from start of project
345
- 15 -
PART D: APPLICANT SHARE Applicant share may derive from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to, State and Federal grants, municipal support, applicant operating budgets, and private sector donations. For FUNDS COMMITTED OR IN-HAND, identify each funding source by amount, name, type, date available (if on hand, so state; if pledged, give date receivable), and any restrictions on use (such as, endowment for specific building). For FUNDS REQUESTED FROM OTHER SOURCES (but not yet committed), identify each funding source by amount, name, type, date available, status of request, and dates funds are expected, and any restrictions on use (such as, a grant for design services only). Principal types of applicant share are: • Cash: Includes grants other than this grant request. • Force Account: (Payroll of applicant): Itemize according to job title or job assignment (on
project). At the time of the reimbursement request, grant recipients will be required to document time worked, tasks, pay ratio and payment (including components and percentage of fringe benefit rate).
• Professional Services: The value of services provided by professional and technical personnel and consultants. Three-year retroactivity applies.
• Supplies and Materials: The current market value of items warehoused (not yet installed). Three-year retroactivity applies; use value current at time items were obtained.
• Volunteer Labor: Skilled and professional labor can be computed at the job rate. Unskilled labor and work performed by professionals or skilled laborers in an area outside of their area of expertise must be computed at the minimum wage. (For example, a lawyer donating legal services may compute the value based on the standard billing rate, but the same lawyer donating time painting walls must calculate the value using minimum wage).
• Equipment Usage: Compute the value according to its fair market rental value in project location.
• Real Property: The value of all property acquired, donated or converted from other purposes should be included in the project schedule. One year retroactivity applies to all three categories. • Owned by the applicant and converted from other purposes. Value of such property
may be included under the EPF budget, provided it has not been previously designated as parkland or otherwise used for purposes related to this project.
• Donated - must be after September 1, 2010 • Acquired - must be after September 1, 2010
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
346
- 16 -
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIRED INFORMATION Each of the THREE copies of the application must include the following attachments: OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTATION Provide a clear and legible copy of the current recorded deed to the property, showing Liber and Page number or electronic filing number of recording. In addition, if the applicant has less than fee simple ownership in the property, a clear and legible copy of the documentation showing such interest in the property (i.e., lease, management agreement, etc.) must be provided. If there are any restrictions on the use or ownership of the property, provide documentation of such liens or restrictions (i.e. Title Policy Schedule B). If acquisition is proposed describe the status of purchase negotiations and document the owner’s intent to sell (signed purchase contract, option agreement, or letter of intent). MAP Submit a 1:24,000 scale USGS or DOT planimetric map with the subject property circled. An 8½” x 11” section, copy, or printout is acceptable, so long as it shows at least 1:24,000 scale and is clearly marked as to scale and source, including Quad Name and/or Code. Go to the NYS GIS Clearinghouse www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/quads/ for downloadable, printable maps. PHOTOS Provide images (photographs or digital print-outs; photocopies are not acceptable substitutes) showing the overall project area and documenting existing conditions. Include photos of any structures more than 50 years old within, or immediately adjacent to, the project area. Provide views to these features from the project site, as well as views of the project site from them. Key all images to a schematic site plan (see below). SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN Provide a plan and/or elevations that depict the project site and its immediate surroundings, identifying both existing conditions and proposed project elements as described in the project narrative. PROJECT-SPECIFIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS Provide complete copies of documents in support of the project narrative, or a link if posted online. LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS Provide highlighted excerpts of the Heritage Area Management Plan and other local, regional and statewide planning documents in support of the project narrative. HERITAGE AREA ENDORSEMENT Provide a written endorsement of the project from the local Heritage Area Director or Advisory Commission. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT COMPLIANCE (SEQR) NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS: Complete the Environmental Review Form available online at www.nysparks.com, Grants, Forms & Resources. Also include with your application clear drawings, maps, or plans of existing and proposed natural and man-made conditions on the site and the areas immediately adjacent to the site. MUNICIPALITIES: The municipality will be SEQR lead agency if OPRHP is the only other agency involved, or will be responsible for initiating lead agency designation procedures if there
347
- 17 -
are other involved agencies (e.g., the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) via a required permit). The lead agency is required to classify projects under SEQR as follows: If your project is Type II, it is not subject to SEQR. If this is the case, provide a statement as to the classification of your project and the reason. If any permits are required, list them in your statement. If your project is subject to SEQR, consult SEQR regulations to determine if it is classified Unlisted or Type I. If it is Unlisted, submit a completed short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) (Parts I-III). If the project is classified Type I, submit a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form and either a negative declaration or a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and SEQR Findings. If the project's impacts have been previously reviewed under SEQR, supporting documentation must be submitted (e.g., FEIS and SEQR Findings Statement). PERMITS Depending on the project scope, some grant projects will require permits from agencies such as the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). To determine if any permits are needed, especially if your project is located in or adjacent to a water body (e.g., stream, river, lake, wetland, canal), contact the permitting agencies directly. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION A resolution in the appropriate form provided below must be passed at an official meeting of the governing body of the applicant and a copy attached to this application. The resolution must be typed on the applicant's stationery and should hold the official seal. The name of the applicant must be stated as it is recorded in the incorporation documents. Use the appropriate phrase in brackets, depending on whether the applicant is a not-for-profit corporation or municipality.
ACCEPTABLE SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL I, (name), [the duly elected and qualified secretary OR the duly qualified and acting Clerk] of the [(Organization Name) of (place), New York, corporation subject to the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of New York State and qualified for tax exempt status under the federal internal revenue code OR (Municipality), New York], do hereby certify that the following resolution was adopted at a [regular OR special] meeting of the (governing body) held on (date) , and is [incorporated in the original minutes of said meeting OR on file and of record], and that said resolution has not been altered, amended or revoked and is in full force and effect. ACCEPTABLE SAMPLE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION RESOLVED: That (name), as (title) of [(organization name) OR (municipality)], is hereby authorized and directed to file an application for funds from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in accordance with the provisions of Title 9 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1993, in an amount not to exceed $(grant request), and upon approval of said request to enter into and execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to this [(organization name) OR (municipality)] for (grant project description) and, if appropriate, a conservation easement/preservation covenant to the deed of the assisted property. [(Signature of Secretary] OR [Signature of Clerk] [Seal of Organization] [Seal of Municipality]
CANAL CORPORATION APPROVAL Any project that is approved for funding and is located on land under the jurisdiction of the Canal Corporation must receive all necessary approvals of the Canal Corporation prior to the final execution of a project agreement.
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
348
____________________________ Project Name and Location
Table of Contents
- 18 -
APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS A complete application includes THREE full sets of Parts A-D and required attachments (1 ORIGINAL and 2 COPIES). Attachments listed below in boldface are required of every application; applications lacking these attachments (or an acceptable explanation) will be deemed incomplete. Depending upon the particular circumstances of your project, other attachments may be required. Still other attachments, while not required, may be essential to support rating points. All documents should be current to this grant cycle. In the left-hand column list page numbers where the applicable attachments can be found.
Application Table of Contents (this page) with page numbers filled in. Printout of Online Registration Confirmation (Part A information) Part B: Project Narrative Part C: Project Schedule: Scope, Budget and Timetable Part D: Applicant Share and Sources Ownership Documentation (pages 10, 16) 1:24,000 scale topographic or planimetric map with the subject property circled (page 16) Evidence of local historic preservation or landmark designation (pages 9. 11) Documentation of liens and restrictions, and Legislative authorization of alienation (pages 10, 16) Photos showing the project area (pages 10, 16) Schematic Site Plan (pages 10, 16) Documentation of public participation and/or support (page 11)
Endorsements and letters of support, including endorsement of facility manager for partner group project in State Park or Historic Site (pages 10, 11)
Heritage Area Endorsement (pages 11, 16)
Highlighted excerpts from Heritage Area Management Plan and other planning and program documents (pages 11, 16)
Qualifications and procurement record for project professionals (page 12) Project planning/design documents, intent to sell, etc. (pages 12, 16)
Written estimate of fair market value, for any property that will be acquired or used as match (page 16)
Ground disturbance documentation (page 13) SEQR compliance documentation (pages 15-16) Permits (pages 12, 17) Signed Authorizing Resolution (page 17) Canal Corporation approval (page 17) Only not-for-profit Applicants must submit the following attachments: Proof of incorporation from NYS Department of State or NYS Board of Regents (page 9) IRS Determination letter listing Federal ID number (page 9) For stand alone planning projects, submit the following additional attachments: Documentation of components of final product (page 10) Justification of budget estimates (page 12)
To the extent possible, all attachments should be no larger than 8 1/2" x 11" format, labeled with property name and location and cross-referenced to the specific part in the application.
349
____________________________ Application # (AGENCY USE ONLY)
19
PART A NOTE: Provide the following information via online registration at www.nysparks.com, Grants. Print out completed registration form and include with the application. If changes or corrections are required, please make handwritten corrections on the confirmation pages submitted with the application.
SFY 2011-2012 OPRHP Environmental Protection Fund (EPF)
HERITAGE AREAS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT
Name: Federal ID #:
Mailing Address: Charities Registration #:
State: Zip Code:
PROJECT
Description:
Location: County:
Local Historic Designation: Legislative Districts:
Site Address: NYS Assembly:
Zip Code: NYS Senate:
Minor Civil Division: U.S. Congress:
Total project cost: $ Grant request: $
AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL CONTACT
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Business Address: Firm:
Address:
State: Zip Code: State: Zip Code:
Telephone #: Telephone #:
FAX #: FAX #:
E-Mail Address: E-mail:
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
350
____________________________ Project Name and Location
Part B Page _________
20
PART B PROJECT NARRATIVE
Include at least the following headings. Add pages as needed (5 page limit for the narrative.) PROJECT SUMMARY (150 word limit)
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROGRAM IMPACT
PLANNING
PROJECT EMPHASIS
REASONABLENESS OF COST
HUDSON RIVER VALLEY GREENWAY
351
____________________________ Project Name and Location
Part C Page _________
21
PART C PROJECT SCHEDULE
Scope, Budget and Timeframe Component *Completion Cost PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Design Fees Consultants Archeology Subtotal:
CONSTRUCTION
Outdoor Indoor Ancillary Subtotal: ACQUISITION (Include the value of any property that will be donated or transferred from another use) Description (by parcel) Acres *Completion Cost Circle one: donated purchased converted from other purpose Associated Acquisition Costs Subtotal: ADMINISTRATION Construction Supervision Grant Administration Procurement Costs CPA Audit Report Project Sign Subtotal: Total Project Cost: Grant Request: *calculated in months from start of project
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
352
____________________________ Project Name and Location
Part D Page _________
22
PART D APPLICANT SHARE AND SOURCES
Identify all funding for this project. For each funding source (refer to page 15), include information on the type (i.e. cash on hand, other grants awarded, force account, donations, real property, etc.), the amount, name, and date available or requested. Include all funds or support on-hand, committed or anticipated for this project. Restrictions that apply to any funds used as match must be documented at this time. Repeat format below as necessary to describe ALL funding sources. FUNDS COMMITTED Dollar Amount: Name of Funder: Type of Funds (circle/highlight one): cash, grant, force account, donation, real property, other
If a Donation (circle/highlight one): supplies/materials, volunteer labor, real property Date Available: Restriction: FUNDS REQUESTED Dollar Amount: Name of Funder: Type of Funds (circle/highlight one): cash, grant, force account, donation, real property, other
If a Donation (circle/highlight one): supplies/materials, volunteer labor, real property Date Available: Restriction:
353
BioSyndicate/Urban Unions http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/03/paneuropean-bio/“We should also build a paneuropean biosyndicate of the precarious and the unemployed, the excluded and the exploited, the discriminated and the arrested. The alternative is the slide toward patriotic sectionalism and even xenophobia that was noticeable in the strikes in the UK energy industry.” urban union - collaboration and collective movement to fight for the right to the city and access to human rights for urban citizens...?
Paneuropean Biosyndicate● By Bruce SterlingEmail Author● March 9, 2009 | ● 12:28 pm | ● Categories: Uncategorized
*One can expect to hear a great deal more rhetoric like this, and it is going to get weirder and less comprehensible rather than more so.“Opening Exhortation“To All Those Who Fight 4: Anarchy, Autonomy, Ecology, QueernessTo all media activists, creative workers, radical artists, union organizers, immigrant and precarious youthIn 2009, as millions are made unemployed by the bankruptcy of neoliberalism, hopefully all insurgent people and networks out there will unite on the 1st of May for a global mayday against financial capitalism and state repression, and for social redistribution and self-emancipation…From Precarity to Unemployment: the Great Recession and EuroMayDayNeoliberalism and monetarism have ended up ruining the world, like the antiglobalization movement always said they would: like two mad scientists, they proved socially, environmentally, and economically unsustainable. And so they fucked up majorly and have produced the worst economic crisis since the times of Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler.Problem is that it’s hard to cheer because the vast majority of those laissez-faire bankers and deregulating economists are still in charge, still dictating the terms of the game. Those who precipitated the crisis with their foolish policies of banking deregulation, welfare privatization, trade liberalization, labor deunionization are still at their desks! They tell us we should be quiet, accept layoffs and wage cuts, take some fiscal stimulus if we are lucky, and after 2010 we will again live happily under capitalism ever after.BULLSHIT! And they are throwing trillions at the banks who have made the riskiest of bets on real estate, paid off millions in bonuses to assehole CEOs and let the economy hang dry when the debts were called in. Trillions for bankers, cuts for people. This is the European equation. Not only this is scandalously immoral, it’s economically counterproductive. Banks are hoarding
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
354
liquidity for fear of going bust and don’t supply new credit.As Keynes and Kalecki first showed, during great depressions monetary policy doesn’t work, since it falls into a liquidity trap. Only social spending, public investment and redistribution away from profits and rents toward wages and transfers is gonna do the trick. For three decades, as they were happily pocketing the quantum leap in social productivity afforded by the information revolution, the élites said there was no public money for services, schools and the precarious many, while hedge funds and private equity funds were siphoning off zillions for the super-ritzy few. They said wages had to stay low, because global competitiveness demanded it, until income distribution became as absurdly unequal as it had gotten on the eve of the GreatDepression. No wonder another major depression has ensued. This crisis is no random phenomenon, it was caused by the venality and stupidity of the financial and political elites.The Great Recession is shaking capitalism at its foundations and undermining its social legitimacy. America, Europe and East Asia, the core centers of global capitalism, have been hit particularly hard.The North American economy is sinking fast. Europe is following suit.Ireland risks going the way of Iceland. The meltdown is reaching the heart of European capitalism. And the Baltics, Eastern Europe andUcraine threaten a financial abyss for the eurozone.Japan, likeKorea, has experienced a dramatic drop in exports and industrial production. China faces a socially problematic slowdown in growth. The global downward spiral has become self-reinforcing and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost every month. The specter of deflation and serial bankruptcy looms everywhere. Millions of people will soon become unemployed in the EU.The majority of those being laid off are temporary, precarious, immigrant workers in all sectors of the economy. They were the last hired and are now the first being fired. Neoliberalism has made an entire generation flexible and/or precarious, now its final demise is making a whole generation unemployed. From precarity to unemployment:this is what free-market globalization and the European Single Market have finally led to.In Europe, the eurocracy remains committed to the stability pact and monetarism, to competition and the race to the bottom for workers’ rights and social services. Interest rates stay positive, deficit spending is very weak, incomes keep going down, layoffs are spreading at an alarming rate, xenophobia is increasing among the native working class; this is the situation we’re in.Following Polanyi, we can say the euro is the political equivalent of the gold standard in in the interwar period, forcing deflation on the throats of european workers as a way of macroeconomic adjustment to the depression.While in America neocon market bigotry has been finally unsaddled, inEurope orthodoxy reigns, since the very same gerontocratic elites are still at the helm untroubled, dictating yet another round of social sacrifices so that they can continue remain at the top.We must overthrow them. We, the precarious youth and migrant generation ofEurope must rock Strasbourg, Brussels, Frankfurt, the eurozone and the rest of the continent to establish a neutral, social, radical europe.The task is immensely daunting, no doubt. But in Athens, Malmoe,
355
Sofia, Oslo, Vilnius, Riga, in the Italian, French, Spanish student movements, in French and Belgian general strikes, in the countless demos for Gaza in all the cities of Europe, where muslim and dissident youth joined forces against european xenophobia as much as against israel’s ferocious militarism, we have seen that large-scale rebellion, mobilization, protest is possible.It will only increase in the next months, starting with London against G20 (Financial FoolsDay!) and in Strasbourg against NATO in early April.The Great Depression led to keynesian policies, union counterpower and the fordist welfare state. We must act to make sure that the GreatRecession leads to economic redistribution, social emancipation, ecological community.In the short term, the fiercest fight will be around the destination of the huge flows of public money that are being poured to prime the economic pump. This should be our position:One trillion euros for basic income, not for banks! Socialize credit:spend money on precarious workers, not on wealthy bankers!In Europe, this crisis can either go authoritarian right or social left, there will be nothing in between. It can either strengthen to sarkozist statism and the EU police state, fan the flames of xenophobia and islamophobia, further scapegoat immigrants and the undesirables, or it can newly empower the precarious and the excluded in huge struggles, produce universal entitlements like a european basic income and free higher education, give rise to new forms of urban democracy, new forms of solidarity between service and cognitive labor.In the global recession, the euro is posing itself as the new reserve currency, as the new standard of international value. This means reinforcing the power of property and amassed wealth in euroland. If European monetarism is alive and kicking, the crisis has exposed the cracks and faults already existing in the EU. After having being beaten thrice at the ballot, the Union has been unable to devise a common response to the crisis, and countries are left to their own means and national policies, which they are using to heavily subsidize their banks and corporations. Subsidies are going to shareholders and bondholders, not to the unemployed or underemployed.In Malmö at the ESF, Michael Hardt saluted the General Freeters’ Union in Japan as the first revolutionary syndicate in the world committed to the cause of migrants and/or precarious, and EuroMayDay in Europe for trying to do the same: Oficinas de los Derechos Sociales have established a network of social defense for migrants and precari@s inSpain: ChainWorkers and Intelligence Precaria have created social media for precarized workers in airports, call centers, publishing, education in Italy; Helsinki mayday is part of the social center movement fighting antiziganism and zero tolerance on street culture, and of the student movement that has just occupied the university; theLiège mayday network, which organizes precarious and migrants and connects with Brussels, Ghent and other cities, is providing impetus to the first explicitly radical european network active in countersummit protests and theoretical strategizing to finally bring revolution to the EU. Soon the times will be ripe to create a distinctive political tendency that will put the 20th century red and green left in the reformist league where it today belongs. Pink postcapitalism is near! (((<--- Pass the Molotovs, brother;a decade of "pink postcapitalism," whatever the heck that is, oughta pretty well take the edge off.)))
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
356
We should also build a paneuropean biosyndicate of the precarious and the unemployed, the excluded and the exploited, the discriminated and the arrested. The alternative is the slide toward patriotic sectionalism and even xenophobia that was noticeable in the strikes in the UK energy industry.Mass unemployment will make the sirens of proletarian nativism and racism very seductive. Transnationalist solidarity must be organized, it won’t happen by default in the GreatRecession. We have to organize the precarious and the unemployed youth, the second generation born in Europe that yearns for freedom from police persecution and equality of treatment and opportunity:et’s fight the police state, let’s reclaim the welfare state; we are all punk islamic queers! (((<--- I want the T-shirt, only, uh,I want to see Newt Gingrich wearing it.)))EUROMAYDAY 009: Creative Anarchy, Social Autonomy vs the Crisis and its MakersMAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, THE FIRST OF MAY WE’LL MAKE YOU PAY!
357
9./// Wks. 11.4.12 —11.25.12I. Reading DiagramII. Report #9III. Images from La Unión
discussion role-playIV. Process sketchesV. Potential Properties MapVI. Potential Properties
ChartVII. Initial PreziVIII. Historic Images if
Sunset Park
359
Reading Diagram
The Urban Question, Section 5 “The Urban Process.” M. Castells
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
360
Over the past two weeks Cityzen has been closely examining and distilling our research. This runs in tandem with active discussions of successful transference of knowledge and pedagogical theory. We worked with the idea that there are three modes of transference: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Our La Union role play involved activities that attempted to incorporate all three modes. Another idea we worked with for the dialogue was a general to specific movement through the research.
We began with a mapping exercise that we hoped would mutually engage ourselves and the group acting as La Union with the physical space of Sunset Park. We wanted the exercise to lead to a better understanding on our part of La Union members’ place within this environment. The map proved an invaluable tool for dialogue throughout the role play session and exists as a tactile representation of the mutual exchange of information. The role play also really helped us figure out a few small tweaks we could add to the map to increase its usability.
After encouraging ‘members’ to add to the map throughout the exercise, we became more specific and described three steps we identified in obtaining space: finding space, accessing space, and maintaining access to space. We think the bulk of all groups studio research fits into these categories and we wanted to express our place within those three steps (we have predominantly identified tactics that help maintain access to space). We made illustrations of different ways of moving through these steps for various types of space, and labeled them in both Spanish and English. The illustrations were meant to be interacted with and discussed. They did serve as a reference and discussion point, but we need to evaluate the necessity and effectiveness with which they can be interacted. This part was not as clear as it should be.
We then moved into our specific research. We talked briefly about “culture” (a useful cognate between Spanish and English) and what heritage designation was. We need to iron out a few wrinkles at this stage and look more closely at the ultimate goal of heritage designation. We used a pamphlet to describe the history, the existing historical district designation, and some funding resources. Here we could reevaluate our approach for describing what a historical district designation does. We also need to more clearly visualize the historical aspects of the neighborhood. It is here and with funding where the use of narrative could be very useful.
The process of examining our research, testing different modes of knowledge transference, and the role playing exercise were significant steps forward for our group’s synthesis of information.
361
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
362
363
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
364
Address Owner Status/Desc Significance
5020 4th Ave CONGREGATION IMREI YEHUDAH Vacant/used as storagebuilt in 1907 - large mixed use building
5008 4th Ave CAMPOS, MARGARITA For Sale - vacant store front historic looking, mixed use
5705 4th Ave H C P REALTY LLC under construction historic looking, mixed use
5915 4th Ave MNG US CORP. For Lease mixed use
6112 4th Ave 6112 AVENUE LLCVacant store front - for rent mixed use building
6215 5th AveSUN NG CHAN KAN REVOCABLE TRUST
Vacant - some permits visible mixed use
6219 5th Ave 771-773 PLUS INC. vacant store front mixed use
6202 5th Ave JONG, DAISY two store fronts mixed use
6102 5th Ave THEMILION REALTY CORP Occupied/vacant upper US Post Office/store
5912 5th Ave M.C.P.Y.E.L. ASSOC INC Vacant lot
538 57th St ???? vacant lot Seems abandoned/no tax info
618 56th StTHE MARY CATALDO REVOCABLE TRUST occupied
historic building on oversized lot
5524 7th Ave TW88 REALTY LLC vacant 2 store fronts mixed use
5501 7th Ave CASHMAN LYNNE R (???) occupied Looks like the post office
5202 7th Ave SUN HOP HOLDINGS, LLC Vacant completely vacant mixed use
5102 7th AveMING, YEUNG MEI / Kings USA Group on Sign under construction
4521 7th Ave PARKSET 7TH AVE., LLC current laundromat
4520 7th Ave no owner info looks abandoned mixed use
4522 7th Ave no owner info looks abandoned mixed use
684 45th St SUNPARK REALTY CORP large apt complex historic/could be a coop
4518 5th Ave no owner info looks vacant historic
365
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
366
367
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
368
369
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
370
371
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
372
373
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
374
375
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
376
377
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
378
379
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
380
381
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
382
4thAvePreSubway.jpg
ArmyTerminal.JPG
4thAveSubway.jpg
Brownstones-1989.JPG
383
Bushteminal1.jpg
Bushteminal3.jpg
Bushteminal2.jpg
BushTerminal4.JPG
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
384
BushTerminal5.JPG
FinnishCoops-1989.JPG
FactoryBecomesHospital.JPG
Gowanus.JPG
385
HispanicNeighborhood-1989.JPG
HousingFortheMiddleClass-c1900.JPG
HousingforLaborers-c1911.JPG
IrvingBushZCommemoration-c1950.JPG
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
386
Marien-Heim-1989.JPG
NorwegianHospitalAmbulence.jpg
NewChinatown-1989.JPG
OldPondinWhatWouldBecomeSunsetPark.JPG
387
RemnantsofScandianviansonEighthAve-1989.JPG
SunsetParkCommCenter-1989.JPG
StMichaels-1989.JPG
WaterfrontRuins1989-1.JPG
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
388
WaterfrontRuins1989-2.JPG
389
10./// Wks. 12.2.12 — 12.16.12I. Final Presentation to
La Unión
391
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
392
393
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
394
395
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
396
397
CITYZEN Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012
398
