Anda di halaman 1dari 398

Transforming the Accent Mark into a Historical Stroke

A MORE PERFECT UNIN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012 Jessica Kisner Troy Hallisey Chris Jones Aubrey Murdock Charles Wirene

CITYZEN

table of contents

4 8 54 108 124 146 174 240 314 358 390

Final Report Section 1: wk. 9.9.12 Section 2: wk. 9.16.12 Section 3: wk. 9.23.12 Section 4: wk. 9.30.12 Section 5: wk. 10.7.12 Section 6: wk. 10.14.12 Section 7: wk. 10.21.12 Section 8: wk. 10.28.12 Section 9: wks. 11.4.12-11.25.12 Section 10: wks. 12.2.12-12.16.12

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

AN INTRODUCTION The inquiry into alternative methods of property acquisition in the 21st century represents a modern iteration of unin-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 Unin. As a transnational organization, La Unin envisions itself as a vocal advocate of public education, immigration reform, and environmental justice. Linkages to unin-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 unin of sixteen Finnish families is instructive for La Unins own acquisition of collective space. This heritage approach also enjoins La Unin to the history of Sunset Park to be able to capture heritage-related funding.

CITYZEN
J. Kisner T. Hallisey C. Jones A. Murdock C. Wirene

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 todays 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 Unin 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 prong Cooperatives 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 prong The establishment of Sunset Park as a federal district lends strong support to La Unin 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 Parks heritage designation to raise $100,000 for the restoration of four historic buffalo sculptures. Third prong Heritage-related funding from city, state, and national sources is available for acquiring/ maintaining space. New York States Environmental Protection Fund support the acquisition of property while the citys 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.

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

OUTCOMES As La Unin considers its next steps, the following recommendations are worth emphasizing: 1. Expansion of the organizations 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 countrys pursuit of a more perfect unin. La Unions intervention is a timely reminder of Americas roots in unin-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: Spacethe final frontier. This is the voyage of [La Unin]. Its ongoing mission: to explore new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

1.

/// Wk. 9.9.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Process Sketches III. Report #1: Resources Heritage Community Land Trusts Non-Proft Organizations IV. Books/Websites /// Articles I. What is it? Community Land Trusts II. Resale Formula Comparison

Explanation of the Diagram


Initial research immediately began show linkages with heritage, nonprofits, Marx and La Unin. 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.

Marx
Localized
NYRP

Nonprofit
Harvey Diagram

596 Acres

Group 2

CLT

Heritage

La Unin

Mumford-Neolithic

General

Reading Diagram Limits to Capital, Chapter 8, Fixed Capital. David Harvey

10

CITYZEN

Process of Production
Circulating Capital Physical Characteristics (local) Constant Capital Durability Raw materials auxiliary materials materials on hand Labor Power Rate of Transfer to Circ. Cap. Efficiciency Variable Capital Durability against compitition

Motion >

Fixed Capital

Circulation of Fixed Capital A Social Process = Value


Market Characteristics (global)

Circ. Cap.

Method >

$
Average efficiency relative to market Rate of Tech. Change

$ $ $

$ $

Material >

Plant and equipment physical infrastructures of production

If... + Skill Then... = Accumulation = Method

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Technology organs of human will over nature + Labor

Replacement of Fixed Capital

Fixed Capital is a lever

The true value of fixed capital is always in a state of flux and dependent on the simultaneity of the above. How does it work?

How does this process of accumulation occur?


+
Technology
Fixed Capital

Current Condition

Surplus

Fixed capital m circ. capital an a certain amou productive. Re


Depreciation

Newer Technology Beginning of Life Forces of Market Competition (obsolesence no value) Age

Imbalance

Fixed capital is a technology used in the process of production of commodities to create a suplus value (profit).

Crisis
Maintenence (no value) End of Life Initial Use Value Surplus Value Straight-line depreciation is false.

Fixed Capital Value

+
Labor

>

Circulating Capital Value

Through the process, the fixed capital value is transferred into circulating capital.

What are the conditions for t formation imba and crisis?


Transfer of Value by Output over Time

Limits to Capital Chapter 8 Fixed Capital (Circuit Diagram of Capital)

d Capital = Value Balance between Fixed and Circulating Capital


Circ. Cap.

Special forms o

Market Characteristics (global)

Durability against compitition Fixed Capital

Average efficiency relative to market

$ $
Output over time Direct Appropriation - alters the use so it has more value (adapative reuse)

$ $

Large scale/high durability fixed capital

Rate of Tech. Change

Over accumulation

apital

lways in a state of flux of the above.

Circ. Cap problems (labor, breakdown, etc.)

working period barrier

slow return of investment

Circ. Capital

Fixed capital must be in use for conversion to circ. capital and to acheive surplus value. Requires a certain amount of labor that is not immediately productive. Requires hoarding to ensure balance.
Imbalance Balance

Investors - loan

Over accumulation of fixed capital is possible as long as investment in fixed capital grows in proportion until end of life.
Planned Obsolesence at end of life of fixed capital.

Forces of Market Competition (obsolesence no value)

Crisis

Surplus

All loaned capital, always a form of returned in the for


Credit System can help prevent imbalance

Surplus Value

Straight-line depreciation is false.

What are the conditions for the formation imbalance and crisis?

What are the conditions for the formation of balance and surplus?

If planned obsolesence becomes impossible due to barriers then imbalance occurs

put over Time

11

(Circuit Diagram of Capital)

12

CITYZEN

Special forms of Fixed Capital Circulation

The Consumption Fund

Pro How d surrou


Fi

Large scale/high durability fixed capital Independent natured fixed capital Fixed Capital Commodity

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

ulation

r, breakdown, etc.)

working period barrier change in use to non-production commodity (taken out of circulation)

slow return of investment

indirect role in production

expensive upfront costs

Built-in obsolesence

ital Second hand market value affecting/afftected by the value in the first market

Locomotive (Not Exchan

Investors - loans in the form of circ. capital


Instrument of Consumption

is possible tal grows in

All loaned capital, whether fixed or circulated is always a form of money capital because it is returned in the form of annuity.

Possible to still indirectly affect the circulation

Indebtedness due to credit purchases

The buil as a geo commod

Credit System can help prevent imbalance

change in use to non-production commodity (taken out of circulation)

Consumption has ramifications for the reproduction of labor power by lowering costs and raising profits

The Consumption Fund

The Built Environment for Production, Exchange and Consumption

al

Fixed Capital Commodity

How does all of this affect our physical surroundings?


Fixed
Built-in obsolesence

Immovable

n-

nt s

change in use to non-production commodity (taken out of circulation)

Locomotives, Automobiles (Not Exchange, but Fixed) Second hand market value affecting/afftected by the value in the first market

Parks, Sidewalks (not Fixes Capital, but Consumption)

Instrument of Consumption

is

Possible to still indirectly affect the circulation


Indebtedness due to credit purchases

is

The built environment has to be regarded, then, as a geographically ordered, complex, composite commodity.

change in use to non-production commodity (taken out of circulation)

Consumption has ramifications for the reproduction of labor power by lowering costs and raising profits

The commodification of land has led to the ability invest in the new while also reinvesting in the resale of the old and making the composite a part of the process.

13

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

14

15

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

16

17

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Commissionhttp://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. Siteshttp://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 Doesnt 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

18

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 10003212-477-5340 http://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. BooksThe 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. LawSection 212, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 4. Earlier examplesGarden 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 states policies.

j.

19

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

New York Citys 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 Unin 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 Unin are predominantly from the Mixteca region of Mexico and immigrants from across Latin America. La Unin is based in the neighborhood of Sunset Park, Brooklyn; one of New York Citys largest Mexican immigrant neighborhoods. http://la-union.org/

20

Staff: o Leticia Alanis, Executive Director o Isabel Herrera, Outreach Coordinator o Olln 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 organizations 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 Unions link to a report on the reality of Mexican-American Students in New York Citys 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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-toturn-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: info@nyrp.org 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, Bettes 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

22

Books/Websites:
1. 2.

3.

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. 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 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 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 Doesnt 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 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

3.) http://www.cltnetwork.org

23

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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-trustsan-introduction/ 5.) Harper, David (2007) article: https://docs.google.com/ a/newschool.edu/file/d/ 0B1wQ6T5I3eBVYTIwNTg5Y2YtZGM0NS00ZjRlLWIwNTktMTU0Mz BhMmE0NzAw/edit?hl=en
Law: section 212, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

1.

12 Sec. 212. Community Housing Production Set-Aside. Community_Land_Trusts.htm SEE PDF ON FILE

2. http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136895/k.7746/ DEF: 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:

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 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.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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..
26

Characters:
1. 2. 3.

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 Trust 59-61 East 4th Street, 3rd FloorNew York, NY 10003212-477-5340 http://coopersquare.org HOPE Community Inc. 174 East 104th StreetNew York, NY 10029212-860-8821 www.hopeci.org RAIN Community Land Trust 336 East 4th Street, 2BNew York, NY 10009

Ralph Borsodi (initiated with the project idea) Robert Swann (iniciated with the project idea) John Davis (author of many CLT books)

27

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 lowand 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.

28

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 owneroccupancy 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

29

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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?

30

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

31

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

32

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.

33

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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.

W ords 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." - P eter Clavelle, M ayor. Burlirton, Verm out

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.
34

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 lowincome 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.
35

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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.
36

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 longterm 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
37

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 M ex ico


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-inplace." 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
38

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.
39

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 "antidonation" 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.
40

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

41

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 AfricanAmerican, 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-

42

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 reenergized 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 AfricanAmericans of sharecropping. And, among new immigrants, the drive to achieve the "American Dream" of singlefamily 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

43

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 AntiDisplacement 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, Verm ont


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

44

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 newlyelected, 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.

45

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

46

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) 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 Community Organizations; $25.00 CLT Associates; $20.00 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

47

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

48

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

49

50

CITYZEN

Resale Formula Comparison Itemized Formulas


Purchase price + (Homeowner equity invested or earned to date x inflation factor) + Value of improvements added by homeowner Depreciation Damage beyond normal wear and tear _____________ = Resale price 3. A distinction can be made between useful improvements and "luxury improvements," with only the former adding to the resale price. 4. There is an incentive for sound maintenance and repair and penalties for deferred maintenance damage. 5. Itemized formulas are insulated from the market and do not depend upon appraisals of market value. They avoid the potential difficulty of achieving dependable appraisals and of separating out the market value of land from the market value of buildings. 2. An inflation adjustment can prevent the devaluation of the owner's earned equity, while not giving unfair advantage to a homeowner with a small amount of equity in a valuable property. 1. The equity that an owner receives is tied directly to a measurement of her personal choices and personal investment of time and money.

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Itemized formulas adjust the original purchase price by adding or subtracting factors that affect the value of the owner's investment in a home and the value of the home itself. Factors included in an itemized formula vary widely from one CLT to another, but commonly included are: an inflation adjustment; a credit for the value of later improvements, a deduction for depreciation (if the home is not maintained), and a penalty for unusual damage.

Narrative Description of Itemized Formula

Symbolic Description of Itemized Formula

Advantages of Itemized Formulas

Disadvantages of Itemized Formulas

VARIATIONS: * There is wide variety in the method and index used to adjust for inflation.

* There is wide variety in what is deemed a useful improvement and in how the value of improvements is calculated.

* Depreciation is sometimes NOT included as a factor subtracting value.

* Public and private subsidies sometimes ARE included as a factor subtracting value.

6. Because they do not depend on an appraisal of market value at the time of resale, itemized formulas allow an owner's potential equity to be calculated and reported from year to year.

1. Depending on the index of inflation that is used, inflation adjustments can push resale prices beyond the reach of households whose incomes do not keep up with inflation. 2. These formulas require difficult-todescribe and difficult-to-quantify distinctions between improvements vs. repairs, useful improvements vs. luxury improvements, the value of materials vs. the value of labor. 3. The CLT's oversight role in reviewing and approving proposed improvements and in calculating the value of those improvements -- can diminish the owner's sense of privacy and can lead to disputes between the owners and the CLT. 4. An accumulation of improvements over an extended period of time -- even if none are considered luxuries-- can push the resale price beyond the financial reach of future low-income homebuyers. 5. If depreciation is a factor, separate depreciation schedules must be adopted for each major system in a house and records must be kept of on-going repair. 6. The valuation of unusual wear and tear can be elusive (and contentious). 7. Itemized formulas make enormous demands on CLT staff time, requiring extensive record-keeping and periodic calculations of great complexity lots of moving parts to track, count, and explain.
Burlington Associates in Community Development, LLC

Resale Formula Comparison Appraisal-based Formulas


Purchase price 1. Appraisal-based formulas are easy to explain and easy to understand.

Narrative Description of Symbolic Description of Appraisal-based Formula Appraisal-based Formula


+ [(Appraisal2 Appraisal1) x %] ____________ = Resale price 2. Because they rely on professional appraisals, utilizing standard techniques for appraising market value, these formulas do not require CLT staff to make difficult and potentially controversial assessments of value. Chances for conflict between homeowners and the CLT are reduced. 3. These formulas avoid the difficulties involved in distinguishing repairs from improvements, in assessing the value of improvements, and in gauging "wear and tear." The difficulty involved in inflation adjustments is also avoided. 4. There is no need to intrude on the owner's privacy and sense of ownership to approve and evaluate improvements. 5. These formulas discourage the accumulation of expensive improvements over time that can push the resale price beyond the reach of future low-income homebuyers. 6. Detailed record-keeping and fussy arithmetic are not required, relieving CLT staff of burdensome tasks and avoiding the disputes that can result from inadequate or incomplete records.

Advantages of Appraisal-based Formulas

1. Appraising real estate is not an exact science, particularly when the value of land must be distinguished from the value of a building located on that land.

Disadvantages of Appraisal-based Formulas

Appraisal-based formulas adjust the original purchase price of a CLT home by adding a certain percentage of any increase in the homes market value, as measured by market appraisals at the time of purchase (Appraisal1) and at the time of resale (Appraisal2). The percentage of this appreciated value allocated to the homeowner is stipulated in the formula (25% is common, although some CLTs allocate a higher percentage). Appraisals are done for the building alone, not for the combined value of the land and building.

2. These formulas do not allow year-toyear measurement of the owner's equity (except for equity built up through debt repayment) unless an owner wants to bear the expense of periodic appraisals. 3. In a rapidly appreciating real estate market, appraisal-based formulas can allow resale prices to rise beyond the affordability level for future homebuyers if the percentage of appreciation allocated to the present owner is too high. 4. These formulas do not distinguish between value added by the owner and value added by market (a factor that is beyond the owner's control). 5. In a stable real estate market, owners who have made substantial improvements will recapture only a portion of what they have invested. There is, therefore, a disincentive for making improvements and, perhaps, for replacements. 6. Market appraisals in an appreciating market may not take adequate account of poor repair. These formulas may fail to encourage good maintenance.

VARIATIONS: * Some CLTs have added a credit for later improvements.

* Some CLTs have used a % that increases over time, so that the longer a homeowner stays, the more appreciation s/he gets when s/he leaves.

* Some CLTs appraise the value of both the land and building, use a ratio to determine how much of the propertys value is owned by the homeowner, and the apply a % to appreciation.

Burlington Associates in Community Development, LLC

51

52

CITYZEN

Resale Formula Comparison Indexed Formulas


Purchase price x Change in index ________________ = Resale price 2. Depending on the index used, these formulas can give a sizable return to homeowners who sell their homes, promoting mobility for low-income people. 3. A formula that uses median income as its index fits easily and understandably into the guidelines of most federal and state housing subsidy programs, eliminating the need for lengthy negotiations. 4. Depending on the index used, the information needed to calculate resale prices is readily available and verifiable by homeowners and staff alike. 1. If the index is pegged to the income of people for whom the CLT is trying to keep housing affordable, these formulas do a good job ensuring that the resale price will, indeed, be affordable for this target population in the future.

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Narrative Description of Indexed Formula

Symbolic Description of Indexed Formula

Advantages of Indexed Formulas

1. Everything hinges on choosing the right index. Even median income can prove to be the wrong index, since low-income people often do not benefit from economic trends that increase median income for an SMSA or a county. 2. An index that is accurate in tracking the income of low-income people may still fail to keep housing affordable, because other factors most notably, increases in mortgage interest rates affect the homes affordability. 3. These formulas do not distinguish between appreciating value produced by the owner and value produced by other factors. Some owners may not receive a reasonable return on their investment, while others may benefit richly from appreciation they did little to produce.

Indexed formulas adjust the original purchase price by applying a single factor the change in a particular index between the date the homeowner purchases his/her home and the date s/he resells that home. This index, which is specified in the formula, can be a measure of incomes in the CLTs service area (e.g., change in median income) or a measure of rising costs (e.g., the CPI for housing). Although indexed formulas are not as common as appraisal-based formulas among CLTs , they are quite common among public programs that subsidize low-income rentals and low-income homeownership. Indexed formulas pegged to AMI are increasingly being used in rapidly appreciating markets

Disadvantages of Indexed Formulas

VARIATIONS:

* There is wide variety in the index used in these formulas.

* Some indexed formulas add a credit for later improvements made by the homeowner.

5. These formulas are relatively simple and comprehensible and do not require judgments by CLT staff or professional appraisers. Occasions for misunderstandings and disputes are minimized. 6. Administration by CLT staff is simple, easy, and inexpensive, requiring neither the record-keeping of itemized formulas nor the market appraisals of appraisal-based formulas.

4. These formulas may provide scant incentive for repairs and improvements. A change in the index gives owners an automatic increase in price, even for a poorly maintained, unimproved home. 5. These formulas allow shorter-term owners with little equity and a large mortgage debt to capture the same appreciated value as longer-term owners who have paid down their mortgages. This may encourage shorter occupancy.
Burlington Associates in Community Development, LLC

Resale Formula Comparison Mortgage-based Formulas


Symbolic Description of Mortgage-based Formula
Resale price = price affordable to household at __% of area median income adjusted for family size assuming the following conditions: housing costs = principal, interest, taxes, insurance, lease fee & any HOA fees __% front-end ratio __% of resale price to be covered by mortgage at prescribed terms and requirements for mortgage (e.g., 30-year term, fixed rate, etc.) at current interest rate, as defined 2. The basic principle to make sure each successive buyer has monthly housing costs at the same level of affordability is easy to grasp for homebuyers, mortgage lenders, and others directly involved in the buying and selling of homes. 1. The mortgage-based formula is the only formula that can guarantee a given level of affordability at resale to a household at a given income level regardless of what happens to interest rates, property tax levels, increases in market values and the like.

Mortgage-based formulas adjust the resale price based on the amount of mortgage financing a purchaser of a given income level will be able to afford at the thencurrent interest rate. Factors that must be specified in designing a mortgage-based formula must include: - the income level for which the home must be affordable - what is to be included in monthly housing costs - the front end ratio allocation for monthly housing costs - the percentage of the resale price that is to be covered by mortgage financing - the type of mortgage (term, fixed-rate, etc.) for which monthly payments are to be calculated at the current interest rate - the index or benchmark that will be used to determine the exact current interest rate for the type of mortgage in question for the time in question.

Narrative Description of Mortgage-based Formula

Advantages of Mortgage-based Formulas

Disadvantages of Mortgage-based Formulas


1. These formulas base the resale price entirely on what works for the buyer; therefore, these formulas are less likely than the others to give the seller a fair return and may give a return that is dramatically unfair. 2. As these formulas are based on factors over which the seller has no control, the process for selling tends to become distorted. If interest rates are high, sellers would be penalized prompting them to delay selling or tempting them to violate occupancy requirements. 3. Mortgage lenders would have reason to object to a formula that could result in a resale price lower than the amount owed on the mortgage. 4. Government funding agencies with regulations requiring that resale restrictions allow seller a fair return may likely not approve. 5. It can be difficult to establish a clear index or benchmark to determine the current interest rate. 6. As the resale price has no real basis in value, there is little motivation for owner to make improvements to the home. 7. Homeowners are likely to be unfamiliar with how to calculate resale price potentially creating trust and eroding homeowners sense of controlling their own homes.

Burlington Associates in Community Development, LLC

53

2.

/// Wk. 9.16.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Report #2 Community Gardens CLTs /// Articles I. 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 Diagram


The 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.

Marx Diagram

Nonprofit
Localized
New York

CLT

Halsey Garden in Restoration Project Bed-Stuy


596 Acres
Cooper Square Land Trust

General

Green Thumb

Reading Diagram Capital Volume II, Ch. 1-4. Karl Marx

55

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.

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.

596 Acres signage on vacant lot at Monroe & Tompkins

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.

Rainwater collection and solar shelter and 462 Halseys sign.

To first understand what a CLT is we decided to see how each organization

57

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

defines it. We looked at the National Community Land Trust Network1, an

Weve found commonalities in the information weve 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.

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

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.

http://www.cltnetwork.org 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.
1 2

58

59

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

60

61

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Roots of the Community Land Trust Movement


Vicki Lindsay 1
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 permanent 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 Community 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 support, 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 occupy 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 selfevident 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 inhabitants 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

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.

62

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 formalized. 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 couldnt even read. Reform of the landlord system became a key goal of the independence movement, and of its most famous leader, Mahatma Gandhi. After independence and Gandhis 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. Gandhis vision of decentralized power was replaced by a drive for a strong central government and progress towards an industrial economy. Vinoba Bhave, Gandhis great disciple and spiritual successor, led the remnant nonviolent movement. In 1951 he began a journey on foot into the troubled region of Telangana (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 (Gandhis 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 didnt 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 conversation 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 landowner answered that yes, he had 100 acres of land to give. The response was so unexpected that Bhave thought he must have misheard. He asked again, and the donor repeated 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 guaranteed 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 movement 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 childrens 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 indivisible. 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 candidate, 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, literally use of the fruits. In law, one who possesses usufruct rights may reap all the benefits 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. Commu3

64

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 locations 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 relationship of the individual to the whole is immediately disrupted, and over time, the poorest 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 relationship 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 separate 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 Bible 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 placeIt 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 4

65

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 agricultural 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 allotment 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 clans descendants, 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 distribution 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 5

66

to return to his family property and each to his own clan. (Leviticus 25:8-10) 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 didnt 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 strangers 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. (Leviticus 19:9-10) 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 continued devotion to the law. 6

67

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Bible, 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 quoting Leviticus. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath 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. Unrolling 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 Psalmists promise of land for the downtrodden, 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 didnt 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 7:4143) The story of the prodigal son is the ultimate story of redemption, of return to the ancestral inheritance, welcomed by the grace of a fathers 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. 7

68

***** 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 interest 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 homes resale price and eligibility, guaranteed by the lease, ensure 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, businesses; 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. (help@lincolninst.edu)

Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP07TA1

77

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Squares success, as has support from City government. Cooper Square uses City subsidies more effectively than other programs.

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 Wont 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 tangotti@hunter.cuny.edu 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.
78

Table of Contents Introduction: Community Land Trusts and the Single Family Home CLTs and Multifamily Housing THE COOPER SQUARE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST Burlington Community Land Trust (BCLT) The Northern California Land Trust Selected Projects for Comparison Table I. Cooper Square and Comparison Projects New Construction Rehabilitation Development and Financing Costs Table II. Development Costs Benefits to Households Table III. Median Rents and Household Benefits Table IV. Cooper Square CLT vs. Market Rents Figure I. Cooper Square vs. Market Rents Affordability Table V. Area Median Incomes and CLT Rents Operating and Maintenance Costs Table VI. Operating and Maintenance Costs Effective Use of Public Subsidies Conclusions: Community Land and Low-Income Multifamily Housing Bibliography 1 2 4 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 21 24

79

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

1
80

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 nations wealthiest neighborhood, Manhattans 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 lowincome 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, limitedequity 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

2
81

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Squares 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 Manhattans 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-OaklandSan Jose Area. However, while the scales of the metropolitan areas are radically different, Manhattans Lower East Side, Burlington and Berkeley have roughly comparable numbers of residents, around 150,000.

3
82

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 Manhattans 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 citys 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 citys 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 Yorks history of liberal social policy has been in many ways defined by conflicts between these forces (see Freeman, 2000).

4
83

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 nations 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 Sides 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 neighborhoods renters have been protected from eviction and precipitous rent increases. In the last half century, the neighborhoods 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 Sides 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

5
84

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 Citys 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 planners 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 Citys 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 Citys 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 wasnt 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 Squares main organizer for decades, had been a founder and leading activist in the Metropolitan

6
85

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Council on Housing, the citys 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 Yorks first African American mayor, and whose home base, Harlem, was the Lower East Sides 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 twothirds 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 Squares 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.

7
86

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 BCLTs housing stock is lowincome 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. BCLTs 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 Trust4 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,

8
87

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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, NCLTs projects are for the most part as sprawled as the metropolitan region. While a proposed transitoriented 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 BCLTs BHRIP and NCLTs Fairview, Addison and Blake Street. The rehab projects are in relatively low-density areas and average around 35 units per building.

Projects Cooper Square New Construction BCLT Waterfront BCLT Maple Tree Rehabilitation BCLT BHRIP NCLT Fairview NCLT Addison NCLT Blake Street

Number Year Number Square of completed Buildings of Units Footage 1996 19 303 221,010 2004 2002 1997 1996 1996 1998 1 1 13 1 1 1 40 50 33 9 10 5 55,425 41,644 26,428 5,640 5,200 3,786

Table I. Cooper Square and Comparison Projects

9
88

New Construction Maple Tree Place (BCLT). This project is made up of 50 units of low-rise multifamily 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 Burlingtons 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 limitedequity coop in two buildings. Fairview started in the 1970s as a collective household in a privately-owned building. According to one of Fairviews 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 Berkeleys 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 NCLTs land trust model as a way to get financing to improve their buildings. Fairviews collective household, which was one of many in Berkeleys miniculture of communal living,6 wasnt 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. Addisons tenants wanted to buy their property from an owner who was anxious to sell to them instead of a third party,

10
89

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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. Blakes 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 NCLTs 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 BCLTs Waterfront and Maple Tree, both of which are new construction. Despite a relatively low land cost due to contributions from the City of Burlington, BCLTs 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 NCLTs 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

Projects Cooper Square New Construction BCLT Waterfront BCLT Maple Tree Rehabilitation BCLT BHRIPP NCLT Fairview NCLT Addison NCLT Blake Street

Land Cost $26 109,958 872,269 278,623 62,476 67,196 121,492

Land/SF $0 2 21 10 11 13 32

Mortgage $0 3,401,744 2,701,714 1,513,707 0 577,884 190,016

Development Development Cost Cost/SF $26,569,416 $120.22 7,525,776 6,186,985 2,457,274 426,021 658,519 383,831 135.78 148.57 92.98 75.54 126.64 101.38

TABLE II. Development Costs (All amounts in 2006 dollars)

11
90

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 Citys 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. Fairviews $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. Addisons $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 Addisons 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 lowincome neighborhood that has experienced gentrification since 1997, the market value of land in the area has increased dramatically.9 Blake Streets $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).

12
91

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 BCLTs Waterfront and Maple Tree. This may be a consequence of the higher development costs for new construction. The benefits are fairly similar to NCLTs Addison and Blake Street, but much less than NCLTs Fairview and BCLTs BHRIP. Fairviews 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.

13
92

Projects Cooper Square 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. Cooper Square Market Rent Rent (Craigslist) $285 $1,400 379 1,600 431 2,200 578 3,000

Median Rent 2006 $ (1) 405

Census Median Rent 2006 $ (2) 771.1

Annual HH Savings Potential Since Development (3) $4,393

Total Since Development (4) $43,932

Apt. Type Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

TABLE IV. Cooper Square CLT vs. Market Rents

14
93

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Squares 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 Citys 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 CSCs 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 Squares extremely low rents are thus even more

15
94

advantageous than shown by our calculations. BCLTs BHRIP and NCLTs Fairview serve tenants with even lower incomes than CSC. Median CLT CLT HH Rent Income as % 2006 $ of AMI (1) 405 22.8%

PROJECT Cooper Square New Construction BCLT Waterfront BCLT Maple Tree Rehabilitation BCLT BHRIP NCLT Fairview NCLT Addison NCLT Blake Street

AMI 2006 $ $70,900 $70,500 $70,500

762 43.2% 534 30.3% Rehabilitatio n Rehabilitation $70,500 182 10.3% $83,800 344 16.4% $83,800 500 23.9% $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 Squares operating and maintenance costs per square foot are comparable to those in other projects, both new construction and rehabs (see Table VI). Only BCLTs 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.

16
95

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Projects Cooper Square New Construction BCLT Waterfront BCLT Maple Tree Rehabilitation BCLT BHRIP NCLT Fairview NCLT Addison NCLT Blake Street

Annual Cost/S F O & M Cost $1,465,759 $7 443,746 248,063 280,670 37,152 40,000 27,166 8 6 11 7 8 7

TABLE VI. Operating And Maintenance Costs NCLTs 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 citys real estate industry, involved building on Cityowned 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 17
96

homeownership program was about $25-35,000 per unit for one to three-family homes. The Citys 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 doesnt 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 homeowners 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

18
97

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 citys 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 Citys policy they push other housing out of the reach of low- and moderate-income families. Partnership units typically used prefabricated components while Cooper Squares 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 Squares rowhouse inventory only a few blocks away they will find First Houses, the nations 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 Citys 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 Squares 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 Squares 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

19
98

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 Citys financing agency are income-restricted but these restrictions expire with the Citys 20-year financing. A major problem is that the City does not have an adequate system to monitor TIL buildings once theyve 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 Cityowned 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 Squares 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. BCLTs projects and NCLTs Blake Street rely heavily on Section 8 subsidies. In the case of BCLTs 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

20
99

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 stones 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 citys 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 citys 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 isnt necessarily cheaper. However, in central city neighborhoods like New York Citys 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, its hard to build community out of such disparate properties.16

21
100

The net result of Cooper Squares 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% marketrate 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 communitybased 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 Squares 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 Citys 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

22
101

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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.

23
102

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abu-Lughod, Janet L. 1994 From Urban Village to East Village: The Battle for New Yorks Lower East Side. Oxford: Blackwell. Angotti, Tom Forthcoming, We Wont 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 ResaleRestricted, 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.

24
103

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Trusts 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).

25
104

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.

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 Berkeleys 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 twofamily 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.

26
105

CITYZEN
12

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Citys 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 Citys housing agency as an incentive to get low-income tenants to buy. 16 Interview with Mary Carlton, September 23, 2006.

27
106

3.

/// Wk. 9.23.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Process Sketch III. Report #3: Heritage Community Land Trusts Non-Proft Organizations Mapping

Explanation of the Diagram


This 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.

Localized

General

Mapping
Locally significant sites
La Unin

Heritage
Immigration

National Register of Historic Places

Land Trust
World Heritage Sites UNESCO

LPC Sites

Cultural Exchange
Local Governments

Susnet Park Zoning

Goodman Diagram

Reading Diagram After the Planners, Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 The UrbanIndustrial Complex: Part One and Part Two R. Goodman

109

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 nd space in the legal denition of heritage to apply it to a specic community. Most of the denitions 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 Unions 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 specically for housing projects. Though some denitions 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 throughout the world and the specic models that inspired the CLT. NPO:

start with Tom Angottis Cooper Union paper. We will also research other types of CLT

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 NPOs work. We want to read about the critiques and analyze the internal discourse in them.

For la Unions 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 led?, 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, weve started a GIS to gain an

idea of the neighborhoods spatial characteristics. As we are still quite early in our local

115

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

investigation of Sunset Park, the data weve 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 Plannings 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 specic areas of interest at the intersections of these means of displaying information spatially.

many data sets that can lead to further analysis, using the GIS as more than just a

116

HERITAGE FINDINGS Heritage Mission Statement- To make the material case for La Unions 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 reective of the programs alternative relational processes. successfully achieve their aims and goals? 14 September 2012 1. Appropriation of Heritage language to create legacy and history. Interchange of human valueswithin a cultural area of the world on town planning Nationally signicant; 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 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) 2030 Explore how the work of La Union is complementary to Mayor Bloombergs PlaNYC Explore how the work of La Union fosters exchange between two cultures- American relations) Aligning La Unions image with a Heritage site such as the Statue of Liberty (UNESCO,

Guiding Question- What is the personae, or mask, that La Union must wear to

and Hispanic (Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Independence Day, Mexican-American 20 September 2012 1. Questions to consider: How can my research reconcile the Western accent on individualism with the disaggregation of land?

117

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

What is the system of sentiment that La Union needs to cultivate in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the various shareholders? land? How can we anticipate and plan for the problems generated from the disaggregation of 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 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 specic times of the year Examine possible incubator spaces that would benet La Union Needs: Identify the skills/knowledge that La Union needs to operate their projects on a continuous basis.

organization (cooperative ofce space such as the Brooklyn Creative League and

118

10/12/12 NYC GIS DATASETS @ DoITT All ERSI data, though, so need Arc to get to much of the larger because theyre .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 cant realistically be searching for sources of data based on ideas that may or may not exist, and if they dont 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 Congresss Built in Amercan list 1. Most of the relevant ones are along the waterfront - Bush terminal National Register of Historic Places iii. 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 3. Green--Wood Cemetery - 500 25th Street , Brooklyn 4. Prospect Hall - more south Slope than Sunset Park/ Greenwood @ 263 Prospect 5. Sunset Park Historic District - Roughly bounded by Fourth Ave., Thirty-eighth St., 6. U.S. Army Military Ocean Terminal - 58th-65th St. and 2nd Ave. , New York 7. Weir Greenhouse - 750 5th Ave
Seventh Ave. and Sixty-fourth St. , Brooklyn Ave (btw 5th & 6th aves btw 16th & 17th sts) New Utrecht Ave. , Brooklyn

2. Zoninga. 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. Havent 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

3. BROWNFIELDS, PARKING LOTS, DO THESE SEEM RELEVANT? NOT NOW, PROBABLY? AGE OF
BUILDINGS...

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

LAND, mine 4. 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 - Cant get on QGIS but probs on Arc data at NYCOPENDATA c. ALLEYS can be found in STREET CENTERLINE - .GDB cant 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 dont 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/ lets 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

120

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/buyers/nychome-neighborhoods-brooklynsunsetbeach.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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

122

123

4.

/// Wk. 9.30.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Report #4 III. Sunset Park Derive 1 Ethnography IV. Community Board 7 zoning research

Explanation of the Diagram


In attempt to link potential historic sites in Sunset Park with La Unin, we decided it was necessary to take a derve 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 Unin to this, we need to look at the history of the neighborhood.

Localized

Heritage

General

Susnet Park Zoning Research and Mapping

Derve to Sunset Park


Asian Population

Grossi - History of Collective Property

Historic Buildings
Hispanic Population

La Unin

Industrial Waterfront

Reading Diagram An Alternative to Private Property: Collective Property in the Juridical Consciousness of the Nineteenth Century. Paolo Grossi

125

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

126

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 signicance of these individual sights. We walked up 36th avenue. Our initial impression was that this was an immense job, based on the size of a catalyst for our group to reexamine our intentions and the trajectory of our studio project. Street and 5th avenue, then down 41st to the waterfront industrial complex at 1st the neighborhood and the range of possibilities for heritage sight designation. This was

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 heritage designation, community land trusts and non-prot organizations are all valuable

prospect of the speculative development. Based on our existing research we still think 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 nd case studies and examples of these systems at

work. We want to focus heritage research on the process of converting private property allowing for greater latitude in the denition of heritage in the present community. We will post a link to more in depth research into this topic.

to communal property by claiming heritage status can start on a grassroots level,

Among other things, we intend to look into bio syndicates, nonprot property development, the history of Sunset Park, community centered schools, heritage and community land trust case studies.

127

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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
128

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 Unin could potentially utilize school buildings. At 3rd Ave, you cant 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 wasnt 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 t he 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
129

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 gentlemens 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.

130

panorama1.jpg

SunsetPark-01.JPG

SunsetPark-02.JPG

SunsetPark-03.JPG

SunsetPark-06.JPG

SunsetPark-08.JPG

SunsetPark-11.JPG

SunsetPark-12.JPG

SunsetPark-14.JPG

SunsetPark-17.JPG

SunsetPark-32.JPG

SunsetPark-34.JPG

SunsetPark-35.JPG

SunsetPark-36.JPG

SunsetPark-38.JPG

SunsetPark-40.JPG

SunsetPark-41.JPG

SunsetPark-44.JPG

SunsetPark-46.JPG

SunsetPark-47.JPG

131

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

SunsetPark-48.JPG

SunsetPark-49.JPG

SunsetPark-51.JPG

SunsetPark-53.JPG

SunsetPark-58.JPG

SunsetPark-60.JPG

SunsetPark-61.JPG

SunsetPark-62.JPG

SunsetPark-63.JPG

SunsetPark-65.JPG

SunsetPark-67.JPG

SunsetPark-69.JPG

SunsetPark-71.JPG

SunsetPark-72.JPG

SunsetPark-73.JPG

SunsetPark-75.JPG

SunsetPark-76.JPG

SunsetPark-78.JPG

SunsetPark-79.JPG

SunsetPark-80.JPG

132

SunsetPark-82.JPG

SunsetPark-84.JPG

SunsetPark-85.JPG

SunsetPark-86.JPG

SunsetPark-87.JPG

SunsetPark-90.JPG

SunsetPark-92.JPG

SunsetPark-94.JPG

SunsetPark-97.JPG

133

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 C11 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 12), community facility uses (Use Groups 34), retail and service

134

uses (Use Groups 59), regional commercial centers/amusement uses (Use Groups 1012), waterfront/recreation uses (Use Groups 1315), heavy automotive uses (Use Group 16) and industrial uses (Use Groups 1718). 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-ofright, 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 DUMBO, Brooklyn Map: 12d Effective Date: 7/29/09 Flushing/Bedford, Brooklyn Maps: 12d, 13b Effective Date: 5/9/01 Red Hook, Brooklyn

MX-2:

MX-4:

MX-5:

135

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Map: 16a Effective Date: 1/30/02 MX-6: Hudson Square, Manhattan Map: 12a Effective Date: 7/23/08 Morrisania, Bronx Maps: 3d, 6c Effective Date: 8/19/03 Greenpoint-Williamsburg, Brooklyn Maps: 12c, 12d, 13a, 13b Effective Date: 9/28/04 Northern Hunters Point Waterfront, Queens Map: 9b Effective Date: 8/16/06 Atlantic and Howard Avenues, Brooklyn Map: 17a Effective Date: 10/29/07 Gowanus, Brooklyn Map: 16c Effective Date: 3/11/09 Borough Park, Brooklyn Map: 22c Effective Date: 10/27/10 Lower Concourse, Bronx Map: 6a Effective Date: 6/30/09 Third Avenue/Tremont Avenue, Bronx Maps: 3c, 3d Effective Date: 10/13/10 Maps: see below Effective Date: see below

MX-7:

MX-8:

MX-9:

MX-10:

MX-11:

MX-12:

MX-13:

MX-14:

Special Natural Area District Resolution Chapter: 105-00

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 Riverdale, Spuyten Duyvil and Fieldston, Bronx Maps: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d Effective Date: 5/21/75

NA 2:

136

NA-3:

Shore Acres Area, Staten Island Map: 21d Effective Date: 12/1/77 Fort Totten, Queens Maps: 7d, 11c Effective Date: 4/28/83

NA-4:

Special Planned Community Preservation District Resolution Chapter: 103-00 Maps:

Effective Date: 7/18/74 3b, 4b, 6a, 9b, 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 noncontextual 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.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Parks 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 6th Avenue and 41st Street 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

140

Crains 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 caseseveral residents, five local churches and the Chinese Staff and Workers' Associationare 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 Citys Green Zoning Changes By Paula Katinas Brooklyn Eagle SUNSET PARK The Department of City Plannings 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 agencys 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 communitys housing stock, composed largely of charming row houses constructed in the late 19th Century, board members said. John Burns, chairman of Boards Seven Zoning and Land Use Committee, said the prospect of gigantic wind turbines on roofs is troubling. We dont need somebody coming down with 100-foot windmills, so that if youre in Sunset Park you cant 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 Bloombergs 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 citys 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-zoningchanges

Brownstoner Articles Opponents of Sunset Park Rezoning Lose Legal Challenge

142

Crains reported that last week a court ruled in favor of the citys 2009 rezoning of Sunset Park. A legal challenge against the rezoning claimed that the city hadnt 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 Parks low-income Asian and Latino communities. Crains 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 Parks 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 didnt 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. 10.7.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Process Sketches II. Report #5: Heritage LPC Designated Landmarks Sunset Park History and Culture Resources /// Articles I. Historic Districts Council - Frequently Asked Questions about the Landmark Process II. The Imapact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Value Explanation of the Diagram
Researching the history of Sunset Park has led to the beginning of some confluence of various points of research. The strongest connections that bridge La Unin 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.

Localized

Heritage
Mapping
LPC structures in Sunset Park
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Research

General

Sunset Park History and Culture Research


Immigration

Angotti Reading Progressive Community Planning

Look at CLT case studies

La Unin
Finnish Coops
Housing

Community Centered Schools

Place Matters

Non-profit

TOM ANGOTTI New York For Sale Ch.8


link

Progressive Directions for Community Planners

a 10-POINT
STRATEGY for Community-Based Planning
Consolidate

Consolidate Community Land


If planning starts with the assumption that nothing can be implemented without a big private partner, it has RELINQUISHED the most powerful tools for controlling the use of land...

1. PUBLIC TRUST and


EXPAND the
COMMON LAND

= POWER
to fight displacement!

BUREAUCRACY: City departments do NOT interact and Community Boards have no REAL authority and NOT ENOUGH resources.

2. LAND and PEOPLE 3.


RECONNECT
or control...

Create a LAND BANK for the commons the urban commons A substantial portion of Publicly assembled land Lack of space could and should be subland in the city is already ject to democatically leads to under some form
of public ownership

4.

Reading Diagram New York for Sale, Ch.8 Progressive Directions for Community Planners. Tom Angotti

Land Air Water Food Buildings


Re-establishing the ... between urban planning and public health is becoming an increasingly GLOBAL issue as more of the words population becomes urbanized.

PRESSURE
to develop the public COMMONS

developed community planning.

the commons 5. REGULATE 6.


The 3-HEADED

Over half of the citys developable vacant land is in the peripheral areas

Government owned land


is NOT UN-AMERICAN!

Create MORE

Community Land Trusts

MONSTER

Mixed-use zoning

PRESERVATION: Community land trusts The failure to are an invaluable tool to preserve OPEN SPACE control the use as well as AFFORDABLE HOUSING. of land through It has STOPPED Ineadquate housing an open improving living Crowded transit Waterfront zoning democratic process SOCIAL EXCLUSION: Community conditions land trusts can be used as an invaluable tool to Oppressive work life Optional inclusion- is the central INCLUDE YOUR NEIGHBORS rather than excluding. What good are more jobs and higher salaries if rents ary zoning problem. go up, people are forced to move and commute logner
Special zoning districts and historic preservation are used as defense weapons against unwated development. Eminent Domain: Bostons Roxbury neighborhood used this invaluable tool to start a community land trust. distances, and the poorest neighborhoods get all the unwanted land uses?

7.

GROWTH MACHINE

Promote QUALITY OF LIFE instead of a

8. REGIONALLY, and 9. THE FUTURE 10. GLOBALLY


Think LOCALLY, Take COMPREHENSIVE planning BACK TO
Traditional planners =

NO CLUE
about the REGION.

this is the SO ifSTRATEGY, then Community-Based WHAT IS 3


FORMATION of the

Regional coalitions for affordable housing, public transportation, and environmental protection need to grow and challenge the fragmented governmental framework that .... are wedded to narrow local property interests.

Even if our answers CANNOT be QUANTIFIED and verfied with any degree of certainty.

Think of the SEVENTH Generation

Community planning is resurrecting and transforming the discredited, orthodox rationalplanning approaches by making comprehensiveness an open, democratic and participatory process.

A FRONT LINE APPROACH

Planning Task Force Main Objectives:

5-10 What if the SO mayor EMBRACED progressive


YEAR investment cycles are NOT long enough!
...to guarantee the integrity of the process and ensure that it becomes inclusionary, democratic and progressive, not exclusionary...

Right now NO ONE bothers to ask the question.

now?

HAPPENING

1) Community boards and organizations should have the RESOURCES THEY NEED 2) Community boards need to be REPRESENTATIVE of their diverse populations 3) Community plans need to be implemented, NOT ignored; there needs to be link with the budget process

PLANNING? there is not

ONE
PROCESS!

147

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

TOM ANGOTTI New York For Sale Ch.8


link

Progressive Directions for Community Planners

a 10-POINT
STRATEGY for Community-Based Planning
under some form
of public ownership

Consolidate Community Land


If planning starts with the assumption that nothing can be implemented without a big private partner, it has RELINQUISHED the most powerful tools for controlling the use of land...

1. PUBLIC TRUST and


EXPAND the
COMMON LAND

POWER =fight disto


placement!

BUREAUCRACY: City departments do NOT interact and Community Boards have no REAL authority and NOT ENOUGH resources.

2. LAND and PEOPLE 3. Consolidate 4.


RECONNECT

the urban commons

A substantial portion of land in the city is already

Create a LAND BANK for the commons Publicly assembled land Lack of space could and should be subject to democatically leads to

Land Air Water Food Buildings


Re-establishing the ... between urban planning and public health is becoming an increasingly GLOBAL issue as more of the words population becomes urbanized.

or control...

PRESSURE
to develop the public COMMONS

developed community planning.

the commons 5. REGULATE 6.


The 3-HEADED

Over half of the citys developable vacant land is in the peripheral areas

Government owned land


is NOT UN-AMERICAN!

Create MORE

Community Land Trusts

PRESERVATION: Community land trusts The failure to are an invaluable tool to preserve OPEN SPACE control the use as well as AFFORDABLE HOUSING. of land through It has STOPPED Ineadquate housing Mixed-use zoning an open improving living Crowded transit Waterfront zoning democratic process SOCIAL EXCLUSION: Community conditions land trusts can be used as an invaluable tool to Oppressive work life Optional inclusion- is the central INCLUDE YOUR NEIGHBORS rather than excluding. What good are more jobs and higher salaries if rents ary zoning problem. go up, people are forced to move and commute logner

7.

MONSTER

GROWTH MACHINE

Promote QUALITY OF LIFE instead of a

8. REGIONALLY, and 9. THE FUTURE 10. GLOBALLY


Think LOCALLY, Take COMPREHENSIVE planning BACK TO
Traditional planners =

Special zoning districts and historic preservation are used as defense weapons against unwated development.

Eminent Domain: Bostons Roxbury neighborhood used this invaluable tool to start a community land trust.

distances, and the poorest neighborhoods get all the unwanted land uses?

NO CLUE
about the REGION.

WHAT IS 3
now?
148

SO

Regional coalitions for affordable housing, public transportation, and environmental protection need to grow and challenge the fragmented governmental framework that .... are wedded to narrow local property interests.

Even if our answers CANNOT be QUANTIFIED and verfied with any degree of certainty.

Think of the SEVENTH Generation

Community planning is resurrecting and transforming the discredited, orthodox rationalplanning approaches by making comprehensiveness an open, democratic and participatory process.

A FRONT LINE APPROACH

FORMATION of the if this is the STRATEGY, then Community-Based Planning Task Force

Main Objectives:

5-10 What if the SO mayor EMBRACED progressive


YEAR investment cycles are NOT long enough!
integrity of the process and ensure that it becomes inclusionary, democratic and progressive, not exclusionary...

Right now NO ONE bothers to ask the question.

HAPPENING

1) Community boards and organizations should have the RESOURCES THEY NEED 2) Community boards need to be REPRESENTATIVE of their diverse populations 3) Community plans need to be implemented, NOT ignored; there needs to be link with the budget process

PLANNING? ...to guarantee the there is not

ONE
PROCESS!

149

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

The New York Landmark Preservation Commission: Landmark Law 1965:

The New York Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) is responsible for identifying, designating and regulating landmarks in the city of New York. This is a non-profit organization that was created by the law and appointed by the mayor. This law came into effect in April 19, 1965, after many fights of the citizens trying to preserve some of NYs landmarks. A major factor triggering the creation of the law was the demolition of the Pennsylvania Station in October 1963. This law was made to protect historical landmarks and neighborhoods from being destroyed or fundamentally changing their character (http://www.nypap.org/content/new-york-citylandmarks-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 oldera special character or special historical of aesthetic interest of value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state, of nation For the NYPC they identify four types of landmarks: a. Individual landmark: only exterior b. Interior landmark: interior structure or nay part therefor, that is customarily open and accessible to the public. c. Scenic landmark: landscape feature(s) with special historical and aesthetic interest. It has to by city owned 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 be reviewed before the entire commission. 3. RFE is evaluated by the Commission at a public meeting vote if it is signifigant enough to require a public hearing 4. Public hearing, 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. 5. Discussion and Designation Report document and describe the architectural, historical, and/or cultural significance 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 Vote 7. City Planning Commission Report report to the City Council elaborating on the effects of the designation 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/1ijWjCAhuDCUf1kvzUUdQrmpBF ze8cqP41vd7bGE4tRQ/edit

We also investigated the details of this process further by reviewing the Park Slope Historical District Designation Report. This is a 150 plus page report that describes the historical and architectural significance of the area in great detail. More than 140 pages are dedicated to describing this significance block by block. The proposal for designation was originally brought before the board in 1966. Due to the influx of designation requests this proposal was not assessed until 1970. The hearing was in June 1970 and the area was designated in 1973. From Evelyn Ortner, a major leader in the designation: I think everything will go through as promised, but after seven years of dealing with the Landmarks Commission in pursuit of the grail of designation, I have become more than a little skeptical perhaps even a bit paranoid at times. This report and other are very focused on architectural history of the neighborhoods. A question moving forward is, have their been district designations based more on cultural and social grounds rather than on architectural/historic? There are various agencies that designate what is a landmark on a city, state and national scale. The LPC is the agency for the NY metropolitan area but there is also the National Register of Historic Places, the Department of Interior and the State of New York, to name a few. There are some differences in the process and definition of designation between these sites (requiring further investigation). Some landmarks may be

150

on various lists. In our research conducted in the Brooklyn Public Library, we found various books (The Sunset park Restoration Committee, Inc; The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Manbeck, 1998) that claimed Sunset Park is home to the largest historical district in the northeast United States. This designation was made by the Department of Interior and the State of NY (Giordano, 1990:10). We will need to examine this type of designation further, to find out what protections are given and on what premise the designation was founded (historical, architectural, cultural, etc.) The trip to the Brooklyn Library was very helpful in learning more about Sunset Parks history. Please contact us if you would like to know more about the general neighborhood history. Below is some heritage specific historical information. Nearly all of the areas residential construction occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s They consist of brownstones, limestones, brick and wood row houses. The Neighborhood of Brooklyn, There are 7 landmarks designated in Sunset Park. Please see the corresponding image. Through the archive we were able to identify 4 of the 7, thus far.

John B Manbeck, Citizens Committee for NYC, Yale University Press, 1998

States. 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 Bills Wild West show in 1892). The area was purchased by Irving T. Bush who began building in 1890 to compete with the Manhattan ports. This venture was surprisingly successful and Bush expanded the area in 1902. He eventually owned his own rail system, fire and police departments, and power plant. The area was rename Industry City in 1960 in an attempt 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 story cooperative apartment building, between 8th and 9th avenues. Other buildings were added to this in the 30s and 20s. This was the first cooperative in the United States. There was some discrepancy about the location in our readings, so further investigation is required.

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 United

from 1895 (Sunset Park Restoration Committee, Inc. 1990).

*It is very interesting, that there is a historical presence of cooperative living. How might we incorporate this into a redefinition of heritage designation geared toward shifting land from private ownership to public use? 3. Historic district: The 55th st across the 5th avenue is one of the oldest blocks in Sunset Park dating Research on the Opportunities, Obstacles, and Overlays of the citys public plans revealed both horizontal (opportunity-opportunity) overlays and vertical (opportunity-obstacle) overlays:

1. HORIZONTAL OVERLAYS () CB 7s promotion of the development of a guidebook and historic tours of the waterfront and the Sunset Park Historic District leverages Vision 2020s desire to identify and designate city landmarks and historic districts CB7s promotion of a cultural/historic precinct on the waters edge leverages Vision 2020s call for the protection, maintenance, and promotion of heritage tourism sites CB 7s promotion of a historic trail and map leading people from upland neighborhoods to and along the waterfront leverages both VISION 2020s goal to enliven the waterfront with a range of attractive uses integrated with adjacent upland communities and PlaNYC 2030s network of green corridors (Parks and Public Spaces, Initiative 10) 2. VERTICAL OVERLAYS CB 7s recognition of the potential loss of Sunset Parks historic maritime and industrial infrastructure is leveraged by VISION 2020s proposal for the study of potential buildings and structures of historic significance

151

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

152

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/01SUNSETPARKCOURTHOUSE.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 IT http://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-Houseand-Stable.pdf Info from LPC website: http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcenter.org/designation_reports/

153

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Parks commitment to ethnic and racial inclusion is as clear as its distinctive view of the Verrazano Bridge. 200 Sunset Park 24.5 acre park built in 1890s The 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. Its 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 Parks 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 Bills 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. 202 Bush wanted to compete with Manhattans ports and began building the terminal in 1890. People referred to the project as Bushs 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, re and police department, and power plants. Some of the buildings in his complex have rooms that span 3 acres. 202 It 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 sanctuary203 In 1969 the Lutheran Medical Center needed more space so they purchased an abandoned factory on 2nd Ave.

154

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 lled 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 nonprot 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 Manhattans 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 rst 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

155

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Other Resources: Brooklyns Eagle Almanac, Brooklyn Eagle Press Brooklyn Historical Society, Brooklyns Hispanic Communities, Brooklyn Historical Society, 1989 Andrew Dolkart, This is Brooklyn: A guide to the Boroughs Historical Districts and Landmarks, 1990 Norval White & Elliot Willensky, American Institute of Architecture Guide to New York City, 3rd Edition, 1988 Adolph 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), Citizens committee for New York City, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1998

156

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 YoungerAll 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 its 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 constructionamong 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

158

About the Historic Districts Council

The Historic Districts Council is the citywide advocate for New Yorks historic neighborhoods. We work to ensure the preservation of signicant historic neighborhoods, buildings and public spaces in New York City, uphold the integrity of the New York City Landmarks Law and further the preservation ethic. This mission is accomplished through ongoing programs of assistance to more than 500 community and neighborhood groups and through publicpolicy initiatives, publications, educational outreach and sponsorship of community events.

Originally founded in 1971 as a coalition of community groups from New York Citys designated historic districts, HDC has grown to become one of the foremost citywide voices for historic preservation. Following its mandate of community-based preservation advocacy, HDC works continuously to broaden and educate the preservation constituency from producing zoning and architectural surveys of unprotected historic neighborhoods, to meeting with legislators and government ofcials, to creating educational programs on the techniques and strategies of neighborhood preservation.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Landmarks Process

The core belief of the Historic Districts Council is that preservation and enhancement of New York Citys historic resources its neighborhoods, buildings, parks and public spacesare central to the continued success of the city. The creation of the New York City Landmarks Law in 1965 acknowledged this and empowered the government to act to preserve buildings and sites that possess special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of city, state or nation. This preservation goal benets not only ourselves but future generations of New Yorkers, and it guides the Historic Districts Council in all its actions.

More information is available in HDCs signature publication, Creating an Historic District: A Guide for Neighborhoods, available on HDCs Web site, www.hdc.org or by calling 212-614-9107.

This publication was made possible through support from New York State Senator Diane J. Savino, The New York Community Trust and the Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation.

the advocate for new york citys

historic neighborhoods

ON THE COVER: MOTT HAVEN EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE BRONX ALL PHOTOGRAPHS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL

159

160

CITYZEN

What is an historic district? A New York City district is overseen by the local Landmarks Preservation Commission and protects the character of the district through the local Landmarks Law. A National Register district is recognized through the U.S. Department of the Interior and administered by the New York State Historic Preservation Ofce. National Register of Historic Places listings are largely honoric and usually do not prevent alterations or demolition of structures within the district, but may entitle owners to tax benets. Many, if not most of the citys historic districts are also on the State and National Registers. If my neighborhood or building is designated, will I be required to restore my property? No. The LPC does not require restoration or force owners to return buildings to their original condition. The LPC only regulates proposed work on designated structures. It may, however, make recommendations for restorative treatment when other work is undertaken to the property. Will I be restricted in the kind of changes I can make? Yes. New York City landmark designation does place additional restrictions on historic properties, which most often involve exterior changes. Designation is designed to protect and preserve properties and neighborhoods. This can be benecial to a property owner by preventing inappropriate changes to neighboring buildings that could take away from property values and the ambiance or enjoyment of the property. What procedures do I follow to make changes to my landmarked property? To make changes, you must apply for a permit from the LPC, which will review your plans and issue a permit or suggest appropriate alterations. The majority of LPC permits are for exterior work and can usually be issued within a few weeks.

An historic district is an area of the city designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) that represents at least one period or style of architecture typical of one or more areas in the citys history; as a result, the district has a distinct sense of place. Fort Greene, Greenwich Village, Jackson Heights, Mott Haven and St. George/ New Brighton are examples of the more than 80 sections of the city that contain historic districts. Having a neighborhood designated preserves its physical nature and helps protect it from out-of-scale and inappropriate development.

What is the difference between a New York City historic district and a National Register district?

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Why was the Landmarks Law enacted?

The Landmarks Law was enacted in 1965 in response to New Yorkers growing concern that important physical elements of the citys history were being lost. Events like the demolition of the architecturally distinguished Pennsylvania Station in 1963 increased public awareness of the need to protect the citys architectural, historical and cultural heritage.

TREADWELL FARM HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN

Does it cost more to maintain a landmarked building? How does historic district designation affect development values within a district? Development is permitted in historic districts. Developers are subject to the same approval process by the Landmarks Commission as are other property owners. Even though development may be reviewed in terms of aesthetics, height and bulk, developers may benet from the prestige and association that come with designation. To encourage sensitive alterations and renovations, federal and state tax credits are available. The real estate community markets historic properties in a way that places emphasis and greater value on the buildings and neighborhoods special character. Doesnt becoming a landmarked district speed up the process of gentrication?

It may. Although there can be an additional expense for historically appropriate repair and maintenance of designated buildings, property owners generally nd the extra costs offset by higher resale revenue and property values.

DOUGLASTON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, QUEENS

Will living in a designated historic district raise my taxes?

No. There is no evidence that those living in an historic district pay higher property taxes than residents outside of the district.

No. There are no denitive studies that prove this. By preserving and protecting existing historic structures, designation prevents rapid, out-of-scale development that often leads to displacement. How does living in an historic district affect zoning? Zoning is a separate feature of a neighborhoods character. The zoning dictates how large a building may be, its general shape and use. The LPC oversees all changes in an historic district but does not regulate contemporary use.
5

How does historic district designation affect real estate values?

Studies all over the country show that designation improves property values. In 2003 the Independent Budget Ofce published a study showing that properties within designated New York City historic districts appreciate more in value over the long term than identical properties not in historic districts.

TRIBECA WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN

161

162

CITYZEN

How does a neighborhood become an historic district? review by the City Planning Commission (CPC) and to a vote by the City Council. The CPCs role is advisory only, but the City Council can approve, modify or overturn the designation.

Once the historic district is designated, the designation is subject to

The process of designating an historic district starts when the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) begins to consider an area worthy of special protection. However, rarely does the designation of a neighborhood happen without substantial community involvement.

HDC recommends that before following the steps below, the majority of the community and its elected representatives be involved in and supportive of the effort early in the process by organizing a community group to promote landmark designation.

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

When the public, a community member, or a group wishes an area or

property to be considered for designation, a Request for Evaluation (RFE) must be submitted to the LPC. This request is a single-page form that asks for information about the property or area. The RFE can be downloaded off of the LPC Web site (http://www.nyc.gov/html/ lpc) or requested by phone (212-669-7817) or by mail (One Centre Street, New York, NY 10007).

The LPC reviews the RFE, makes site visits, does further research

and decides if a district is worthy of further consideration. The community can also make known to the LPC that there is strong support for this designation in the form of letters, phone calls or e-mails to the Commission. It is also recommended that community members meet with the LPC chair and staff to tour the neighborhood.

Once

the LPC decides that an area is worthy of further consideration, calendaring is the rst ofcial step in the designation process. Calendaring is the action of establishing that an item will be scheduled for a Public Hearing. This is also when boundaries of the potential district are proposed by the LPC.

The

Public Hearing is the opportunity for members of the community, elected ofcials and interested parties to give testimony for or against the designation of the proposed district. Sometime after the Public Hearing (in most cases), the LPC will take a vote on the district. If the vote is favorable, a Designation Report is issued and the new historic district is now protected.
GREENWICH VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANHATTAN

Background Paper
September 2003
A

New York City Independent Budget Office

The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values


SUMMARY

For more reports on...

Housing and Community Development Issues


...visit www.ibo.nyc.ny.us

IBOs analysis of the impact of historic districts on residential property values was originally summarized 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 paper provides more detail on the studys findings along with a fuller explanation of the data and methodology used in the analysis. The original requestfrom former Council Members Andrew Eristoff and Kenneth Fisher asked whether there was any evidence that historic districting in New York City has constrained the appreciation in residential property values. To answer this question, IBO used standard regression techniques which allowed us to control for differences in property characteristics and Department of Finance data on sales of one-, two-, and three-family houses from 1975 through 2002. IBOs study found:

All else equal, prices of houses in historic districts are higher than those of similar houses outside historic districts. Although prices for historic properties have at times increased less rapidly than for similar properties outside historic districts, overall price appreciation from 1975 through 2002 was greater for houses inside historical districts.

New York City Independent Budget Office Ronnie Lowenstein, Director 110 William St., 14th floor New York, NY 10038 Tel. (212) 442-0632 Fax (212) 442-0350 e-mail: ibo@ibo.nyc.ny.us http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us

Page One
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 1

163

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

OVERVIEW

Like many other communities, New York City has chosen to distinguish properties with architectural and/or historical significance by giving them individual landmark status or including them in an historic district.1 New York City has designated over 80 historical districts since 1965, most of them in Manhattan (see list in appendix). One concern of building owners in prospective historic districts is how districting will affect property values. On the positive side, inclusion in a historic district provides guarantees that surrounding properties will not be demolished and replaced, or their exteriors modified in ways that are not in harmony with the neighborhoods traditional appearance. Historic districts may also act as brand labels that guarantee, or at least convey an image of, neighborhood quality. Finally, federal tax benefits are associated with the purchase or rehabilitation of certain historic properties. To the extent that these tax benefits exist, they should be at least partially capitalized into the price of the property. While historic districting has the potential to enhance property values, in theory it can also depress them. Owners of buildings located in historic districts face a significant curtailment of property rights, in the form of strong limitations on demolition and restrictions on how the structure may be altered physically. Concern over the loss of property rights has sometimes led owners to oppose the inclusion of their buildings in historic districts. The impact of historic districting on property values is likely to vary, both in magnitude and direction, across localities. IBO undertook this study to determine how inclusion in an historic district affects property values in New York City. Our study focuses exclusively on one-, two-, and three-family dwellings, which are assigned to tax class one for purposes of the New York City real property tax.2 There are several reasons for focusing on this type of property. Sales prices of commercial buildings are complicated by tax considerations and the length of existing leases, making commercial sales harder to analyze for evidence of changing market values than residential sales. Among residential owners, owners of class-one properties have typically been more vocal than apartment building owners in their concern over the possible negative impacts of districting. In addition, because class-one properties are not subject to rent regulations, the use of sales prices to get at market value changes is more straightforward than for larger residential buildings. Most importantly, the number of sales of class one properties provides reasonable sample sizes for statistical analysis.
2 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

After accounting for differences in property characteristics, we found evidence of a statistically significant price premium associated with inclusion in an historic district. The extent of the premium varied from year to year, ranging from 22.6 percent in 1988, 1990, and 1997, to 71.8 percent in 1978. We also examined whether property values in historic districts have appreciated faster or slower than property values outside the districts. To answer this question we employed statistical models that looked at change in property values over a number of years. The citys housing markets have shown very sharp swings over the last quarter century. Because the behavior of prices cannot be adequately modeled with a single time trend, we broke up the analysis into six shorter periods. For each period we estimated separate (linear) time trends for nonhistoric and historic properties. In two of the time periods 1975-1982 and 1997-2000historic properties appreciated at a much higher rate than non-historic properties, and the difference was statistically significant. In three periods19821989, 1993-1997, and 2000-2002prices rose somewhat faster outside historic districts, after controlling for other physical and locational characteristics. However, in 2000-2002 the difference was very small, and not statistically significant. Finally, in 19891993 both historic and non-historic properties declined in price. The decline was slightly greater for properties within historic districts, but the difference with non-historic properties was not statistically significant. Despite some years when non-historic properties performed marginally better than historic ones, the overall price increase for the period 1975-2002 was higher inside the districts. In the absence of statistically significant evidence linking districting with consistently lower appreciation, we conclude that is not likely that property owners are adversely affected and may actually benefit from being included in a historic district.
THE DATA

For this study, IBO combined information from two data sets maintained by the New York City Department of Finance. The sales data file contains information on all residential property sales (excluding coops) since the mid-1970s. The departments real property assessment file (RPAD) contains assessed values and descriptive information, as well as an estimated market value that can be compared against actual sales data or the values computed by our own models. We have augmented the information contained in these files by adding variables for inclusion in historic districts, distance to the nearest subway or commuter rail station, and mean household income at the neighborhood level.

164

Class One Sales in Historic Districts, Shares by Borough

Queens, 13% Bronx, 4%

Staten Island, 2%

Manhattan, 20%

one sale between 1975 and 2002. The total number of sales was 31,093, of which 3,948 took place within historic districts. We excluded those sales that give clear evidence of not being armslength or that apparently involve major structural changes, as well as sales that are extreme outliers in terms of price or square footage.3 These screening criteria eliminated roughly two percent of all sales.
OVERALL TRENDS IN CLASS ONE HOUSING PRICES IN NEW YORK CITY

Brooklyn, 61%

SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance.

The combined data set contains 368,664 parcels in New York City that had at least one class one sale between 1975 and 2002. These parcels are concentrated in Queens (44 percent) and Brooklyn (31 percent), with less than 1 percent in Manhattan. Of all the parcels with at least one class-one sale, 4,333 belonged to historic districts as of late 2003. Over three-fifths (61 percent) of these historic properties were located in Brooklyn, which Trend in Price Per Square Foot, Class One Housing, Five Boroughs we have made the focus of our study. While 600 all five boroughs of the city contain some 500 class one historic properties, only in 400 Brooklyn are there sufficient sales to make 300 meaningful comparisons between similar 200 100 properties located inside and outside 0 historic districts. During most of the years covered by our data, the number of class one sales in Brooklyns historic districts was Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Queens Staten Is. well over 100. In no other borough did the SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance. number of class one historic district sales approach this level.
19 75 19 79 19 77 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 89 19 87 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99

The question posed was whether historic districting has an impact on housing prices that is separate from the overall price trends. The chart on price trends per square foot in all five boroughs shows the mean nominal price per square foot of tax class one properties from 1975 through 2002, for each of the five 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 the boroughs, with the exception of Manhattan. Prices in Manhattan are much higher than in the rest of the city, have increased at a much faster rate during real estate booms, and have fallen much more sharply in periods of downturn.

IBOs study compared prices of properties in historic districts with prices outside designated historic areas. Rather than use sales from the entire borough of Brooklyn, we restricted ourselves to those community districts that contain at least one historic district. The justification for this restriction was to compare historic district properties with non-districted properties that are at least somewhat similar in terms of architecture, 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

The chart on price trends in Brooklyn uses only sales from community districts that contain historic districts. The chart contrasts nominal prices of properties included in an historic district at the time of sale, with properties outside the historic district, but in the same community district. The Brooklyn chart shows that the mean sales price of tax class one properties in the borough increased at a moderate pace from 1975 through 1982. Prices then rose rapidly from 1982 through 1989. From 1989 through 1993 there was a period of decline. A recovery began around 1993, and accelerated beginning in
NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 3

20 01

165

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

neighborhood level. We chose three historic districts as examples of the variation among historic districts. Park Mean, properties not in historic districts at time of sale 250 Slope is a relatively highMean, properties in historic districts at time of sale income district, with a 1990 200 per capita income of 150 $32,000 according to census data. Fort Greene is a 100 middle-income 50 neighborhood (per capita 0 income of $18,000), and Stuyvesant Heights is relatively low-income (per SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance. capita income of $12,500). We then compare the mean 1997. Throughout the period under consideration, properties nominal price per square foot for sales inside each historic in historic districts were more expensive than non-district district, to the prices in areas within 1,000 to 1,250 feet of properties. The divergence became especially great beginning historic district boundaries. Prices just outside each district around 1997, due to the very rapid appreciation of high-end follow similar patterns to prices inside. As the comparative chart properties in historic districts. Over the entire 1975-2002 shows, in Park Slope and Fort Greene, prices in most years are period, historic properties increased in value an average of noticeably higher inside the districts than just outside them. 10.2 percent per year, while non-historic properties Prices inside and adjacent to the Stuyvesant Heights historic experienced a rate of growth of 9.0 percent per year. When we district are very similar, but in most years are slightly higher adjust prices for inflation, the increases of the mid-1980s are inside. less dramatic, and the decline of the early 1990s more The Stuyvesant Heights and Park Slope historic districts were pronounced. In inflation-adjusted terms, prices of historic established in 1971 and 1973, respectively. Since the sales data properties have risen an average of 5.3 percent per year since begin in 1975, for these neighborhoods it is not possible to 1975, while non-historic district properties have risen an compare prices before and after districting. The Fort Greene average of 4.2 percent. Historic District was established in September 1978. The price per square foot was substantially higher in 1979 than in 1978 Neighborhood Level Trends. Of course, property markets can ($21.11 vs. $13.57). While these results may indicate that vary widely, even within the limited geographic extent of a districting itself had a positive impact on property values, the single borough. Therefore, we next looked at trends at the number of salesonly 13 per yearis too small to give conclusive results. Comparison of Price Per Square Foot, Historic Districts and Adjacent Blocks
Price Per Square Foot, Class One Properties in Brooklyn Community Districts with Historic Districts, 1975-2002 300

Dollars

19 93

19 97

19 95

19 99

400 Price per square foot 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
197 5

19 75

19 79

19 77

Park Slope hd Near Park Slope hd Fort Greene hd Near Fort Greene hd Stuyvesant Heights hd Near Stuyvesant Heights hd

19 81

19 85

19 83

19 87

19 91

19 89

20 01

STATISTICAL MODELS OF HOUSING PRICES

197 8

198 1

198 4

198 7

199 0

199 3

1 99 6

199 9

2 00 2

SOURCES: IBO; Department of Finance. 4 NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

Based on the analysis of the previous sections, IBO concluded that inclusion in an historical district is generally associated with higher prices. However, the analysis has thus far made no explicit effort to control for other aspects of the houses, other than the uniformity that would be expected from looking at properties within a restricted geographic area. Interior

166

and exterior dwelling characteristics, as well as neighborhood traits, influence housing prices. If properties in historic districts sell for more than properties outside districts, in part this may be because of differences in these other variables. This study uses the statistical technique known as linear regression to analyze how the price of a house is influenced by inclusion in an historic district, as well as by other structural and neighborhood characteristics. The analysis requires a larger number of observations than is available at the individual historic district level, and thus sales from all Brooklyn community districts that contain historic districts are grouped together. There are two different model formulations, each designed to measure the influence of historical districts on property values in a different way. The variables contained in the models are described below.

reported frontage by its reported depth (both numbers are contained in the RPAD file). The actual footprint may vary slightly from the calculated result, due to the building not having an exact square or rectangular shape. The footprint was subtracted from the total lot size, to give yard size. The vast majority of the calculated values were reasonable, given the size of the lot and the house. In the few cases (less than one percent) in which the calculated yard size was negative, or unrealistically small or large, the observation was discarded. The yard size variable allows us to control for differences in plot sizean important determinant of valuewhile avoiding the statistical problems that would result from simply using total lot size which 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 lot was built. In a few cases a given lot has been occupied by more than one structure since 1975. Sales of any previous structure

Sales Price. The dependent variable in our models is the sales price of the house (housval). As explained earlier, extreme outliers and sales that did not appear to be arms-length were discarded. Mean Values for Housing Characteristics, Class One Properties The variable for sales price is expressed in logarithmic form in our models. The coefficients on the continuous independent variables, multiplied by 100, indicate the percentage change in the sales price for a one-unit change in the independent variable. The coefficients on the dummy variables indicate the difference in log values between properties that have the characteristic and those that do not. As Halvorsen and Palmquist (1980) and Kennedy (1981) have shown, the percentage effect of a difference in logs, b, can be expressed as 100(eb 1). For example, if the coefficient on a dummy variable is 0.5, this means that houses with the characteristic are worth 100(e.5 -1), or 65 percent more than houses without the characteristic. Yard Size. The variable yardsize refers to the area of the lot not taken up by the house. Yard size was calculated by first estimating the footprint of the building, i.e., the area of the lot taken up by the structure. The footprint was computed by multiplying the buildings
In Brooklyn that Have Sold at Least Once Since 1975
Variable Description

Mean Value of Variable (weighted by number of observations) All Community Districts Community Districts with Historic Districts $37,859 (1975) $415,635 (2002) Historic Districts as of July 2000 $60,164 (1975) $870,931 (2002) 3,247

HOUSVAL* Sale price of a house, excluding outliers $41,386 (1975) and non-arms length $344,295 (2002) transactions GROSQFT ONEFAM The square footage of the house Dummy variable equal to one if the house is one-family; zero otherwise The size of the yard in square feet Year in which the house was built The income level of the census tract where the property is located (1=low, 2=medium, 3=high) Approximate distance to the nearest subway station (see text) 2,245

2,597

0.33

0.28

0.35

YARDSIZE YRBLT INCLEVEL

1,538 1920

1,534 1913

1,479 1904

2.29

2.2

2.74

SUBWDIST

2,831 feet

1,549 feet

1,337 feet

SOURCE: IBO.

NOTE: *Dependent variable; expressed in logarithmic form in regression equation.


NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 5

167

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

that occupied the lot cannot be used, because the data set would contain no information on the year the house was built, its square footage, or the building class. Distance to the Subway. The variable subwdist represents the approximate distance from a house to the nearest subway or commuter rail station. The assumption is that in New York City, distance from mass transit access affects market values. More specifically, it is the distance from the center of the tax block in which a house is located. The RPAD file contains geographic coordinates for centroids (central points) of each tax block. After assigning a tax block location to each subway and commuter rail station, we calculated the straight-line distance between the block and each station. We then determined the distance to the closest station. This distance is expressed in feet. We added 200 feet to each value, to account for the distance that subway users must travel from the entrance to the platform, and to avoid having distances equal to zero. The resulting value is assigned to the variable subwdist. All houses in a given tax block have the same value for subwdist, and houses that are in the same block as a rail station have a value of 200. Neighborhood Income and Quality of Life Indicators. Property values in New York City are subject to wide variation between one neighborhood and another. Properties with similar physical characteristics and even similar subway accessibility can be valued quite differently, depending on the perceived desirability or quality of life of their respective neighborhoods. Quality of life 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
Coefficients of Historic District Dummy Variable
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Coefficient (percentage effect) .497 (64.4) .442 (55.6) .536 (70.9) .541 (71.8) .445 (56.0) .466 (59.4) .418 (51.9) .301 (35.1) .531 (70.1) .341 (40.6) .351 (42.0) .324 (38.3) .281 (32.4) .204 (22.6) Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Coefficient (percentage effect) .295 .204 .233 .286 .334 .358 .236 .214 .204 .334 .290 .460 .428 .465 (26.2) (22.6) (26.2) (33.1) (39.7) (43.0) (26.6) (23.9) (22.6) (39.7) (33.6) (58.4) (53.4) (59.2)

neighborhood level, there is no one correct way to combine the individual measures into an index. The quality ranking of a group of neighborhoods may be different, depending on how a quality of life index is constructed. Differences in neighborhood quality may be hard to quantify, but are very real to consumers. Neighborhood quality is in economic terms a normal good, meaning that as their income rises, households demand more of it. As a result, higher-income households will tend to concentrate in neighborhoods with a higher perceived quality of life. This means that neighborhood quality of life should be highly correlated with household income. For this reason, IBOs study took the level of per capita income (low, medium, or high) as a proxy for neighborhood quality. This variable is labeled inclevel. The table on mean values for housing characteristics lists the explanatory variables used in the models, together with their mean values. On average, houses located in historic districts are larger and older than non-districted properties, are located in census tracts with a higher income level, and are closer to the subway.
MODEL I: DUMMY VARIABLE FOR INCLUSION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS

The first model attempts to answer the following question: In a given year, controlling for other building and neighborhood characteristics, are historic properties more expensive than nondistricted properties? The model uses a dummy variable that takes a value of one if the property is located inside an historic district at the time of sale, and zero otherwise, along with the 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 from 1975 through 2002 this coefficient is positive and statistically significant at the .01 level. This implies that historic district properties are more expensive than nondistricted properties, even after controlling for other influences on property values. As explained above, the coefficient on the dummy variable can be used to calculate the percentage premium for an historic district house. The coefficient ranges from .204 (a 22.6 percent premium) in 1988, 1990, and 1997, to .541 (a 71.8 percent premium) in 1978.
MODEL II: TIME TREND VARIABLES

SOURCE: IBO. NOTE: All coefficients are statistically significant at the .01 level. (I tI>2.58)

The results from the first model provide strong evidence

NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

168

that historic district properties are more expensive than nondistrict properties, even after controlling for square footage and other house and neighborhood characteristics. However, of greater concern to many owners is how districting will affect the rate of change, or appreciation, in property values. To answer this question, IBO used separate equations in which the sales price depended on neighborhood and building characteristics, plus a time trend. As shown in the chart on Brooklyn prices per square foot, prices did not follow a single linear trend from 1975 through 2002. However, we can approximate the overall movement of prices by breaking down the data into overlapping time periods and estimating a linear trend for each period. We have divided that data into six periods: 1975-1982, 1982-1989, 1989-1993, 1993-1997, 1997-2000, and 2000-2002. Because the dependent variable (housval) is expressed in logarithmic form, the coefficients of the time trend variables can be interpreted as annual percentage rates of change. For each time period there is one equation for all properties sold that are inside historic districts at the time of sale, and another for all sales of

properties outside historic districts at the time of sale but still in the six community districts that contain historic districts. The model coefficients are listed in the table on the time trend model.

significant? Grosqft Onefam Yardsize Yrblt Inclevel Subwdist

Although the price trends estimated in Model II control for house and neighborhood characteristics, the results are similar to the simple measure of housing prices per square foot displayed in the chart on Brooklyn price trends. In 1975-1982, properties in historic districts increased in price at an annual rate of 12.5 percent, compared with a rate of increase of only 8.4 percent for properties outside historic districts. In 19821989, historic district houses increased in price by an estimated 16.8 percent annually, compared with a 19.8 percent increase for houses outside. During the downturn of 1989-1993, prices fell slightly more inside historic districts than outside (-1.9 percent vs. -1.7 percent). The market for historic properties then recovered somewhat slowly, with an annual price increase of 1.2 percent in 1993-1997, compared with 4.4 percent for non-historic properties.4 During the boom of Regression Coefficients, Time Trend Model 1997-2000, historic properties Time period> 1975-1982 1982-1989 1989-1993 increased in value at an annual rate In Historic Not in In Historic Not in Explanatory In Historic Not in of 13.4 percent, much higher than District Historic District Historic variable District Historic the 4.7 percent rate for properties District District District outside historic districts. Finally, Time trend .125* .084* .168* .198* -0.0186 -.017* during 2000-2002 the annual rate Difference in historic district and of price increase for historic non-historic district properties was 12.2 percent, below Yes Yes No time trends the rate of 15.1 percent for nonstatistically historic properties.
.00021* .113* -0.00002 -.00362* .336* .000184* .00016* .157* .00013* .00664* .241* -.000035* .00018* .0822* -.000027* -0.00298 .470* .000184* .00019* .119* .00013* .00525* .409* -.00005* .00016* 0.07 -0.000019 -.00398* .416* .000179* .00017* .0867* .000097* .0045* .269* -.00004*

Time period> Time trend Difference in historic district and non-historic district time trends statistically significant? Grosqft Onefam Yardsize Yrblt Inclevel Subwdist

1993-1997 0.0122 .0436*

1997-2000 .134* .0467*

2000-2002 .122* .151*

Yes

Yes

No

.00022* 0.0243 -.000055* -.0071* .448* .000275*

.00018* .043* .000068* .0038* .233* -.000037*

.00025* 0.051 -.000061* -.0063* .56* .0002*

.00016* 0.0222 .000075* .0011* .281* -.000032*

.00023* 0.0414 -0.000039 -0.00045 .607* .00027*

.0001* .0409* .000038* -.00015* .269* -.00003*

SOURCE: IBO. NOTE: *Denotes coefficient significant at .01 level.

The model implies that controlling for structural and neighborhood characteristics, historic properties appreciated at a slightly lower rate than non-historic properties during the periods 1982-1989, 1993-1997, and 2000-2002. In addition, the decline in prices during 1989-1993 was slightly greater for historic properties. However, two caveats are in order. First, the difference in the time trend coefficients for historic vs. non-historic properties is not statistically significant in two of these periods1989-1993 and 2000-2002. Second, during 19751982 and 1997-2000 appreciation is so much higher among historic
7

NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

169

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

compared to non-historic properties that it more than makes up for the periods of weaker performance. Controlling for other dwelling and neighborhood characteristics, prices of class one properties in historic districts sometimes increased faster, sometimes slower, than properties outside the districts. However, the overall effect of inclusion in an historic district during the 28-year period 1975-2002 was positive. Applying the time trend coefficients, a house valued at $37,859 in 1975the mean price for all class one properties sold in community districts with historic districtswould have risen in value 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) is consistently a strong predictor of sales prices, with all coefficients positive and statistically significant. All coefficients on the census tract income level variable (inclevel) are also positive and highly significant. The dummy variable for a onefamily house (onefam) is consistently positive, but not always statistically significant. The size of the yard (yardsize) has a positive and statistically significant impact on the sales price of non-historic properties. However, in the case of houses located inside historic districts, larger yard sizes are associated with lower sales prices. This negative relationship was statistically significant in three of the six time periods. Houses in the expensive brownstone neighborhoods where prices have risen extremely rapidly typically have smaller yards than houses in more modest historic districts. For example, houses in the Brooklyn Heights historic district that sold between 1975 and 2000 had an average yard size of 924 square feet. This compares with an average yard size of 1,196 square feet in the Stuyvesant Heights district, and 4,762 square feet in the Ditmas Park district, both areas with lower per capita income and lower housing prices, than Brooklyn Heights. The year in which the house was built (yrblt) is statistically significant in 10 out of the 12 equations. The coefficients for the historic district equations are all negative, while the coefficients for non-districted properties are all positive. Inside historic districts, older houses are often associated with greater architectural significance. Outside the districts, older houses

may be more associated with increased maintenance costs and obsolete design. The distance from the house to the nearest subway station (subwdist) is statistically significant in all 12 equations. As expected, the coefficient is negative for sales of properties outside historic districts, indicating that buyers are willing to pay a premium for better subway access. However, the coefficient is positive for sales within historic districts. Most historic district properties in Brooklyn are close to a subway line, and it may be that within these districts, living at a moderate walking distance from a station is preferred to living adjacent to a station.
CONCLUSION

IBO found clear evidence that after controlling for property and neighborhood characteristics, market values of properties in historic districts were higher than those outside historic districts for every year in our study. Although the results for price appreciation during particular sub-periods are mixed, for the entire 1975 through 2002 period properties in historic districts increased in price at a slightly greater rate than properties not in districts. Finally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that districting 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 historic district, in 1931. New York Citys first historic district was Brooklyn Heights in 1965. 2 Tax class one also contains small condo buildings, garages and vacant land adjacent to another class one parcel, and some small mixed-use properties. This study excluded such properties. Hereinafter, tax class one properties refers only to conventional one-, two-, and three-family houses. 3 Sales are classified as not arms-length if the property is sold two years in a row, and one of two conditions holds: 1) if the price increases by 100 percent or more between the first year and the second year, the first transaction is considered not arms-length; 2) if the price decreases by 9 percent or more between the first year and the second year, the second transaction is considered not arms-length. Price outliers are defined relative to average prices in the community district. 4 While the model implies that historic properties performed less well than nonhistoric properties during the periods 1989-1993 and 1993-1997, the time trend variables for historic districts during these two periods are not statistically significant.

NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

170

Appendix
New York City Historical Districts: Locations and Dates of Designation Name Borough Community Board 1 12 8 8 7 7 2 4 5 1 1 1 6 2 9 9 9 8 8 12 4/5 2 5 7 10 6 2 7 7 7 3 9 6 2 1 1 6 8 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 8 7 7 7 Date of Designation (yr./mo./day) 93/02/25 79/01/23 74/07/23 93/12/21 77/07/12 73/04/19 66/08/16 70/09/15 98/06/30 93/11/16 78/11/14 96/06/18 66/09/20 69/04/29 74/11/26 00/06/27 02/06/18 98/05/05 69/02/11 70/08/18 89/05/02 67/08/02 01/06/26 77/09/20 71/11/03 02/01/29 99/06/29 85/03/26 73/04/19 89/12/19 69/01/14 67/03/16 66/06/21 73/08/14 89/07/11 96/06/25 75/09/23 67/12/13 92/12/08 92/12/08 92/12/08 02/11/19 91/05/07 88/05/17 66/06/21 81/05/19 90/04/24 89/08/29 84/01/03

African Burial Grounds and the Commons Audobon Terrace Carnegie Hill Expanded Carnegie Hill Central Park West 73-74 Street Central Park West 76 Street Charlton-King-Vandam Chelsea East 17th Street/Irving Place Ellis Island Fraunces Tavern Block Governors Island Gramercy Park Greenwich Village Hamilton Heights Hamilton Heights/Sugar Hill Hamilton Heights/Sugar Hill Northwest Hardenbergh/Rhinelander Henderson Place Jumel Terrace Ladies Mile MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Madison Square North Metropolitan Museum Mount Morris Park Murray Hill NoHo Riverside Drive-West 80-81 Riverside Drive-West 105 Riverside-West End St. Marks St. Nicholas Sniffen Court Soho-Cast Iron South Street Seaport Stone Street Stuyvesant Square Treadwell Farm Tribeca East Tribeca North Tribeca South Tribeca South Extension Tribeca West Tudor City Turtle Bay Gardens Upper East Side Upper West Side/Central Park West West 71st Street West End-Collegiate

Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan

Table continued on next page


NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 9

171

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Appendix

continued from prior page

Bertine Block Clay Avenue Longwood Morris Avenue Morris High School Mott Haven Mott Haven East Riverdale Albemarle-Kenmore Terraces Boerum Hill Brooklyn Academy of Music Brooklyn Heights Carroll Gardens Clinton Hill Cobble Hill Ditmas Park Fort Greene Fulton Ferry Greenpoint Park Slope Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Prospect Park South Stuyvesant Heights Vinegar Hill Douglaston Fort Totten Hunters Point Jackson Heights Stockholm Street St. George NYC Farm Colony
SOURCE: IBO; Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens Queens Queens Queens Queens Staten Island Staten Island

1 3 2 5 2 1 1 8 14 2 2 2 6 2 6 14 2 2 1 6 9 14 3 2 11 7 2 3 5 1 2

94/04/05 94/04/05 80/07/08 86/07/15 82/12/21 69/07/29 94/04/05 90/10/16 78/07/11 73/11/20 76/09/26 65/11/23 73/09/25 81/11/10 69/12/30 81/08/29 78/09/26 77/06/28 82/09/14 73/07/17 79/10/09 79/02/08 71/09/14 97/01/14 97/06/24 99/06/29 68/05/15 93/10/19 00/11/28 94/07/19 85/03/26

10

NEW YORK CITY INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE

172

6.

/// Wk. 10.14.12 I. Heritage Diagram II. Report #6: Non-Proft Organizations Cultural Identity resources Zoning/Heritage III. Sunset Park Zoning Map IV. Process Diagram V. Historic Preservation in New York City outline VI. Charlottes Place ethnography

/// Articles I. 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

Explanation of the Diagram


In the search to determine what kind of space would be suitable for La Unin, 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 Unins space lies somewhere at the confluence.

Localized

Non-profit
Charlottes Place

Heritage
New York Restoration Project

La Unin
Spaces of Dependence

van Heeswijk reading - relates to spaces of dependence

Group Identity
Community Gardens Case Study

Sunset Park Historic District

Finnish Coops

Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)

National Register of Historic Places Government


Sunset Park Zoning

UNESCO

Spaces of Engagement (politics of scale)

Scales of Heritage Designation

General

Reading Diagram (Video) The Artist Will Have to Decide Whom to Serve. Jeanne van Heeswijk URL: http://youtu.be/_W7Fix41VGg

175

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 Charlottes 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 didnt 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 Coxs 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 didnt 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, MINEs 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)

180

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 Angottis 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 Knoxs 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, 126144. Oboler, S. Editorial Cultures of resistance: Another world is in the making Latino Studies (2011) 9, 59. 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 Quiones-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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 diagram Much 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 qualies the district for grants and federal tax benets 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 levels See GIS list google doc Local NYC designation has the most protections/limitations attached to it resources

Heritage designation brings opportunities for grants and other alternative funding These funds seem mostly for external, architectural preservation and upkeep designation versus architectural based designation discussed below)?

Are there funds for land acquisition or cultural development (in light of a cultural 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-prot what?) Individual designation provides access to funding that is less applicable to the district designation because of the breadth of district designation But 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? coalition building. As suggested previously and by other groups, it would benet La Union to engage in 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:

182

The City Planning Commission has been designating special zoning districts since 1969 to achieve specic planning and urban design objectives in dened areas with unique characteristics. Special districts respond to specic 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? MATERIAL CASE! In what ways can it be one or the other? 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 Parks 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? historically and contemporarily to cooperative housing further information)

The economic link of SP Waterfront to the international markets and global exchange SP as a traditionally culturally heterogeneous neighborhood with a historical connection Americas First Housing Co-operative (Finnish- please see last weeks research for SP is enigmatic of NYCs diversity and history (culturally, economically) Does this happen within the Latino community as well?

Chinese immigrant families coming together to form informal cooperative housing A missing link in this larger investigation of common property is the fundamental around these actions.

importance of community engagement and action and the difculty of organizing people

183

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

QUESTIONS FOR HERITAGE PROFESSIONALS preservation

Are there opportunities for or examples of using non-architectural arguments for IF 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? ZONING: What grants and funding are available for heritage property acquisition, upkeep, etc? Zoning limits and special zoning districts through resolutions (such as height restrictions development, or means of community empowerment for inclusionary action.

and type of commercial developments) offer additional obstacles for new exclusionary 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 neighborhood consciousness, creating an obstacle to exclusionary development. *Special Scenic View District* Effective Date:10/24/74

would limit the building height and establish these view spaces as an integral part of the

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 Community Land Trusts. condent there is an opportunity here. There may also be opportunities to connect it to

184

185

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

186

October 10, 2012

Built 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 citys 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 citys 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 sites 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Registers or County Clerks 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)

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 Surrogates 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,

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)

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.

189

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Troys Visit to Charlottes Place 9/20/12 1:00pm Through our heritage research, and our desire to apply it directly to La Unon. 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 Charlottes Place located in lower Manhattan. Charlottes Place is an outpost soto-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 spaces blog, executive director Jennifer Chin describes it as, a free gathering space to anyone in lower Manhattan. At Charlottes 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 Photos courtesy of Charlottes Place blog 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 cant 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 didnt 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

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 childlike 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 childrens 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 Miguels 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 churchor 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 didnt 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Charlottes Pace is constantly defined and redefined by who walks in the door. This is a paradox. As new visitors populate Charlottes 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

192

COMMUNITY GARDENS AND POLITICS OF SCALE IN NEW YORK CITY*


Smith, Christopher M Geographical Review; Apr 2003; 93, 2; PRISMA (Publicaciones y Revistas Sociales y Humansticas) pg. 193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

193

194 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

195

196 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

197

198 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

199

200 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

201

202 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

203

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 1 of 21

204

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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 2 of 21

205

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Citys 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 NYCs 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 Wongs 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. Michaels 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 buildings 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-ofscale 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 Citys 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
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 3 of 21

206

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 reports 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 Parks population, and while many community groups were represented, this is less than one-half of one percent of the neighborhoods 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 communitys concerns about development and the neighborhoods 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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 4 of 21

207

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Citys 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 neighborhoods 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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 5 of 21

208

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 neighborhoods 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 neighborhoods side streets by creating a long, often brick, wall between commercial
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 6 of 21

209

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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).

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 7 of 21

210

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 Parks 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 Citys 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 rentregulated 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
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process Page 8 of 21

211

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

scenario would pose a threat to the long-term existence of at least the 202 rentregulated 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 neighborhoods 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 GreenpointWilliamsburg 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.
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 9 of 21

212

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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 10 of 21

213

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 50s near Seventh and Eighth Avenues.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 11 of 21

214

Appendix A, cont.: Recent Development Activity

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 12 of 21

215

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Appendix A, cont.: Recent Development Activity

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 13 of 21

216

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 37 21 10 68 Total units 332 204 102 638

Fourth Avenue Seventh Avenue Eighth Avenue total

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
Less than 50% of Maximum Allowable FAR under R7A Less than 50% of Maximum Allowable FAR under R8A

Fourth Avenue Seventh Avenue Eighth Avenue total

Buildings 5 8 0 13

Units 30 47 0 77

Buildings 26 n/a n/a 26

Units 202 n/a n/a 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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 14 of 21

217

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Appendix B, cont.: 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.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 15 of 21

218

Appendix B, cont.: 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 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Address 891 4th Avenue 893 4th Avenue 922 4th Avenue 992 4th Avenue 4110 4th Avenue 4311 4th Avenue 4706 4th Avenue 4707 4th Avenue 4802 4th Avenue 4820 4th Avenue 4815 4th Avenue 4819 4th Avenue 5013 4th Avenue 5015 4th Avenue 5019 4th Avenue 5310 4th Avenue 5411 4th Avenue 5413 4th Avenue 5513 4th Avenue 5519 4th Avenue 5516 4th Avenue 5520 4th Avenue 5610 4th Avenue 5614 4th Avenue 5618 4th Avenue 5622 4th Avenue 5705 4th Avenue 5707 4th Avenue 5713 4th Avenue 5717 4th Avenue 5907 4th Avenue 5915 4th Avenue 6005 4th Avenue 6008 4th Avenue 6012 4th Avenue 6310 4th Avenue 6316 4th Avenue Rent-stabilized units 6 6 7 6 6 6 16 8 8 18 12 11 8 8 8 12 6 6 6 5 9 15 9 5 5 7 6 6 4 6 7 8 17 6 6 23 23 Built FAR 1.55 1.55 2.50 1.82 3.56 2.12 2.78 2.55 3.39 3.36 3.04 3.04 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.65 2.28 2.28 2.20 2.50 3.86 2.91 2.46 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.37 2.37 3.38 2.80 3.05 3.63 2.85 1.65 1.65 3.52 3.52

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 16 of 21

219

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Appendix B, cont.: Rent-Stabilized Housing on 4th, 7th, and 8th Avenues

Seventh Avenue:
Map # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Address 4103 7th Avenue 4109 7th Avenue 4121 7th Avenue 4219 7th Avenue 4808 7th Avenue 4812 7th Avenue 4818 7th Avenue 4820 7th Avenue 5105 7th Avenue 5117 7th Avenue 5312 7th Avenue 5413 7th Avenue 5511 7th Avenue 5515 7th Avenue 5517 7th Avenue 5519 7th Avenue 5523 7th Avenue 5903 7th Avenue 5907 7th Avenue 5909 7th Avenue 5911 7th Avenue
Rent-stabilized units Built FAR

20 15 16 16 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 30 6 6 4 6 6 6 5 6 6

3.21 2.93 2.93 2.75 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.95 1.92 1.50 2.96 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.13 2.54 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63

Eighth Avenue:
Map #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Address

4013 8th Avenue 4116 8th Avenue 4118 8th Avenue 4205 8th Avenue 4207 8th Avenue 4211 8th Avenue 4901 8th Avenue 5021 8th Avenue 5202 8th Avenue 5224 8th Avenue

Rent-stabilized units

7 8 7 7 7 7 35 5 6 6

Built FAR

3.08 2.49 2.49 2.54 2.54 2.58 3.20 2.51 3.60 3.53

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 17 of 21

220

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

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 18 of 21

221

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Appendix C, cont.: Sunset Park View Shed Analysis

Current built conditions

Full R8A build-out on Fourth Avenue

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 19 of 21

222

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 Lack of parking More traffic Overcrowded schools Garbage Other: Illegal Conversions Overcrowded buses and subways Construction nuisances Other: non-contextual development Water pressure issues Sewage issues Other: Preservation Other: loss of affordable housing Other: quality of life/safety/healthy place Other: Zoning Other: Blocked View of Harbor Other: increase outreach Other: Illegal Residences Other: affordable housing Other: Altering Character of Community (P) Other: Sidewalk Crowding Other: Strains on Electrical System Other: overcrowded apartments Other: Pollution Other: More Development 6-8 Aves Other: Lack of Affordable Housing 151 100 58 57 46 42 40 36 31 25 25 19 16 12 12 12 9 9 9 7 6 5 2 2 1 1

Concerns related to affordable housing


Total dot votes Creating new affordable homeownership units Creating new affordable rental units Saving existing affordable housing in rent stabilized buildings (6+ units) Improving poor conditions in exisiting low-Income housing Stopping harrassment of tenants by landlords Saving existing affordable housing in small, unregualted buildings (1-5 units) Saving existing affordable housing in the five Section 8 buildings in the district Dealing with foreclosures and predatory lending Other: Increasing housing advocacy organizations Other: Creating more jobs Other: More development on 6th through 8th Avenues
Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

127 110 100 73 72 52 40 30 6 1 1

Page 20 of 21

223

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 NYCs Housing and Neighborhoods 2006, Furman Center for Real Estate at NYU.

Sunset Park Voices in the Rezoning Process

Page 21 of 21

224

Sunset Park Community Conversation on Rezoning


October 27, 2007

Sponsored by Councilmember Sara M. Gonzalez and Community Board 7 Image

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 Parks future
225

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Zoning 101
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: 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. FAR Allowable Bldg SF Lot SF 10,000 (100 x 100) 1.0 10,000 SF 10,000 (100 x 100) 4.0 40,000 SF

226

Current Zoning in Sunset Park


Zone Resid Comm Communi l l ty FAR FAR Facility FAR Manu f FAR Height Limits

R6

2.43

By overla y 3.4 2.0 2.0

4.8

None

C4-3 2.43
R6

4.8 4.8 0

0 2.0 2.0

None None None

M1-2 0 M2-1 0

Current Issue: Development Pressure


Population growth
NYC Population
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Millions

227

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Current Issue: Development Pressure


Population growth + gentrificatio n

Current Issue: Development Pressure


Population growth + gentrificatio n = developmen t pressure

228

Sunset Park: Development Activity in the North

Sunset Park: Development Activity in the South

229

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Contextual Zoning: Examples


R6A R6B

R7A

R8A

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

232

New Tool: Inclusionary Zoning

Inclusionary Zoning: South Park Slope (15th 22nd Streets)

233

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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, and 15% of total units for households at or below $88,625

Units must be permanently affordable. Options for: onsite, offsite new construction, offsite preservation (within mile radius or same community district).

Inclusionary Zoning: Issues



234

Voluntary, not mandatory Only being applied with upzonings Affordable homeownership not included in recent rezonings. Uneven use by developers:
Upland Greenpoint-Williamsburg South Park Slope

Anti-harassment/anti-demolition provisions not generally included

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

Sunset Park Community Conversation on Rezoning


October 27, 2007

Sponsored by Councilmember Sara M. Gonzalez and Community Board 7 Image

235

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)


Potential Steps Prior to ULURP Zoning study Community meetings Development on initial proposal Scope of work for DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

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 Preservation of manufacturing/industrial New waterfront open space

Covers waterfront area

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 areas 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Zoning 101: Regulating Uses

M R C MX

Manufacturing Residential Commercial Mixed use

R6

Various use groups are permitted in different zoning districts.

Zoning 101: Regulating Uses

M R C MX

Manufacturing Residential Commercial (overlays) Mixed use

Various use groups are permitted in different zoning districts.

238

Zoning 101: Building Size

South Slope Rezoning (2005)

Previous Zoning

New Zoning
239

7.

/// Wk. 10.21.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Report #7: Heritage Non-Proft Organizations Cultural Identity CIC Diagram III. Sunset Park Historic District Diagram /// Articles I. Sunset Park Historic District Nomination Form II. An Integrative Model of Contact, Identity and Conflict (CIC): Application to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Explanation of the Diagram

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

Our 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 Unin 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.

Funding Opportunities
Government Grants and Tax Credits

General

Non-profit
Common Ground
Sustainable Cities Homeless Housing

Land Trusts
NY Restoration Project

Heritage

Historically Significant Architecture

Sunset Park Federal Historic District


La Unin

Low Income Housing

Preservation of a working class neighbhorhood


Finnish Coops first of its kind in NYC

Mission of housing

Immigration

Strong historic connection between historic district and the industrial waterfront

Localized

Reading Diagram Bird on Fire: Lessons from the Worlds Least Sustainable City, Ch. 3 The Battle for Downtown. Andrew Ross.

241

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 wasnt. 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 schools 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 Unon. 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, andsorted by address and street blocklisting 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 1890s 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 1880s 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 buildingschurches, schools, banks, court house, built in Classical Revival, neo-Romanesque, and neo-Gothic styles, all of which were completed by 1930. Summarizing Dolkarts 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 Brooklyns 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 Brooklyns 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Grounds 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 Aubreys 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 doesnt 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.

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 Heeswijks 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 Unon 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 Quiones-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 cultureterms 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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=Din the eyes of the majoritysocial upheavaldoes not occur. To make a more direct connection with the Latino population of La Unon, we looked at Rosaura Snchezs 2011 article The toxic tonic: Narratives of xenophobia in Latino Studies. Snchez 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 populationout of fear of social upheavalimpose 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 debtridden nations of the South, and cites David Harveys 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.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF ETHNIC CONTACT, IDENTITY, AND CONFLICT (CIC): ...


Yueh-Ting, Lee;Joann Quiones-Perdomo;Perdomo, Edison Ethnic Studies Review; 2002; 25, 2; Ethnic NewsWatch pg. 57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Reproduced Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

286

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced

287

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced

292

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced

293

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Reproduced with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

294

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced

295

296

CITYZEN

E d i t ori al

C u ltu res o f res i s ta n c e: A n o th e r wo rld is in th e m a ki n gy


Latino Studies (2011) 9, 59. doi:10.1057/lst.2011.18

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

The mass social movements around the world from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to Puerto Rico, Wisconsin and Ohio are encouraging in various ways. They presage a change, a struggle for rather than against our own humanity indeed, a declaration of war against the inhumanity that for the past few decades seems to have held hostage, peoples hopes, dreams and expectations. The seeds of resistance have sprouted into various forms of protest, and today hold the promise of forging a new culture of human dignity (Baroud, 2010). For the hundreds of thousands who are struggling against the greed of the wealthy and the powerful in the world, the peaceful protests are an affirmation of peoples right to have rights, a rejection of the rules and regulations that, in practice, herald peoples redundancy and disposability. We saw the early stirrings of this resistance in the United States in 2006, when millions of Latino/as took to the streets to demand that human dignity be respected. Despite the involvement of thousands of working people, the marches of 2006 2007 were neither for higher wages nor for better working conditions. They were instead a call for the recognition of peoples dignity and humanity marking the repudiation of the criminalization of honest hard work in our society. As John Betancur and Maricela Garcia argue in this issue, mass action and the organizational capacity of the community itself, rather than formal organizations, ultimately directed the immigrant rights movements and ensured their significance. They were the expressions of what Edward Said defined as a culture of resistance, that is, culture [as] a way of fighting against extinction and obliteration (in Baroud, 2010). Today, in Wisconsin as in other parts of the world, we are witnessing similar actions, a similar organizational capacity born of the affirmation of human dignity. It is a movement energized by hundreds of thousands of people who in that state, as well as across the country, are insisting on their right to have rights. Like Latino/as in Arizona and elsewhere who continue to resist draconian legislation grounded in hate and exclusion, to mobilize and call for comprehensive immigration reform legalization, for the reunification of families, the right to go to college, workplace rights and civil liberties for all working men and women of
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/ Vol. 9, 1, 59

Editorial

Editorial

Wisconsin too are seeking, in Betancur and Garcias words, support for reform everywhere they (can). Undoubtedly we are in a different era than that of the 1960s movements for Civil Rights; it is an era in which the youth, in particular, have transcended the polarizing left and right of the past in search of the affirmation of their (our) humanity and belonging. This search and affirmation is certainly present in their individual acts of courage throughout the country whether in those of undocumented Latino/a youth who are coming out of the shadows to insist on the passage of the DREAM Act a symbol of their right to belonging or of youth like the environmentalist, Tim DeChristopher, who are single-handedly declaring war on those who are destroying our common future. Indeed, Latino/a youth and others are challenging to varying extents and in different ways and realms, the prevailing cultural norms on both the left and the right. Urayoan Noels essay suggests that despite differences, the young Nuyorican poets of the post 1990s slam-era generation do show some cultural and aesthetic continuities with the Nuyorican poetry movements of the 1960s; according to Noel, more than establishing radical breaks, the works of todays young poets seek the negotiation of a middle ground between 1960s- and 1970s-style anti-colonialism and post 1960s market pragmatism. Hence, Noel argues, the work of these poets suggests that the difference between the founding Nuyorican poetries of the 1960s and 1970s and the so-called post-Nuyorican or Diasporican poetries of the 1990s and beyond y should not occlude important continuities that allow us to conceive of a Nuyorican aesthetics, on and off the page, from the 1960s to the present. Certainly, as Noel suggests, the transcendent permanence and the continuities of culture cannot be under-estimated, and its power in terms of both its liberating and repressive ramifications must be recognized. As Lawrence Goodwyn (1978) explained more than 30 years ago, in the United States, the masses traditionally do not rebel because they have been culturally organized not to rebel. This has had serious consequences for our experience and understanding of Democracy itself, despite official rhetoric to the contrary. Sarita Gaytan engages the significance of culture in terms of the consumption of commodities and uses her analysis of the transnational consumption of tequila to discuss the ways that consumption structures collective identities and relations, and cultural practices, simultaneously reinforcing the past even while (re)shaping the present. She argues for more recognition of the significance of commodities and their consumption as potential sites for understanding the nuances of how individuals manage complex webs of relations that have cultural, social, and political implications. Key to understanding what is at stake in the mobilizations of the current period is the organization of race in structuring labor dynamics and hierarchies in the United States. Undoubtedly, as Rosaura Sanchez argues in her essay in El Foro, there is today a framing master narrative of xenophobia that now serves to locate immigrants in the American imaginary, as threats to a particular way of life, forcing Latinos into the position of scapegoats in the broader narrative, understanding and practices of those who seek to explain to justify the current social and economic neoliberalism that is so successfully (re)structuring US society and expectations. That the underlying premise of this master narrative of xenophobia, particularly against Latino/as, is grounded more in racism, than in legal status, can be easily verified by research on the impact that the presence of Puerto Rican citizens might have in contributing to white flight in specific cities. Michael Sacks analysis of the gentrification process in two northeastern cities suggests that the resulting ethnic group segregation was influenced by the Puerto Rican presence, even when controlling for the economic status of Hispanics. Certainly, as Rosaura Sanchez correctly points out, In each and every case of scapegoating the circumstances are different; the conditions that give rise to them are different, and the state, in modern times in particular, has specific ties to the practice of scapegoating or, more precisely, to the production of a given xenophobia narrative. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, The New York Times published a searing description and critique of the racially segregating labor practices at a pork production slaughterhouse in Springfield, North Carolina, ostensibly the largest in the world (LeDuff, 2000). The labor practices at the Springfield slaughterhouse followed the traditional racially hierarchized job distribution with Whites having supervisory roles and Native Americans having clean menial jobs, leaving the worst menial jobs for Blacks and Mexicans. The cultural implications for both the workplace and the factory of the use of race in the divide and conquer strategy in labor relations cannot be ignored. As the author noted, While Smithfield0 s profits nearly doubled in the past year, wages have remained flat y But more than management, the workers see one another as the problem, and they see the competition in skin tones. The locker rooms are self-segregated and so is the cafeteria. The enmity spills out into the towns. The races generally keep to themselves. Along Interstate 95 there are four tumbledown bars, one for each color: white, black, red and brown. Language is also a divider (LeDuff, 2000). In this respect, it is interesting to see the extent to which racial practices in the labor market have changed in the past decade, with the definitive shift from manufacturing to service sector employment in cities such as New York. Norma Fuentes-Mayorgas article shows that today racial sorting takes place beyond the reach of labor legislation, as employers use race, gender and immigrant status to position workers in front or back stage jobs, depending on the extent of their interaction with mainstream clientele. The use of race as a means of perpetuating divide and conquer strategies, reinforces and at least partially exemplifies the process by which the masses continue to be culturally organized not to rebel.
Vol. 9, 1, 59 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 59 Latino Studies

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

297

298

CITYZEN

Editorial

Editorial

this culture of resistance. For genuine collective resistance is a culmination of experiences that unite the individual to the collective, their conscious and subconscious, their relationships with their immediate surroundings and with that which is not so immediate, all colliding and exploding into a fury that cannot be suppressed (Baroud, 2010) but without which democracy remains either a purely formal legalistic concept or a distant mirage. Saludos!

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Refer e n c e s
Amster, R. 2010. Arizona bans ethnic studies and, along with it, reason and justice. Truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/arizona-bans-ethnic-studies-and-along-with-it-reasonand-justice66340, accessed 24 February 2011. Baroud, R. 2010. Beyond violence and nonviolence: Resistance as a culture. Truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/beyond-violence-and-nonviolence-resistance-a-culture61623, accessed 7 March2011. Goodwyn, L. 1978. The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America. New York: Oxford University Press. LeDuff, C.C. 2000. At a slaughterhouse, some things never die: Who kills, who cuts, who bosses can depend on race. In How Race is Lived in America. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/race/061600leduff-meat.html, accessed 7 March 2011. Stanchich, M. 2011. Massive turnout against police occupation of University of Puerto Rico, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maritza-stanchich-phd/20000-march-to-end-police_ b_822735.html, accessed 15 February 2011.

Still, as we begin the second decade of the twenty-first century, what is perhaps most encouraging is that throughout the world, youth, students, workers and their supporters are increasingly pushing back against the virulent corporate onslaught of the recent past. In the United States, there are growing numbers of community-based organizations and centers for workers advocacy, popular education and political campaigns, such as that described by Michelle Tellez, Cristina Sanidad and Nicolas de la Fuente, in this issues VIVENCIAS: Reports from the field section. These centers contribute to build a movement of workers, community members, communities of faith and students in order to effect change in the lives of workers, largely undocumented migrants. Citizens, immigrants, workers and students and their allies in the United States are taking a stand. In Puerto Rico, student protests that began in April of 2010 against the cancelation of waivers at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), which currently serves over 65 000 students, have today, one year later, mushroomed into a broad and diversified social movement to address the governments neoliberal policies, including privatization, austerity measures, firings, University program and other cuts, and new tuition and other fees. One woman explained her participation in the following terms, Im conservative and I work for this government y But I grew up in a small town, and I owe my economic betterment to my UPR education, and my children were also educated here, pointing to the campus where heavily armed policemen were stationed. What the government is doing is just plain wrong, (Stanchich, 2011). Similarly, in Arizona, students, youth, teachers and their supporters in the community are protesting the closure of Ethnic Studies programs in the schools of that state, a sign of the state governments efforts to further marginalize and exclude people of Mexican descent again, regardless of legal status. HB 2281, the Arizona bill that effectively bans the teaching of Ethnic Studies came into effect on 1 January 2011. Will it too spread to other parts of the country, like Arizonas SB 1070 has? As Randall Amster correctly points out, Whereas SB 1070 focused primarily on the ostensible control of bodies, HB 2281 is predominantly about controlling minds (Amster, 2010) and, therefore, these protests involve the very being of their participants. In this respect, they are then true precursors of a nascent culture. Like the current international mobilizations and the significant acts of courage of various groups and individuals in the United States, the actions, both individual and collective, of Latino/as need to be acknowledged whether in their challenges to neoliberalism, the political war they are waging against the culture of disposability imposed on Latino/as in various arenas, and their repudiation of the master narrative of xenophobia that as Sanchez describes, increasingly frames and encompasses the nations imaginary. These acts merit our full support, particularly the twenty-first century youth protests. It is essential that we all take a stand for justice, for human dignity, for our common future and that we make our contribution to the unfolding of Suzanne Oboler John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY E-mail: soboler@jjay.cuny.edu
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 59 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 59

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

El Fo ro

T h e t ox i c t o n i c : Narrat i ve s of xenophobia

Ro s au ra S n c h ez a
University of California at San Diego, California.

Latino Studies (2011) 9, 126144. doi:10.1057/lst.2011.11

1 I am here borrowing from Marx via Callinicos (2010, x). 2 Notion explained in Lefebvre (1991, 27).

Recent events throughout this country and in Arizona, in particular, have made clear that a narrative of xenophobia is widespread throughout the United States. The fact that this narrative or set of narratives has been a constant throughout the better part of human history, being often accompanied by genocide, is not comforting, especially in view of late twentieth and early twenty-first century episodes of ethnic cleansing, be they the Rwandan massacres, violence in the Congo Wars and the Balkan wars, or more recently in conflicts in Kyrgyzstan and even in China in the Xinjiang region. Earlier cases are manifold, of course, and US history registers all too many instances where Blacks, Chinese immigrants, Tejano-Mexicanos, Californios and especially Native Americans have suffered the consequences of xenophobia. Each case is, however, different and historically specific. What marks them all nonetheless is that in each case there are conditions created or existent in a particular nation that both give rise to and require illusions.1 These are illusions of transparency2 that serve as false explanatory narratives in cases of crises and that place blame on someone or some group for what ails the majority community. As noted by Zizek, uncertainties, like the financial meltdown of 2008, elicit narratives that focus not on the global capitalist system (and its constitutional crises) but rather seek to place the blame elsewhere (Callinicos, 2010, 17). Xenophobia, I suggest, is one such narrative; it currently offers a poor, shortsighted, and ultimately
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/

299

300
Narratives of xenophobia
Sanchez

CITYZEN
Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

3 Another perspective on the issue is that of social threat theory that offers a psychological analysis of interethnic friction (see Stephan and Renfro, 2002).
4 The mayor of Mesa in Arizona quoted in the L.A. Times, best expresses the fear of the majority population: You have whole neighborhoods that have transitioned into primarily Hispanic, Smith said: Whether right or wrong, people saw things were changing (see Anna Gorman and Nicholas Riccardi, 2010). 5 See related article in Roberts (2008).

false explanation for the economic and political upheavals under way, but one that proves especially attractive to conservatives and right-wingers even as we all suffer under this most recent full-scale global economic and financial crisis. In my analysis of xenophobia as a narrative I am using the term narrative to refer not to a specific work of fiction, but to a theoretical/discursive framework, an underlying master discourse. Here I am borrowing, of course, from Jameson (1981, 28), and his use of narrative to refer to a framework or master discourse of analysis. In this case, what I call the xenophobia narrative is a discourse that frames the explanation of current economic and political situations in terms of placing blame on particular groups, especially Latinos and undocumented immigrants. To operate best, a narrative of xenophobia cannot acknowledge that it is an illusion, that is, a false narrative, nor that it is xenophobic in contradictorily placing blame on those that are themselves suffering most from the economic meltdown. The function of the narrative of xenophobia is to frame the way particular groups are represented as threats to a particular way of life, at an economic and/or cultural level. For instance, in Huntingtons (2004) essay, The Hispanic Challenge, in view of the demographic growth of the Latino population, he worries about Latinos unwillingness to conform to Americas traditional identity, in other words, as a threat to dominant Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture.3 The fact that the neoliberal model has failed as unemployment rises, banks plummet, bankruptcies abound and recession dominates the economy is by all rights an issue that calls for an in-depth analysis, but for some, those suffering the fallacy of illusions, there is and must be clearly some group to blame. Add to this the evidence that the United States has failed in Iraq and is failing in Afghanistan, and the problem is compounded. Citizens, increasingly with nativism, as well as convinced of their limited say in national political and economic matters, look locally in search of policies they can control, measures they can approve, and scapegoats that can be blamed for the nations problems. In this case, the prime target is the undocumented immigrant, who is criminalized and made the object of persecution, harassment and victimization. We see this most egregiously in Arizona, where Governor Brewer, after signing the controversial SB 1070 law, has stated that most undocumented immigrants are mules, used by the drug cartels to bring in drugs into the state (Davenport, 2010). Criminalization is one key aspect of the current xenophobia narrative as it offers justification for the plot of imminent threat from immigrants. Xenophobia in the United States has always been linked to a defense of the territory and of jobs and privileges for particular Euro-ethnic groups. For this reason, xenophobia has always gone hand in hand with racist policies and practices and with nativism, the narrative that those who are native-born are the only ones
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 127
128 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

entitled to the nations benefits and resources, a notion that historically has not extended to natives who are racially or ethnically different nor, of course, did it save the Native Americans from near extermination. Nativism thus favors particular natives and sees others as worthy of rejection from the collectivity. While the current xenophobia narrative emerges from critical economic conditions, it is buttressed by another phenomenon, and that is the spectre of Latinidad. When Marx writes of a spectre haunting nineteenth century Europe (Marx and Engels, 1972), he is not referring to a spectre of the past. For Marx, the spectre haunting Europe is not memory or knowledge of social injustice, a la Avery Gordon (1997), but, rather proleptically, the spectre of Communism. The ghost is the threat of upheaval of the social order and its transformation. In some measure Marxs phantasm could be seen as utopian, but he envisions it as, in fact, a real movement of workers, a threat posed by a real collective anticapitalist power vis-a-vis the status quo in Europe. This spectre has not ceased ` to exist, despite its rumored demise. There are, however, other spectres in history, other menaces feared by the status quo. These spectres are seen as challenging dominant powers or majority populations; it is ultimately fear of these spectres always collective that lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide, as we have seen in Rwanda and elsewhere. One need not scratch the surface too deeply to conclude that a specter is indeed haunting the United States today, the spectre of Latino demographic growth and empowerment. It is the Latino ascendancy that is haunting the entire country, but especially the Southwest, where local, state and federal government agencies are entering into an unholy alliance of ghost-busters, so-to-speak, as is evident in a variety of xenophobic measures and practices. The spectre of Latinidad, described by media and rightwing actors in terms of perceived hordes of undocumented workers taking over entire communities and states, is fundamentally demographic, as Latino/as dont wield substantive power, as of yet, but are numerically stronger some 49 million every day,4 and expected to be some 133 million by 20505, about 30 per cent of the anticipated US population. The paradox lies in the fact that we, Latino/as, are the spectre and yet we are simultaneously real. In some sense, we are an incarnation of the future but in another more immediate way, real; we are flesh and blood and our growing numbers, whether through high birthrates or immigration, will undoubtedly transform this country, in the long run, culturally, perhaps linguistically, and hopefully politically and economically (Sanchez and Pita, 2006, 2554). But clearly, the clear and present danger that this spectre poses to some is taking the form of xenophobia at every level of society. It is this growing xenophobia that concerns me here, and the Arizona example is, unfortunately, only one of many that we could point to today, as front-line states enact laws that inflame tensions and promote xenophobic taunts and angry protests (SPLC Report).

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

Xe nophobia
US imperialism both works and legitimises its global actions. 7 Population Reference Bureau (2008).

8 See related article in Gaouette (2008a) and also Nearly 600 detained in Mississippi raid, (2008) SD North County Times, July 20, A16. 9 France is now also raiding Roma migrant (gypsy) camps to evict them (see Devorah Lauter, 2010, A3).

Just what exactly is xenophobia? The term derives from the Greek phobos, an exaggerated fear, and xenos, stranger or foreigner. Seldom is it, however, a blanket, general fear of foreigners. Californias current governor, Schwarzenegger, is foreign-born but he is not generally the object of fear or loathing. The same could be said for many other foreigners that have played key roles in politics, sports, or the film and music industry. As a rule, only a particular set of foreigners is the object of xenophobia, like the Chinese in the nineteenth century, or the Japanese during World War II. It bears noting that those who have been subjected to xenophobia are themselves perfectly capable of being xenophobic in a different context, as in the present case of the Israeli response to Palestinians. Xenophobia could be said to be yet another variant manifestation of racism. It is, in part, that too, but much more, since it is directed specifically to oust from a given space, and not merely to subordinate, oppress or segregate, a collectivity of foreigners or those perceived to be foreigners. Xenophobia can thus be directed against those of the same race but different religion or different class as evident in Rwanda. The person targeted could be a native, as in the case of Palestinians or Native Americans. The politics of xenophobia has as its end results the effect of stigmatizing, of placing particular foreigners/immigrants or immigrant-looking people in a precarious situation, subject to being mistreated, harassed, detained, expelled or even killed by the majority population, or the state. When the killing practices are applied to an entire collectivity, we move to the scale of genocide, of which unfortunately, there are all too many historical examples. What I am terming the narrative of xenophobia is directly linked to the presence of the millions that have immigrated North from the South. What in large measure goes unexamined is why this phenomenon of migration has emerged worldwide at this historical juncture. What has become clear to economists is that the same neoliberal model that is now failing and impoverishing workers throughout the world is the underlying cause of mass migration. The process begins when the highly developed economies facing overaccumulation deal with surplus capital by imposing neoliberal free-market policies and practices on other nation-states through a variety of means: military, economic or political.6 In the process, they dictate economic policies on debt-ridden nations that force them to privatize public industries or land, that is, establish enclosures or what Harvey calls, accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2003, 137). In so doing, capital dispossesses and displaces workers that then need to migrate in search of subsistence. According to United Nations Population Statistics, in 2005 there were about 191 million international migrants. In many cases, those staying behind in dysfunctional economies, the Mexican case is but one of many, survive strictly on the remittances sent by those emigrating to more developed regions.7
6 As Harvey (2007) notes: Battering down the closed doors of other nations, by military, economic, political, subversive or cultural means continues to be central to the way 10 For a discussion of the plight of undocumented immigrants in the context of universal human rights (see Adelaida del Castillo, 2007). 11 See Lisa Lowe, Immigrant Acts for a review of these acts and violence.
129 130 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

Thus, in its search for an increasingly globalized spatial fix, capital crosses borders and generates migration, producing a mobile circuit of labor that it attracts north, exploits by paying low wages, and uses against organized labor in the United States and abroad. Within this cycle, it appears ironic that the very states, be they the United States or in Europe, that give rise to this migration from the south and create a subservient, poorly paid and badly serviced labor sector within their own countries, then turn around and engage in xenophobic practices against these very immigrants. Evidence of this can be found in the immigration raids that have been carried out, for example, throughout the United States,8 as well as in numerous other developed nations.9 These contradictory state policies are in part a response to domestic pressures, especially during a period of recession, massive lay-offs and high unemployment. Political factors and the appeasement of a public suffering from deindustrialization and recession are undoubtedly linked to state-sanctioned scapegoating. In a nation-state where there are millions of undocumented workers, raiding workplaces and prosecuting hundreds, militarizing the border, building fences, and harassing those that fit a particular racial profile as illegal immigrants are only a few indicators of the state-initiated scapegoating practices generated to show commitment to stopping the flow of undocumented immigration while diverting attention from the issues. The benefits are twofold: the government provides a channeling of the populaces discontent with an identifiable target, while also appearing to be actively involved in solving the problems. Capital has always sought fixes, spatial and demographic. The immigrant as scapegoat is thus, on the one hand, the product of capital, but so is the narrative of xenophobia, directed at the scapegoat. The linchpin of modern xenophobia is thus capital. In what way, then, is recent scapegoating of immigrants different from that of the nineteenth century? The narrative of xenophobia has clearly been a constant throughout US history, but scapegoating of immigrants today is in several ways more widespread and insidious, as the state stands idly by while a significant segment of the population that contributes to the economy with its labor and taxes is denied protection and social rights.10 Not only are right-wing groups, Tea Party Activists (Cooper, 2010, A4) and vigilante groups like the Minutemen creating hysteria over Latino/a immigration, but so are the federal government, State governments and municipalities that have adopted measures that harass Latino/as, native and immigrant alike, challenge automatic US citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and feed this hysteria while fomenting nativism. The increase in state-sanctioned activities against immigrants today is in some respects not unlike state actions in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century11 to exclude Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos and Asian Indians) from immigrating, keeping them as well from attaining citizenship or holding property. Asian immigrants, however, suffered hostility, harassment,

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

301

302
Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

12 See www .historyonthenet .com/WW2/ japan_ internment_ camps.htm. 13 It is interesting that these unofficial or non-state cases of scapegoating are a product of civil society at its most uncivil worst. 14 Francisco Balderrama, Chicano studies professor at Cal State Los Angeles estimates that as many as 60 per cent of those deported were US citizens (Balderrama cited in Gorman, 2010, A16).

mob violence and evictions largely at the hands of miners, trade unionists, political parties, construction workers and city/town governments. Saxton reminds us that the role of the federal government during this period was confused and in some respects contradictory, passing the Exclusion Act of 1882 and the permanent Chinese Exclusion Act of 1902, yet intending, according to the historian, to halt further Chinese immigration without affecting those Chinese already living in the West (Saxton, 1995, 230, 249). Likewise, exclusion of Japanese students from San Francisco schools in 1906 and assaults on Japanese residents were contested by the federal government, although contradictorily in 1924 it passed the Alien Exclusion Act that not only excluded the Japanese but also prohibited their owning land (Saxton, 1995, 254257). After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, war hysteria led to Executive Order 9066 in 1942 ordering the concentration of the US Japanese-origin population in internment camps; some 120,000 were forced to abandon their homes until 1945 when they were allowed to return.12 These seemingly contradictory governmental practices have long been evident in the United States. The state, when it wasnt itself militarily involved in nineteenth century violence against Indians or strikers, turned a blind eye to the lynching of foreign miners during the Gold Rush, the lynching of Blacks, the lynching of Mexicano Tejanos, the raids on Nuevomexicano farmers and the beating of striking workers.13 The state continued or allowed many of these practices to continue well into the twentieth century, in which the lynching of African Americans was still common practice, the Japanese were herded off into reservations, and political dissidents were arrested and blacklisted under McCarthyism. Mexican immigrants were deported en masse in the 1930s and 1950s, decades of economic turmoil as well, and, not unrelatedly, decades of raids and deportations of the Mexican origin population, including US citizens of Mexican-origin, in Arizona and throughout the Southwest.14 Today, the state, in collusion with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, imposes structural adjustment policies and free trade agreements on the global south that produce unemployment, dispossession, privatization of public services and emigration, drawing the unemployed to this country to work as low-wage labor while denying them the most basic rights and benefits. Once here the displaced and undocumented Mexican and other Latino/a immigrants are subjected, not to exclusion per se, but to imprisonment, expulsions and harassment, not from vigilante groups and labor unions, but at the hands of the state itself. The long arm of US law currently operates 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigrant detention centers in Texas, California and Arizona (63 detention centers nationwide) and houses people in hundreds of other jails or prisons, sites that share many of the traits of concentration camps (Taxin, 2009, B4). What thus appears contradictory is in fact quite logical; the nation-states logic allows for local violence against these transnational workers that serve as scapegoats as long as it doesnt infringe
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 131 132 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

upon federal jurisdiction. At the same time, the federal government itself engages in border violence, raids and incarceration in matters that it deems under its purview. The latest instance of this xenophobia narrative is, of course, the Arizona SB1070 law. The specific details of the Arizona example require review, as they point to how xenophobia becomes an attractive and viable narrative for right-wing politicians like SB1070 author Russell Pearce. But before getting there, we need to recall that xenophobia, while focusing on the harassment and extirpation of foreigners from particular territories, is a process that also allows natives to be concomitantly subjected to estrangement, to being foreignized, as Segun, the native Tejano, well put it when he called himself a foreigner in his native land (Seguin, 1858, 177182). Native Americans were foreignized since the seventeenth century and pushed out of their territories; in fact, many tribes are legally recognized as sovereign Indian nations, although Supreme Court Justice Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1823) in a feminizing turn of phrase called them domestic dependent nations (Banner, 2005, 220). Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924, that is, to Indians born after that date, and it was not until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all Native Americans were granted citizenship, although even then they were foreignized in some states and not granted full voting rights until 1948 (Haney Lopez, 1996, 41). Citizenship is thus a variable construct, a right that can be granted or taken away. In the case of xenophobia, particular foreigners, definitely not all foreigners, and even native-born individuals that are foreignized can be disenfranchised and made into scapegoats, into outsiders, and assigned the role of culprits to be ousted by the majority. Often the narrative of scapegoating is deemed universal, and much has been written on the subject, by Derrida (1981), by Girard (1986, 1977), among others. I would like to question the premise that naturalizes the practice of scapegoating and views it as a species problem, that is, as innate to human beings; it is instead, I argue, inherently in each instance a socio-political problem that arises out of specific historical conditions. In each and every case of scapegoating the circumstances are different; the conditions that give rise to them are different, and the state, in modern times in particular, has specific ties to the practice of scapegoating or, more precisely, to the production of a given xenophobia narrative. Interestingly, within the current US context, the figure of the scapegoat is decidedly fluid; it can take the form not only of the immigrant, but also of those perceived by hegemonic forces as internal or domestic threats (the so-called gang member, the HIV or TB positive patient, the political activist, the racialized and gendered other, as well as the poor and homeless). My focus here, however, is on the immigrant, especially the undocumented immigrant in the US context. This narrative of scapegoating illegals elevating an adjective to noun status this xenophobia, is, in these times, so obvious and pervasive, so much a part of the conventional wisdom, that it becomes internalized to the point that

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

scapegoating occurs within our own Latino/a communities, as we strike out against each other, pitting one generation or one ethnic group against another. Whether from without or internally directed, scapegoating brings out and enables police brutality, murderous acts and dehumanization, often resulting in self-hate and psychological trauma.

The Scape go at N arrative

15 See related article in Jan Silva (2008, A-11).

Hostile attitudes towards immigrants are, of course, not limited to the United States. In Europe, the EU Parliament has approved rules for expelling undocumented immigrants, with detention of up to 18 months for those unwilling to leave voluntarily.15 In Russia xenophobia is rampant against Muslims (Thornburgh, 2010, 3035). And Mexico, for example, is no less xenophobic with regard to migrants on its southern borders. As previously mentioned, ethnic minorities can be subjected to being foreignized and in the process be made into scapegoats. In fact, history reveals that the designation of outsiders as scapegoats is nothing new, that most every society has generated what the ancient Greeks referred to as the pharmakos, the scapegoat, and that the target has often been those considered for one reason or another outsiders. In more ancient cases, the scapegoat was sometimes an animal, but, more often, a person or persons. In the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 16, the Bible notes that God instructed Moses and Aaron to make a yearly offering of a calf and two goats. One of the goats would be sacrificed for the sins of the people and the second, the scapegoat, carrying the weight of all the sins of the children of Israel, would be sent out into the desert. What is significant here and often conflated in the notion is that the scapegoat was not the goat killed, not the sacrificial lamb, but the one on whom the sins were projected and on whom the community could cast aspersion and blame. Scapegoats have long served for social catharsis, although the targeted population, the conditions under which scapegoating occurs, and the type of aggression (and at whose hands) that ensues against the scapegoat are variable across time and space. In attempting to go beyond the necessary denunciation of the current narrative of xenophobia, this essay would like to bring to bear the notion of pharmakos into the discussion of Latino/a immigrants in the United States, drawing on the work of Derrida, among others, as it proves productive for the insights it offers in examining issues of immigration in a broader, theoretical and analytical frame. In his work on Platos Phaedrus, Derrida explores the polysemy of the term pharmakon, which is a drug that can be both a remedy and a poison (Derrida, 1981, 99). It is, by definition, both pernicious and foreign (because it doesnt come from around here. It comes from afar; it is external or alien) and, at the same time, beneficial (104), at once, or alternatively, both good and bad. In Socrates dialog with Phaedrus the
16 See excerpt by Juan
133 134 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

difference between spoken speech and writing is also posited in terms of a pharmakon. For Socrates, writing is a drug, a pharmakon, a narrative that leads one astray (Derrida, 1981, 71), much like the narratives of xenophobia. Written or graphic representation bewitches; it is a false discourse, a mere simulacrum. What is real and truthful for Socrates is speech (Derrida, 1981, 149). It is this latter aspect of the term (writing as a pharmakon that, as such, can be both harmful or beneficial) that proves particularly revealing when applied to narratives surrounding undocumented immigration in the sense that the narrative of xenophobia is false but desirable even if toxic; it provides the illusion of explicatory adequacy while promoting stigma and repudiation of others. Similarly useful in this regard is the term pharmakos, omitted by Plato in his semantic chain, a term that Derrida (1981) notes is synonymous with pharmakeus, the wizard, magician or poisoner, the one that deals in pharmaka and whose power rests on ones fear of death 120) Pharmakos itself, Derrida argues, is an overdetermined term and assigned a complex meaning or role. It refers not only to the wizard, but to the scapegoat, the evil one who stands both outside and within, from where it is to be expelled (130). In Athens, where Athenians, like the Hebrews, practiced the rite of the pharmakos for purification of the city, the Athenian collectivity led the human pharmakos, the individuals selected as scapegoats, out of the city walls, beat them (aiming especially at their genitals), and ultimately killed them (132). The bodies were burnt and the ashes dispersed in the air or sea. Here the pharmakos functioned both as sacrificial victim and as scapegoat. It is a way, Derrida notes, of violently excluding from its territory the representative of an external threat or aggression (133). For our purpose of addressing the current state of affairs regarding Latino/as both immigrant and native in the United States, what matters most is that the pharmakos is both within the city walls (inside), and outside as well. It is thus what is perceived as toxic, as a threat identified significantly as present internally that must be excluded or expelled. In its more extreme manifestations the outcome of this collective purging practice has been xenophobia and genocide. Societies have long continued varying versions of this cathartic practice, as evident in the repeated examples of ethnic or racial cleansing and tribal decimations, of cultural and class rivalries within our own time. The fact that there have always been scapegoats doesnt mean that scapegoating is a single, uniform, unbroken tradition. One needs to be wary of essentializing the scapegoating practice, as if it were inherent to all humans or, for that matter, nations. Nothing is gained analytically by setting aside the historical specificity of scapegoating; even native populations can be alienated or foreignized, ostracized and pushed out of contested spaces and treated like Segun as a foreigner in his native land,16 a wonderfully succinct oxymoron that captures the process of alien-ation, disenfranchisement and scapegoating.
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

303

304
Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

CITYZEN

Nepomuceno Segun (1973, 177181).

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

17 According to Agamben, a state of exception occurs when the sovereign state stands outside the law. The state, for example, can 18 As Garca suspend the Hernandez constitution, (2008, 28) notes, creating a space Unlike other law in which the enforcement juridico-political agencies that are order can have prohibited from validity or not engaging in racial (see Giorgio profiling, the Agamben, 1998, Border Patrol is 1819). constitutionally entitled to do so. 19 According to Mbembe (2003), the ultimate expression of sovereignty resides in the power and capacity to dictate who may live and who must die. Necropolitics is the politics of death.

This essay argues that undocumented immigrants have become the pharmakos, the scapegoats, par excellence in todays narrative of xenophobia, especially in political acts and pronouncements, right-wing blogs and mass media representations. In the pharmakos/pharmakon dynamic there is an underlying assumption of a condition that needs resolution or remediation, calling for a strong, if toxic, tonic. Clearly, an inherent problem with the clinical metaphor, underlying the notion of the pharmakos, is that it deals with manifestations of an ailment or problem and not, for the most part or necessarily, with the causes. The pharmakos, when cast as innocent victim, is sacrificed by a powerful sector, or the state, in the name of the greater collective good, without in any way addressing underlying conditions that give rise to the symptoms. It is this illusion of a transparent solution that is at the core of the narrative of xenophobia. It is also crucial to bear in mind, in this regard, that the diagnosis of a diseased state always assumes a state of exception.17 In fact, as will be evident in what follows, this metaphorical threat or disease, the state of exception, has become the norm in US society (Agamben, 2005). Benjamin, too, points out that the tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the state of emergency in which we live is not the exception but the rule (Benjamin, 1968, 257). Assuming the ostensible toxicity of immigrants to the US social body is, as previously noted, a misdiagnosis of the disease that results from globalized capitalism, a force that creates conditions that induce individuals to migrate in order to survive. The undocumented worker and other immigrants or immigrant-looking people in the United States today occupy a curiously ambiguous position; like the pharmakos, they are both outside and inside, both included and excluded. In many ways, the immigrant in the United States has functioned in part as the homo sacer that, according to Agamben, can be killed for his acts, but not sacrificed, that is, not killed by the state according to law (Agamben, 1998). The state, however, permits the killing of the homo sacer by others and in effect enables and propitiates it through discourses that identify and vilify the immigrant as a toxic pernicious presence. But matters can change radically with the creation of a state of exception, which is what ultimately defines the structure of sovereignty and the states power to establish the law, validate itself by it, and yet go outside of it. And it is here that the danger lies for US Latino/as as a collectivity. Under a state of exception, the state itself is involved in scapegoating, going outside its own set of laws, such as the Bill of Rights. There are, for example, laws in the United States against state intrusion into ones private life, but during a state of exception the state can decree, as it has with the 2001 Patriot Act, that it can tap our phones, see what library books we check out, review what internet sites we visit and establish a variety of surveillance practices. Under G.W. Bush, the Office of Legal Counsel considered enhancing Presidential powers to enable the President to conduct unreasonable searches and sweeping warrantless surveillance of the population. Bush also struck down Posse Comitatus (which since the Civil War prevents deployment of military forces for domestic law enforcement) through the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, readily approved by Congress, that allows the President to send out troops for crowd control and to impose martial law on the civilian population. A full US Army Brigade (the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, 30004000 soldiers strong) stands ready to be deployed internally, under the command of the President and at his discretion (Wolf). Under President Obama, the Brigade continues to exist, intended to be used in homeland scenarios if deemed necessary. In tandem with the narratives of xenophobia, the material forces that the state can marshal against Latino/as should not be underestimated. There are indeed all too many signs that show the extent of our already living under a state of exception. The complexity of the situation, of course, produces contradictions; thus, for example, there is a standing policy against racial profiling, as is argued by those against Arizonas anti-immigrant law, but at the same time the Justice Department has considered allowing the FBI to investigate people in the United States that meet what is deemed a terrorist profile, like Muslims, Arabs and others. Garca Hernandez (2008) argues that already the 1976 federal decision US v. Martnez Fuerte granted the Border Patrol the right to stop and question people of apparent Mexican ancestry, whatever that might be construed to be, within 100 miles of the border.18 Under a state of exception, the state itself sets up means, methods and locus for the punishment of the homo sacer, as in the construction of detention centers or concentration camps by the state. What the state has the power to do is not only to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, but to kill, as noted by Mbembe (2003). Necropolitics,19 in the last instance, produces genocide and it is hegemonic power exercised by the state, or some other powerful entity, that determines who can live or die, who is human, who has rights, who will be bombed, and who is to be exterminated. The state, however, need not kill outright to be punitive, repressive or destructive; it also creates situations that make survival, in the sense of daily life, difficult or impossible for some by denying them, for example, access to work, to legal rights, to education and medical services. At the discursive level and working in tandem with state material practices is the states channeling of the frustrations and resentments of the broader population onto a scapegoat, a simultaneously vulnerable and vilified other. Agambens notions of the state of exception and homo sacer, along with Derridas notion of the pharmakos, allow for a deeper rethinking and understanding of the present day states role in constituting the undocumented worker as scapegoat, as the pharmakos that, while not a member of the nation-state (the whole), and therefore excluded, is simultaneously constitutive of that whole, as a necessary source of labor. He/she is inside while being outside, and therefore the ideal scapegoat. This condition of being included through an exclusion, of being outside of membership and always in relation to something
135 136 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

20 Girard (1986) notes in his work on scapegoats that the persecutors in earlier times were a collective and that the persecution of a victim was a collective rite. Here, both the victims and the victimizers are collectivities. 21 See related article by Sarah Gordon (2008, A-1, A-5).

from which one is excluded (Agamben, 1998, 2627), is in fact the global condition of the migrant, of undocumented workers, who are marginal yet central, superfluous yet needed, vilified yet undeniably key to the economic operations of the increasingly fluid and highly stratified economies of what used to be termed the first world, now globally dispersed (Smith and Fausset, 2010, A10). Consider, for example, the proposed Dream Act that passed in the House and died in the Senate in December 2010. There are now about 1.2 million immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 16 years and who, if the bill had passed, would have been provided a path to legal status and eventual citizenship if they had lived here more than 5 years and attended college or served in the military. Capitulating to the military service component was opposed by pro-immigrant groups, but even with this and other modifications that would have made immigrant students wait at least 10 years before being eligible for permanent legal resident status and for public benefits, the bill still failed to pass. Republicans in Congress, and some Democrats as well, are more interested in targeting undocumented immigrants and in going even further in challenging the provision that grants citizenship to those born in the United States than in recognizing that these young people have spent most of their lives in this country. If these right-wing members of Congress had their way, they would deport every undocumented immigrant in the country. 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, especially in the service sector, agriculture and caring industries; there are thus multiple attempts to exclude them even while including in the labor force. Even anti-immigrant TV commentators, like Lou Dobbs, have been shown to hire undocumented workers on their estates (MacDonald, 2010, 1115). Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, have also become a significant population in rural areas. Studies show that the downward spiral of population loss in the rural areas is being mitigated by a Latino influx; immigrants go there to work in the fields and other agricultural industries and have become an important presence in rural counties across the nation. In several urban areas of the country, Latinos now outnumber whites, even in areas like Escondido and Vista in California where anti-immigrant and anti-Latino measures, including rental bans and ordinances against the hiring of day laborers at shopping centers, have been passed (Garrick, 2010, A1, A5). These immigrants are thus considered undesirables, by Congressmen like Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who proposes even more aggressive measures to deport them, yet soughtafter and hired throughout the nation (Bennett, 2010, A1, A7). At one level, this scenario appears, at first glance, to present us with nothing new. The pharmakos, the scapegoat of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, has long been the immigrant, and in the US context, especially the Asian and Mexican immigrant. As a scapegoat, the Mexican immigrant was deported in the requisas of the 1930s and again in the 1950s. Today, however, immigrants are deported on a daily basis and made to endure the ongoing state of exception that allows for detention, the construction of 15-foot fences, increased militarization of the border, and raids on immigrant communities and places of work by local, as well as federal ICE agents. For this segment of the US population, the state of exception has thus become the norm in US society; paradoxically, the exceptional, the anomalous is instantiated as the rule. The pharmakos today, however, as this essay has tried to suggest, is in some ways a different kind of scapegoat. In this crisis-driven period of late capitalism, as global capital ironically creates the very conditions for increased immigration, the scapegoat is collectivized,20 and criminalized. Undocumented entry and especially re-entry are subject to deportation and increasingly to long-term incarceration,21 as the scapegoated collectivity is persecuted by extensive raids at workplaces, revocation of green cards and harassment at traffic stops, shops and labor contracting sites. That these anti-immigrant practices are everincreasing in scope and scale worldwide is disturbing and points to the globalized character of the phenomenon. What is ironic, but logical within capital, is that these undocumented workers in the United States and elsewhere are also sought after human resources, desired by local industries, agribusiness and even the citizenry in general in need of nannies, cooks, maids, gardeners, carpenters/painters and handymen. In view of the multiple and contradictory valence of the pharmakos, as well as the pharmakon (remedy/ poison), countering the narrative or pharmakon of xenophobia is counterintuitive within the logic of the economic and political system of late capitalism. The conundrum is that late capitalism cannot do without the pharmakos or the pharmakon, that is, without the narrative of xenophobia (pharmakon) and its object, the immigrant worker (pharmakos). The risks that this situation entails for Latino/as in the United States and for immigrants particularly is patent and makes evident the urgent need for discursive correctives or pharmaka, counternarratives outside the logic of capitalism that question and stand against the dominant xenophobia narrative. At the political level, forming solidarities and at the discursive level formulating antidotes to scapegoating narratives is crucial at this menacing moment. According to Derrida (1981), one pharmakon can be expelled by bringing it in contact with another pharmakon (119), negating or neutralizing the deleterious effects of the poison through an operation of exorcism or catharsis. Of course, what this dangerous moment calls for is not a pharmakon that merely neutralizes the poison, that is, the scapegoating, or displaces it on to another object (to remediate it), but a representation and ideological set of strategies that provide an analysis of what allows for scapegoating in the first place in order to eradicate it. The question is, then, what we as Latino/a writers can do in our work when it comes to dealing with scapegoating in our society. Let us not fall for the illusion that it cant happen here. To what extent is our writing serving as a remedy or
137 138 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

305

306
Narratives of xenophobia Sanchez

CITYZEN

antidote to the prevalent xenophobic discourses; what can we offer as a counter practice? A number of blogs and Internet venues making these counter arguments are fortunately available to us.22 Networking and participating in protests to denounce anti-immigrant laws and those who defend them are encouraged by a number of civil rights entities that have, for example, condemned the Arizona law (Spagat, 2010, A7).
by Denver residents (see Deedee Correll, 2009, A17).

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

T he Gr owi ng Anti -im mig ra nt H yste ri a


24 In Dallas, too, the police began the practice of ticketing immigrants for not speaking English as a way for local policemen to enforce federal immigration law (see www .americasvoice online.org/blog/ entry/ticketing_ for_not_ speaking_ english/). 25 One letter writer to the San Diego North County Times wants borders secured and hospitals; used by the Americans who paid dearly to build and maintain them. (Cusumano, 2010) Another writes: Arizona has it right. Racial profiling has nothing to do with it. The fact is, we share a border with Mexico and that border is open. You dont see the same with 23 In Denver, the police also sought to impound cars if the motorist was unlicensed or merely suspected of being an illegal alien, traits that were considered coequal. Fortunately, the measure was ultimately rejected

Recent events in Arizona have made the contradictory nature of the xenophobia narrative even more manifest. At a moment when the ICE agency has been instructed by President Obama to make our national laws actually work and when the ICE expects to increase deportations to about 400,000 this fiscal year, a figure 10 per cent higher than under the Bush administration (Thompson, 2010), Arizona has taken xenophobia even further, proposing with SB1070 to enable law enforcement to determine the legal immigration of those they stop or detain, and to require individuals to carry proper identification documents. The objective is the deportation of as many undocumented immigrants as possible. The federal government, on the other hand, has challenged the law as a blatant violation of the Constitution. US District Judge Susan Bolton recently blocked implementation of some key aspects of the Arizona immigration law with a temporary injunction arguing that the law interferes with federal immigration enforcement, promotes racial profiling and makes it a crime not to carry documentation. Judge Bolton also blocked measures in the law that would make it a crime for undocumented workers to solicit work. In response, the Arizona Governor and her allies have appealed the Bolton ruling, even as other anti-immigrant measures continue to be implemented in Arizona and considered in some 18 states in the country. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, has vowed to continue his sweeps and check the immigration status of all those arrested or detained, despite the federal injunction.23 The Arizona law is only the tip of the iceberg. Gorman and Riccardi recall that Arizonas first legislative assault on illegal immigration came in the form of measures restricting undocumented immigrants from receiving in-state tuition, making English the official language, and threatening to dissolve businesses repeatedly hiring undocumented workers. Already in 1997, the Phoenix suburb of Chandler was subjected to massive searches of undocumented immigrants; even children walking home from school were stopped and questioned by police and Border Patrol agents (Gorman, 2010, A1, A16). More recently Arizona has further harassed the Latino community by approving HB 2281 making it illegal for school districts to offer ethnic studies or la raza courses in the schools, arguing, as explained by the then state School Superintendent and now state
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 139 140 r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

22 See, for example: Rudy Saves (hchsc003 @csun.edu); see also William C. Velasquez Institute (enewsletter @wcvi.org), National Latino Congreso (mail @latinocongreso .org), Mexican American Political Association (newsletter @mapa-ca.org) or www.mapa.org.

Attorney General Tom Horne, that these programs promote racial hatred and ethnic chauvinism (Santa Cruz, 2010, AA2). And now Arizona state senator Pearce wants to sponsor a measure repealing the 14th Amendment and denying US citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents, a proposal previously supported by former California Governor Pete Wilson and more recently by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, by Rand Paul, a newly elected Kentucky Republican Senator, and by The Federation for American Immigration Reform. Xenophobia is thus clearly linked to harassment of the Latino population and of anyone culturally/racially different who seeks to protect cultural/linguistic rights.24 Other states and cities have passed measures to prohibit renting to undocumented workers, and have established checkpoints to check the legal status of immigrants, and restricted immigrant day laborers from soliciting work. Non-governmental groups and practices have also emerged that take an ostensibly patriotic and nativist stance against immigrants, including but not limited to vigilante groups like the Minutemen. Equally important are academic apparatuses, like the conservative Centers for Immigration Studies and other knowledge-producing centers that focus on vilifying immigrants and seek the deterrence of undocumented immigration. In the public press, too, letter writers to newspapers in Southern California frequently launch xenophobic tirades against immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, ascribing to them the blame for a wide-range of problems.25 The response of the federal government to xenophobic practices is ambivalent, for even as it challenges the Arizona initiative in court with the support of a number of civil rights groups, for example, it also continues to engage in other practices that reveal its willingness to criminalize particular immigrants. Since 9/11 (2001) the US government has fomented a broad widespread internal politics of scapegoating and xenophobia through a variety of state and non-governmental apparatuses, protocols and techniques. While these have often been directed against the Muslim community, they have also come down especially hard on Latino/a undocumented immigrants in this country. Coercive state measures in the form of laws, sanctions, the partial building of a 15-foot high steel-tube border fence,26 and increased funding for border security (Border Bill Signed into Law, Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2010, A18), additional Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are serving not only to stigmatize the immigrant population as criminal but also to fan the flames of public distrust, fear and hate of this population. The New York Times reports that the federal ICE agency has signed agreements (the 287(g) agreement) with 57 county and local police departments across the country granting them immigration enforcement powers, as has occurred in California, Arizona and Tennessee (Preston, 2008, A-16), with the foreseeable effects of further identifying the alien as a criminal. Even while challenging aspects of the Arizona anti-immigrant law, the federal government through its 287(g) agreements, authorizes these very
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Sanchez Narratives of xenophobia

Referen ces
Haney Lopez, I. 1996. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press. Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. 2007. In What Ways is The New Imperialism Really New? Historical Materialism 15: 5770. Hirsch, J. and K. Yoshino. 2007. Rules on Illegal Workers Stir Fears. L.A. Times 4 August: C1, C2. Huntington, S.P. 2004. The Hispanic Challenge. Foreign Policy March/April: 3045. Lauter, D. 2010. France Cracks Down on Roma Migrants. Los Angeles Times 13 August: A3. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space, trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Los Angeles Times. 2007. Court Extends Stay of Illegal-hiring Rule. 2 October: C3. Los Angeles Times. 2010. Border Bill Signed into Law. 14 August: A18. Lowe, L. 1996. Immigrant Acts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. MacDonald, I. 2010. Lou Dobbs, American Hypocrite. While He Railed Against Illegals, They Tended to His Estates and Prize Horses. The Nation 25(October): 1115. Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1972. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. R.C. Tucker, 335362. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Mbembe, A. 2003. Necropolitics. Public Culture 15(1): 111140. Mrosi, R. 2008. Razor Wire added at Mexican Border. L.A. Times 17 May: A1, A20. Myers, A.L. 2007. Sanctions Law Has Some Migrants Thinking of Leaving. North County Times 16 September: A-18. Population Reference Bureau. 2008. Remittances grow along with international migration, http//www.prb.org.Topics/ImmigrationMigration.aspx?page=3. Preston, J. 2008. Police Pact Allowed Pregnant Immigrant to be Jailed. New York Times article reprinted in San Diego North County Times 20 July: A-16. Riccardi, N. 2008. Arizonas Slamming Door. L.A. Times 5 April: A1, A19. Roberts, S. 2008. By 2042, Minorities May be the Majority in U.S. S.D. North County Times 14 August: A-3. Sanchez, R. and B. Pita. 2006. Theses on the Latino Bloc: A Critical Perspective. Aztlan 31(2): 2554. Sanders, L. 2011. We Cant Wait for Solutions on the Border Problem. Letter to the Editor, SD North County Times, 1 February, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/ article_4782212b-b010-50ee-a117-fbd860203e8c.html. Santa Cruz, N. 2010. Arizona Ethnic Studies Ban Okd as Law. Los Angeles Times 12 May: AA2. Saxton, A. 1995. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. S.D. North County Times. 2008. Nearly 600 Detained in Mississippi Raid. 27 August: A-14. Seguin, J.N. (1858 1973). A Foreigner in My Native Land. In Foreigners in their Native Land, ed. D. Weber, 177182. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Sifuentes, E. 2010. Students Rally for Dream Act at CSUSM. SD North County Times, 22 September, http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_21beab78-d4de-5574a3f8-73b2a64064c3.html. Silva, J. 2008. EU Lawmakers OK Rules for Expelling Illegal Immigrants. SD North County Times 19 June: A-11.
r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144 143

Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. D. Heller-Roazen, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Agamben, G. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.

Banner, S. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 220.

employers whenever there is a discrepancy between social security numbers and names (see Nicole Gaouette, 2008b, A1, A12).

Benjamin, W. 1968. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books.

Bennett, B. 2010. Immigration Reform Effort Appears Dead. Republicans Poised to Ramp up Enforcement, Slash Legislation. San Diego North County Times 28 December: A1, A7.

increases in auto insurance, health insurance, county and state taxes, loss of jobs to entry level workers in the United States, emergency hospital costs, education costs, corruption and fraud, and the list goes on (Sanders, 2011). 29 See related article in Los Angeles Times (2007, C3). See also Anna Gorman (2007, annagorman@ latimes.com).

Callinicos, A. 2010. Bonfire of Illusions: The Twin Crises of the Liberal World. Cambridge: Polity.

Cooper, J.J. 2010. Tea Party Activists Rally at Arizona-Mexico Border. San Diego North County Times 16 August: A4.

Correll, D. 2009. Denver Voters Firmly Reject Car Impound Mandate. L.A. Times 5 November: A17.

Cusumano, J. 2010. Dream Act: Spin, Spin, Spin. Letter to SD North County Times, 13 December, http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_4052e41f-ad88-5e7aa401-af3fe04c7064.html.

Davenport, P. 2010. Arizona Governor Claims Most Illegal Migrants Smuggle Drugs. San Diego North County Times 26 June: A3.

26 The installation of razor-sharp triple-strand concertina wire atop border fencing between San Diego and Tijuana, said to keep agents safe, is clearly meant to cause maximum injury to those daring to attempt to cross (see related article in Richard Mrosi, 2008, A1, A20).

del Castillo, A. 2007. Illegal Status and Social Citizenship: Thoughts on Mexican Immigrants in a Postnational World. In Women and Migration in the U.S. Mexico Borderlands, eds. D. Segura and P. Zavella. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

27 See related article in Jerry Hirsch and Kimi Yoshino (2007, C1, C2).

Derrida, J. 1981. Dissemination, trans. B. Johnson. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Jameson, F. 1981. The Political Unconscious. Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gaouette, N. 2008a. Immigration Raid Case Scrutinized. L.A. Times 1 August: A9. Gaouette, N. 2008b. Bush Widens Worker Checks. L.A. Times 10 June: A1, A12.

30 In Arizona, not only are undocumented workers denied government services but they also cannot win punitive damages in lawsuits and cannot post bail for serious crimes (see Amanda Lee Myers, 2007, A18). See related article in Nicolas Riccardi (2008, A1, A19).

About t he Auth o r

Acknow ledgements

I am grateful to Beatrice Pita for her input and her many comments on this article. I also appreciate comments from the LS reviewers.

Rosaura Sanchez is a professor in the Literature Department at the University of California, San Diego.

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 populations 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.

Garca Herna ndez, C.C. 2008. No Human Being is Illegal: Moving beyond Deportation Law. Monthly Review 60(2): 28. Garrick, D. 2010. Demographic Disparity. New Data Highlight Need to Bridge Cultural, Economic Divides. San Diego North County Times 19 September: A1, A5. Girard, R. 1986. The Scapegoat, trans. Y. Freccero. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Girard, R. 1977. Violence and the Sacred, trans. P. Gregory. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gordon, A. 1997. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Gordon, S. 2008. Crackdown on Re-entry. S.D. North County Times 10 August: A-1, A-5.

28 The government is requiring all firms doing business with the federal government to use a government system called E-Verify to check workers for social security numbers. It is having no match letters sent from the Social Security Administration to
Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

Gorman, A. 2007. Illegal Hiring Crackdown is Blocked. Los Angles Times 11 October. Gorman, A. 2010. Arizona Immigration Law a Reminder of Towns Past. Los Angeles Times 6 June: A1, A16.

Gorman, A. and N. Riccardi. 2010. The Altered State of Arizona. The Los Angeles Times 2 August: A12.

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

Narratives of xenophobia

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

141

142

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

307

308 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012


Latino Studies Vol. 9, 1, 126144

Sanchez

CITYZEN

Smith, D. and R. Fausset. 2010. Rural America Gets Even Sparser. L.A. Times 15 December: A10. Spagat, E. 2010. Border States Dont Embrace Arizona Law. San Diego North County Times 13 May: A7.

Southern Poverty Law Center Report. 2010 Nativist Laws Cost Communities Millions, Inflame Racial Tension, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-reportnativist-laws-cost-communitiesy, accessed 24 January 2011. Stephan, W.F. and C.L Renfro. 2002. The Role of Threat in Intergroup Relations. In From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions, ed. D. Mackie and E.R. Smith. New York: Psychology Press. Taxin, A. 2009. Report: Immigration Detention Violated Standards. San Diego North County Times 29 July: B4. Thompson, K. 2010. Immigrant Rights Groups Adjust Focus to Passage of Ag Jobs, Dream Act. Washington Post 27 July, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2010/0. Thornburgh, N. 2010. Russias Long (and Brutal) War on Terror. Time 176(7): 3035. Tyra, T. 2010. We Need to Close Our Borders. Letter to The Californian, 23 May, http:// www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_8ec4b952-5c05-5ed8-b8b0-a6556aec322f .html.

Vives, R. 2010. Activists Protest as Napolitano Speaks. Los Angeles Times 17 May: AA3. Wolf, N. 2008. Thousands of Troops are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry out Crowd Control. World News Information Clearing House, http://www.information clearinghouse.info.article20975.htm, accessed 1 June 2009.

144

r 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435

Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition


TECHNIQUE
NON-PROFIT AQUISITION/ CONVEYANCE TO PUBLIC AGENCY NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/ CONVEYANCE TO LAND TRUST NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/ MANAGEMENT NON-PROFIT ACQUISITION/ SALEBACK OR LEASEBACK

EXPLANATION
A nonprofit can help to implement government programs by acquiring and holding land until a public agency is able to purchase A national or regional non-profit can acquire and hold land until a local land trust has been established or is able to finance acquisition. A national/regional non-profit or local land trust retains ownership and assumes management responsibilities. 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 subdivision of property. Outright purchase of full title to the land and all rights associated with land A partial interest in property transferred to an appropriate nonprofit or governmental entity either by gift or purchase. As ownership changes, the land remains subject to the easement restrictions.

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

NONPROFIT PURCHASE & OWNERSHIP ENTITY OPTIONS


A nonprofit can enter the real estate market more easily Must have a public agency willing and able to buy within a than government, and can often sell to government reasonable time frame. at under fair market value if property was acquired through bargain sale. A nonprofit can finance an immediate acquisition and hold property until a land trust has been established or has acquired funds. Local land trusts allow for ownership within the community: local citizens can provide responsible care and management of site. 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 preservation of part of site. If a land trust does not exist, community must establish one. A land trust needs solid support funding and the ability to manage land. Land must fit criteria of acquiring organization. It must be prepared to assume long-term management responsibilities and costs. Complex negotiations. A leaseback means the nonprofit retain responsibility for land.

TYPE OF OWNERSHIP OPTIONS


FEE SIMPLE CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Owner has full control of land. Allows for permanent protection and public access. Less expensive for purchasers than fee simple. Landowner 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. Acquisition can be costly. Removes land from tax base. Ownership responsibility includes liability and maintenance. Public access allowed only upon landowner approval. Easement must be enforced. Restricted use may lower resale value.

FEE SIMPLE/LEASEBACK

Purchase of full title and leaseback to previ- Allows for comprehensive preservation program of land Leaseback would not necessarily provide public access. Land ous owner or other, subject to restrictions banking. Income through leaseback. Liability and man- must be appropriate for leaseback (e.g., agricultural land). agement responsibilities assigned to lessee. Short or long-term rental of land Low cost for use of land. Landowner receives income and retains control of property. Prevents one owner from acting without the consent of the other(s). Lease does not provide equity and affords only limited control of property. Temporary nature of lease does not assure permanent protection. Several landowners can complicate property management issues, especially payment of taxes.

LEASE

UNDIVIDED INTEREST

Ownership is split between different owners, with each fractional interest extending over the whole parcel. Each owner has equal rights to the entire property Land is sold at a price equivalent to its value at highest and best use. Part donation/part sale-property is sold at less than fair market value. A donation by landowners of all or partial interest in property. By Devise: Landowner retains ownership until death. Reserved Life Estate: Landowner donates during lifetime but has lifetime use.

TRANSFER OF TITLE OPTIONS


FAIR MARKET VALUE SALE BARGAIN SALE Highest safe income (cash inflow) to seller. Tax benefits to seller since difference between fair market value and sale price is considered a charitable contribution. Smaller capital gains tax. Allows for permanent protection without direct public expenditure. Tax benefits to seller since propertys fair market value is considered a charitable contribution. Management responsibility for acquiring entity often deferred until donors death. (Reserved Life Estate: Landowner retains use but receives tax benefits from donation.) Can be expensive to acquire. Seller must be willing to sell at less than fair market value. Bargain sale price may be high. A receiving agency or donation must be willing to accept donation, and capable of management responsibilities. Date of acquisition is uncertain with either option. (By Devise: Donor does not benefit from income tax deductions.)

OUTRIGHT DONATION

OTHER DONATION

309

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition


TECHNIQUE
LAND EXCHANGE

EXPLANATION

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES
Property owner must be willing to accept exchange. Property must be of comparable value. Complicated and timeconsuming transaction. High acquisition costs. Can result in speculation on target properties. Potentially expensive and time-consuming litigation. Land acquired from tax foreclosure might not be appropriate for public open space, but can be sold to provide funds for open space acquisition. Cumbersome process. 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. 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. Long-term financial commitment for nonprofit. Higher interest costs than owner financing. Mortgage lien.

Public agencies or nonprofits can exchange Relatively cost-free technique if trade parcel is donated. developable land for land with high conReduces capital gains tax for original owner of proservation value. tected land. The right of the government to take private Provides government with a tool to acquire desired property for public purpose upon payment properties if other acquisition techniques are not workof just compensation. able. Government acquires land by tax payment default. Certain government agencies may have surplus property inappropriate for their needs which could be transferred to a parks agency for park use. Government can restrict the future use of their sale property to open space. Limited government expenditure.

EMINENT DOMAIN (GOVT.)

TAX FORECLOSURE (GOVT.)

AGENCY TRANSFER (GOVT.)

Agency transfer eliminates the need for any expenditures on parkland acquisition.

RESTRICTED AUCTION (NONPROFIT)

Property still sold to highest bidder but restriction lowers price and competition.

NONPROFIT FINANCING OPTIONS


INSTITUTIONAL LENDER Conventional loan from bank or savings and loan. Less time-consuming process than fundraising.

INSTALLMENT SALE
FUNDRAISING

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.

Through foundations, corporations and Fundraising creates publicity and support through com- Obtaining grants and contributions is a long, uncertain and local community. Program-related investmunity. time-consuming process. ments (foundations), non-standard investments (corporations) or charitable creditors (community) can provide no- or low-interest loans for acquisition. A public or private organization makes grants to localities or nonprofits for land acquisition based on a projects revenuegenerating potential. Encourages projects with revenue-generating potential. Projects with low revenue-generating potential have lower priority.

REVOLVING FUND/LOANS OR GRANTS

PARTIAL DEVELOPMENT/SALE- A nonprofit can purchase property, limit BACK OR LEASE 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 preservation of part of sale. Avoids interest and debt service cost. Availability of funds allows for immediate purchase of open space. Distributes cost of acquisition.

Complex negotiations. If leaseback, nonprofit retains responsibility for land. Finding a buyer for restricted property may be difficult.

GOVERNMENT FINANCING OPTIONS


GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BOND ACT Appropriation from general state or local government fund. 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. Federal funds are provided to local governments on a 50-50 matching basis for acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas. States can provide marching grants or low interest loans for municipalities to acquire open space. Unpredictably of budget projections. Might not allocatesufficient funds and conflict with other programs. Requires approval of voting public. Can be expensive if elections charges are tacked onto cost of project.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Cost of acquisition for local government is lowered by subsidy.

Receipt of funds is dependent upon federal approval. Limited funds available. Must have entire cost up front.

STATE GRANT/LOW INTEREST LOANS

State funding encourages localities to preserve important 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.

310

Government & Nonprofit Space Acquisition


TECHNIQUE
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX

EXPLANATION
Acquisition funds obtained from a tax on property transfers, which is a small percentage of purchase price. Percentage and amount exempted varies with locality.

ADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

Growth creates a substantial fund for open space acqui- Discriminates between new and existing residents. Can sition. Enables local communities to generate their own impact real estate values. Works effectively only in growth funds for open space protection, reducing reliance on situations. scare state funds. Can inflate real estate values in a slow market.

LAND GAINS TAX

Capital gains tax on sale or exchange of Discourages speculative development. Has a regulatory undeveloped land held for a short period and revenue impact. of time. Tax rate varies depending on holding period.

PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICA- Local government requires developers to New construction pays for its impact on open space. TION pay an impact fee to a municipal trust fund for open space acquisition. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TAX RETURN CHECK-OFF Special tax district for area benefitted by an Users finance aquisition and management. open space project. On state income tax forms, a filer may appropriate a small amount of taxes owed toward revenues for natural lands acquisitions. Convenient and successful means of generating sufficient financial resources.

Aquistition funds depend on development. may be legal accountability for funds. Usuability of method depends on lrelationship of open space to new development. Increases taxes. Can be costly to implement. Vulnerable to compettion from other worthwhile programs.

OTHER FUNDS/TAXES

Taxes on cigarrettes, sales, gasoline and With income from fees and licences for boat, off-road vehicle and snowmobile use, park entry and hunting, natural resource exploitation as well as revenue from fees and licenses can be used users pay for the resources they use. toward park acquistions. 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.

Revenues from taxes can be diverted for other uses unless firmly dedicated to park and recreation purposes.

SALE OR TRANSFER OF DEFAULT PROPERTY

need to assure that assets from proceeds are specifically allocated to open space acquisition. Very political process.

311

CITYZEN
CLEVELAND SALES: 440-320-8221

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

LORAIN SALES: 440-320-8221 Pgina 8

By Ingrid Marie Rivera, La Prensa Correspondent LORAIN (Dec. 14, 2011): to be used by partner commuAfter four years of planning, El nity organizations. The 650 square foot, 50Centro de Servicios Sociales, Inc. fulfilled its vision and person capacity community/ unveiled its new headquarters training room will be rented to the public. Plans are in the and open after hours to comworks to make its new build- munity organizations and ing a one-stop place for a wide even for private use like for weekend birthday parties, said variety of services. El Centros new facility has Dan Radocaj, the agencys a community room, partner- chief financial officer. Standing in the commuship offices, a Lorain police substation, and will provide nity room, adorned with a big Second Harvest Food Bank Christmas tree and green and food drives. Plus, Lorain blue chairs surrounding rectCounty Community College angular tables, Margie could provide services at the Carrin, a former employee agencys new building in the of El Centros El Dorado Sefuture, but plans are not con- nior Center for 11 years, said she was pleased to learn the firmed. Dozens of people gathered community room will allow despite the threat of rain to the seniors program to now witness the grand re-opening have a permanent place to of the Latino social service meet. I cant believe it, agency El Centro at its new Margie Carrin said Its perhome, on the corner of Pearl fect for them. The second floor houses Avenue and 28th Street, Lorain, nine offices including rentDec. 14, 2011. We are so proud. Here we able space, a conference room, stand as a community. Here is a WIFI-available technology your building. This is a gift to room to be soon filled with you, said El Centros Execu- computers and cubicles, and tive Director Victor Leandry a Lorain Police substation, before cutting a thick red rib- said Greg Hickman, the bon that had been tied to the agencys development ofentrance of the building, at ficer. Police Chief Cel Rivera 2800 Pearl Avenue. The audience responded with applause said the police substation will not be manned at all times, and cheers. The guests approved what instead will be used as an adthey saw. As they made their ditional office space so Lorain way through the building for Police can lead interviews, the agencys open house, have access to translation serguests could be heard repeat- vices during interviews, and ing This is nice, and Qu fill out paperwork. El Centros staff however said they welbonito. Mary Munn, from come the extra police presApplewood, a childrens men- ence. Radocaj added part of the tal health agency, said the new El Centro has a pleasant feel. first and second floor has WIFI The colors are very soothing access but not the entire buildand the natural light is won- ing. El Centro will also partner derful, Munn said of the offices large windows and space, with the Second Harvest Food They did a really good job. Bank, and once a month, proIts a pleasant place to work. vide food for the community, El Centros new home in- Radocaj said. Radocaj added the agency cludes: police substation, community room and partnership is considering offering new programs and services in the offices El Centros first floor greets future including: an anger guests with a commodious re- management program, AIDS ception area adorned by a testing services, and even posChristmas tree and houses 13 sibly providing a shuttle serspacious offices which include vice, but those plans are not a community room and part- definite yet. As the Lorain nership offices offices ready County Transit has scaled

El Centro unveils its new home New building includes a community room, police substation, possible future LCCC connection
money management services for individuals with mental or physical illness; an employment program; a family violence prevention program; and support services for seniors under its El Dorado Senior Center. Leandry has said El Centro helps roughly 2,000 families a year, and among those families, 80 percent do not speak English. Rey Carrin, from the citys development dept., said he was excited to see El Centro finish the renovation of its new home. Its absolutely gorgeous. Its quite an accomplishment, said Rey Carrin, This building has been sitting here vacant for 18 years. Victor has been a great driving force behind this. Im so proud, he said. See El Centro online: http:/ /www.lorainelcentro.com/ Call the agency at (440) 2778235. La Prensas video coverage of El Centro: http:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9O3qNdyjyqw

La Prensa

December/diciembre 23, 2011

El Centros Executive Director Victor Leandry, El Centro Board members and public participate in ribbon-cutting ceremony, Dec. 14, 2011. back its services, Transportation is a big issue in our community, Radocaj said. Present at the open house also were LCCC President Roy A. Church, LCCC Dean Generosa Lpez-Molina, Sacred Heart Chapel Fr. William Thaden, Lorain County Commissioner Ted Kalo, from the Coalition for Hispanic Issues and Progress Mike Ferrer and from the Lorain Arts Council Antonio Barrios. El Centro: To house a LCCC extended campus? LCCC President Roy Church, a board member of El Centro for 20 years, said I deeply believe in its mission and role in our community. When asked if the college plans to bring services or a LCCC branch campus to El Centros new site, Church said he has talked with the non-profit on possibly using the new facility to extend their partnership. But no word yet on if and how the college plans to use the agencys new building. The thinking is to give El Centro some time to settle in to the new space, and see how it is being utilized. Then, we may have a better sense of what could be productively scheduled for delivery at that site, Church said. El Centros new home: a work in progress for several years With the help of a federal grant and donations, El Centro managed to raise nearly $1.3 million for the renovation of the former bank on Pearl Ave., and turn it into its new headquarters after outgrowing its former 31st street home. But after falling short of its original $1.5 million capital campaign goal, the agency was forced to scale back on the design and renovate two-thirds of the 11,000 square foot building. The renovation cost the agency $1.2 million. Leandry said he preferred to fundraise because he did not want to finance the building. The remaining unused 2,000 square foot section on the second floor housed tables and chairs and served as a temporary cafeteria for the guests during the open house. There, guests were treated to a variety of food including: rice, pastelillos, appetizers, and sweets. But that unfinished space will be used by the agency or a partner organization in the future, said Radocaj. El Centro entered a building exchange agreement with the city of Lorain in 2007 to renovate the former bank at 2800 Pearl Ave., and turn it into its new headquarters. In 2008, the agency exchanged its former and outgrown 1888 E. 31st Street home and its former youth center, for its new Pearl Avenue building, that is nearly three times larger with a bigger parking lot and is handicap-accessible. El Centro received $584,400 in federal funds, secured by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown and U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton, for the renovation of its new building. Brown and Sutton were not present at the open house, but a representative from Suttons office, Katey Breck, attended. El Centro is a non-profit agency that was founded in 1974 with the goal of helping the often impoverished and non-English-speaking Latinos. The agency assists the Latino and non-Latino communities with a youth program which includes tutoring; adult support services which includes translation;

Local actors will have their moment in the spotlight during open auditions for the Lorain County Community College Theatre departments spring production of An Enemy of the People. Auditions will be held from 2-5 p.m., Sunday, January 22, 2012 and from 6:30-9:30 p.m., Monday, January 23 in the Stocker

Auditions for LCCC Production of An Enemy of the People


Arts Center Studio Theatre. The play is directed by JR Simons and will run April 12-14. Ten men and two women are needed for speaking roles. Those who audition should prepare a short (one minute or less) contemporary dramatic monologue from a modern play written sometime in the 20th or 21st century. Everyone should also be prepared to read from the script and perform scenes from the play for auditions and callbacks. For more information contact director JR Simons at jsimons@lorainccc.edu or jovialities@excite.com, or visit www.stockerartscenter.com and click on Arts and Humanities.

312

Talking Points
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 historic rehabilitation tax credit (HTC) is the most significant federal financial 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 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 jobcommunities. 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 nations 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 nations 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-handson-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***

The 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. 10.28.12 I. Reading Diagram II. Process Sketch III. Sunset Park Derve 2 Ethnography IV. Research on Limited Equity Cooperatives V. Report #8: Funding Heritage

/// Articles I. 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 Diagram


The 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.

La Unin
Non-profit
Limited Equity Coops
Mortgage Deductions

Funding Opportunities
Banks

Saving Money/Reducing Costs


Allocation of Funds to other programs

Membership

Security of Tenure

Rent Stability

Heritage

Associated Business Cooperative


Quality Housing
National Association of Housing Cooperatives

Cooperative Heritage Fund

NYS Environmental Protection Fund

Historically Significant Architecture


LPC Grant Program
City Ventures

Reading Diagram Rethinking Housing, Citizenship and Property. Teddy Cruz.

315

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

316

317

318 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

October 22, 2012

CITYZEN

Detail description of our eld Work to Sunset Park, Brooklyn

We started our eldwork with a tour around the waterfront. The tour was conducted by CB7 representative Jeremy Laufer. We met at his oce (which makes part of one of the designations sites) in 4th avenue and 53 and walked down towards the Iguana expressway. We also had the opportunity to see the police precinct that is across the street from the CB7 oces. We had a conversation about the expressway and how it is a boundary to the neighborhood. Jeremy point out many perspective about the innuence of the highway to Sunset Park. In one hand, the Gowanus has helped to create a highly recognized bounda boundary separating the industrial to the residential area. This separation causes for many citizens in Sunset Park to never go and visit the waterfront. Also, the waterfront is a place that is not 24 hours open, so at night it is very lonely and dark. There are no restaurants open, laundry mats, or any necessary housing facilities, so it is dicult to have a residential area. The only businesses that open in the night are the strip clubs that are in the area. On the other hand, this same separation makes the industrial zone still continue to exist, which brings many employments to the community. There has been a debate about if there should be housing in that area, but it seems as if the CB7 prefers to maintain the area as a soft industry zone because it provides many jobs. When we arrived to the Bush terminal we had to wait to have permission from the site to be able to walk in. Even though it is said to be the only place where they allowed people to go in to see the waterfront (just in the weekends), the whole security atmosphere puts a barrier that makes the place not to be accessible nor friendly. Once we walked in the Bush terminal, it was surprising to see a Greek restaurant called Alpha. The sign was in Greek alphabet but thanks to Thames we were able to understand what it said. The restaurant must have had been there for a very long time, since the Greek were also a great innuence to the Sunset Park population a long time ago, but this is just an assumption. There is also a statue of Irving Bush, the founder of the Bush terminal area. The waterfront is a very calm place, even though it is an industrial site and one of the largest in the area. Some cars and trucks passed by, but apart from the unfrequented trac, it is a very calm place. There is an incredible view of the Statue of Liberty and Manhattans downtowns skyline. The place seems abandoned, but we guess that also had to do with the project they are building right now. The idea is to make a park in the waterfront so the Sunset population can enj enjoy the that area, the goal is to develop public space for recreational purposes. The park is meant to have soccer elds and baseball elds and walking and bike paths. Because the area had been abandoned for such a long time due to illegal dumping, a new ecosystem has started, which has created vegetation and

migratory birds. For this reason they want to take advantage of this new ecosystem and try to make an environmental/educational center inside the park. Also, they think this is another way of attracting bird watching tourist. When we asked Jeremy Laufer if they were pretending to designate some of the Bush terminal building as a historical site, he responded that it is in their future plan, but once the park is nished. He also explained that the waterfront has a great history that would de nitely make it to be a case for a historical landmark. For instance, Sunset Parks waterfront was a military site, because of this most of the soldiers who were going to World War II and other wars, were embarking at these docks. He even joked that Elvis was one of the important characters to have been there. He explained they are focusing, by now, in 4th Avenue. They want to make some historical sites in this avenue to help make that avenue a little bit more pedestrian friendly. This also is imwa portant because there are many schools and the Public Library that are situated in this area, that he argues it is important to have sidewalks for the kids to walk on. We also asked Mr. Laufer about the Federal Designation Sunset has. He responded they do not get any bene ts from it. He even said that it is worst because if they wanted to change something in the faade they would not have Federal money but it had to be private development (we did not understand what he meant with this, but he changed the subject). We asked him about the bene ts of the designation (tax reductions) and he was surprised there existed bene ts, he had never heard about them. Once we nished the tour, we decided to go as a group to the waterfront again. When we walked through the abandoned buildings, we meet a guy that worked for the city and was testing the water. It is a very predominant man site, though still there were not a lot of people in the streets. The place feels lonely even though we went a Monday in the working hours; it feels nobody works, though Jeremy does emphasizes on how the industries generates a lot of working opportunities to the people of the neighborhood. Many of the cars are parked in the sides of the street, as do many garbage trucks. Jeremy did mention Sunset Park buys and sells the cities garbage and that is why there are so many. When we left the construction site, we walked up 52 street. We decided to have lunch in an Ecuadorian restaurant. The lunch special was 7 dollars, it included a chicken soup, rise, beans, salad and chicken, plus a small orange juice which resulted to be Tang. The people that were in the restaurant were all from Ecuador, but spoke English. The news was on, but they were in Spanish and at the end of the lunch they played some Merengue music. Jessica asked the waitress if she knew about La Union, or if she made part of any group or Latino organization, she did not neither made part of any organization nor had heard about La Unin. When we left the restaurant we noticed a pink corner house (4th avenue and 51 st.), which could be a great site to designate as a historic building. The current use is for storage, but nobody knew much of the building. Diagonal to it, was also a beautiful construction used by Chase bank.

319

320 Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

CITYZEN

As a group we decided we were going to walk through the Federal designation district looking for buildings that would be good to designate as historical sites. We decided to go through the already historical district because this would mean there would already be a process we can use for a designation. As we walked thru 4av, we saw many building that could be an option, but none of them stood as much as the rst pink building. When we got to a primary school, in 60st, we decided we wanted to go to the commercial area where there were more people. 4th ave is an avenue that has a lot of trac, though it is still quiet calm, but there is not much activity happening in the streets. It feels it is more a transit street than a place to be. We walked all the way 60th street at noticed the changes in the neighborhood. We entered a more residential zone, very calm. The Chinese population was growing and this could be seen by the signs in mandarin and some cultural practices they do in the streets like taking out food (which seemed to be cabbage) to dry it. We passed through the big Church and visited Charlies old home. We also went to La Unins oces just to see where they are. As we walked thru the streets of the family residential neighborhood, there was an evident cultural friction between the dierent cultures. The neighborhood in 59th street around the Church was a mixed neighborhood of Latinos and Chines. In one of the houses (which was inhabitant by Puerto Rican, they had ags all over their faade) we saw a sign that asked for a more respectful neighborhood. The sign pointed out some cultural practices that needed to be reserved so that there woulddisa nt be disagreement. One was that all the cloths should be dried inside the house. That you shouldnt spit on the streets, use proper use of the garbage, use your bike correctly, and that smoking near windows or houses should not be allowed. The signs were written in English, Chines and Spanish. Though there is a mixed population, it seems as if there were no relations between them. There are certain cultural shocks, but it seems as if everyone just accepts their neighbor. It seems like the cultures do not mix at all. We decided to head to see La Unins garden but we decided to walk thru 5th Avenue. We noticed how this avenue makes part of the Business Improvement District BID, because of all the signs hanged in the beautiful lights. The lights of the streets resemble to be old and they do not look like any other lights of the neighborhood, making that avenue to have a dierent look and importance. It would seem 5th avenue is the commercial street, and that there are not many other places where that happens rather than that street. What shocked us the most in 5th Avenue was how in the second oor of every building the windows were shut down with bricks, woods or advertising signs. The use of space of the second oor through out the Avenue was restricted and useless. There were a lot of people walking in the streets. Most of the population is Latino and Chinese; there is hardly any white or black population. Many of the signs are in Spanish or Chinese, or both. Though most of the places are Latin (and mostly Mexican) or Chinese, there are some places that fusion both culture and directed their space to both communities.

As we walked thru 5th avenue another building struck us to be a possible designation site. This was an old re ghter house. It seemed like they were not using it at all, but it was in great conditions. The rehouse was in 53rd and 5th avenue. In this street many mini markets started to appear. The variety of fruits and vegetables was immensely and it responded to the cultural diet of the Chinese and Latinos, though most of them were for the Latino public. Tunas (cactus owers), yucca, jalapeos, were some of the vegetables we do not see that frequently in other New York mini markets. When we got to the Sunset Park, we decided it was important for us to see the rst coops that every existed in United States. We entered the park and also saw the designation sites that are in it (the pool center and recreation center). We admired the beautiful view, and noticed that the park was greatly used by all the members of the community, from all ages, gender and race. There were parents with their kids in the playground, bikes, tai chi practitioners, and baseball players, people walking their dogs or just walking. As we were in the park there was something beautiful of the place that felt that Sunset Park to be more of an authentic neighborhood. There werent any tourist, fashion statements, hipsters, or artsy places or people. It felt the place was lived by its resident and hoo that it was alive. It felt there was a sense of community. And as we said before, though there it feels the Chinese and the Latino do not mix, there is a strong sense of community of both of the population. The buildings of the Coops are beautiful. We had the chance to talk brie y to a white mother about her experience in the Coops. She had recently moved in recently to the 40th st. (also called Finlandia street) 7th avenue, she was incredible happy with her apartment. She had renovated it, but was surprisingly content with the state of the whole building. Though through our research it is said that there is not many people sale the apartments in the Coops and most of them continue to be the family members of the ones that started it, with the visit we noticed there had been some changes. As we continue our walk to la Unins garden, we noticed there was another type of population that we had not seen as much in other places: the Arab population. We know they were Arabs because of their dresses and obvious cultural traits like the hijab. We stopped by a very nice coee shop, which had a dierent aesthetic in comparison to the other stores in 5th avenue. Troy entered the shop and talked to one of the owners. As he then told the group the owner had said Sunset Park was going to be the next Williamsburg but without the douchebags. We walked down the hill and went on top of part of the cemetery. As we nally got to the garden, we were surprised on how little it was. It was closed and we were not able to walk in, but as we looked through the gates we could see some vegetables. We also appreciated the autumn decoration they had in the entrance. We left Sunset Park by metro, Charlie used his bikes. As we concluded our visit we talked about some important topics we should do some further investigation for the upcoming weeks: 1. Find more about the pink house in 51st and 4th Avenue. Try to see if we can nd whos the owner and some information about the architect and building. 2. Try to do nd the same information to the other buildings we saw in 4th avenue and the rehouse. 3. We want to center in the federal designation district, as it seems the waterfront is redeveloping and the CB7 and community member already have something thought for that area. Also, with an antecedent about the designation, we can pick up with their Discourse to continue or see if we can designate a site. 4. Look more about the Coops; see how they work nowadays but also how they started. Try to use their rhetoric to do something similar as an option of housing for the neighborhood. 5. Make an interview to the person who did the Federal Designation.

321

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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-fullslides 4. New Pioneers - Video about the Rochdale New Pioneers: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=KYPe5xJAm5w Commissioned 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 Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles

324

TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER Mixed-Use Coop Wins Queens & Bronx Building Association Award: http://www.maparchitects.com/pages/pdf/news/MixedUse%20Coop%20Wins%20Queens%20&%20Bronx%20Building%20Association%20Award%2 0080204.pdf http://furmancenter.org/institute/directory/entry/affordable-cooperative-housing-program/ National Association of Housing Cooperatives http://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-operativeheritage-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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Funds 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,
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

preserve, rehabilitate, restore or acquire properties listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places (highlights added)

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

326

Environmental Protection Funds 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 lowincome 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 States architectural + design heritage and to encourage the development of design literacy for all New Yorkers

Architecture + Design General Support supports an organizations ongoing work, supporting activities of arts & cultural organizations no less than $5000, up to 25% of an organizations budget Architecture + Design Independent Projects Independent Projects allow for individuals (or a team) to explore

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

creatively or to research an issue or problem in architecture, design and/or historic preservation which advances that field and contributes to the publics understanding of design. The category seeks projects that are innovative in nature and emphasize artistry and design excellence.

327

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 Corporations Affordable Homeownership Development Program here Eligibility: NFPs that have affordable housing or homeimprovement 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?

328

1. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - hud.gov a. Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant, stage 2 for existing buildings b. Hope VI 2. US Environmental Protection Agency - epa.gov a. 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 Fund a. here historical preservation specifically? 1. National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation here a. 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 Places i. Preservation Assistance webpage 1. and the list of Funding Sources b. 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 Arts a. funding for building condition studies i. Architecture + Design Grant ii. Independent Arch + Design grant HISTORIC PRES SPECIFICALLY 4. New York Landmarks Conservancy a. Emergency Loan Program provides immediate funding for exterior and structural repairs at small New York City historic properties in dire need i. $2.5k - $25k ii. could be eligible but sounds like more for places in good condition that need quick repairs in response to something b. 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 loans ii. 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

HERITAGE DESIGNATION: Our research is a work in progress We think there are 3 steps of ?something? *visual of this* 1. Finding Space 2. Access to space a. Ownership b. Lease c. 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 Parks 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

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 Parks 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency

332

CONTENTS

General Program Information

OPRHP Regional Grants Administrators Application Questions and Answers Grant Selection Criteria

Page 3-8

4 5-7 8

Instructions

Instructions for Application Forms Sample Part C Instructions for Additional Information

9-13 14 16-17

9-17

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 (RGAssee 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.

-2-

333

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 faade 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.) -3-

334

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 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 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 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 Palisades and Taconic Regions Erin ONeil 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 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

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 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 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 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 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

-4-

335

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 OPRHPs 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. Notfor-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 YEARS 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 publics 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 -5-

336

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% -6-

337

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 standalone grants for project planning and structural assessments. The complete text of OPRHPs EPF regulations can be found at 9 NYCRR Parts 439-443.

-7-

338

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 Commissioners 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 publics 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) -8-

339

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 8" x 11" format, crossreferenced 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. -9-

340

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. - 10 -

341

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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. - 11 -

342

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 sellers 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 hrvg@hudsongreenway.state.ny.us. 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 - 12 -

343

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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. - 13 -

344

SAMPLE PART C

_Sample Park, Sample Town


Project Name and Location Part C Page ____1_____

PROJECT SCHEDULE Scope, Budget and Timeframe


PRE-DEVELOPMENT Component Design fees Archeology *Completion Month 0-9 Month 0-2 Subtotal: CONSTRUCTION Excavation, site prep and grading Site utilities Pathways, sidewalks, paving, fencing Maintenance building and restroom Play equipment Site furnishings Landscaping Month 12-14 Month 14-16 Month 15-18 Month 16-22 Month 20-22 Month 20-22 Month 22-24 Subtotal: ACQUISITION

Cost $90,000 $10,000 $100,000

$160,000 $65,000 $120,000 $375,000 $420,000 $110,000 $120,000 $1,370,0000

(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 ADMINISTRATION Grant Administration Site Supervision CPA Audit Report Project Sign Subtotal: Month 1-24 Month 1-24 Month 24 Month 1 Subtotal: $300,000 $30,000 $90,000 $5,000 $120 $125,120

Total Project Cost: $1,895,120 Grant Request: *calculated in months from start of project - 14 $400,000

345

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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

- 15 -

346

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 owners 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 8 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 - 16 -

347

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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. - 17 -

348

____________________________
Table of Contents

Project Name and Location

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)

APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS

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.

- 18 -

349

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

____________________________
Application # (AGENCY USE ONLY)

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.

PART A

SFY 2011-2012 OPRHP Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) HERITAGE AREAS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT Name: Mailing Address: State: PROJECT Description: Location: Local Historic Designation: Site Address: Zip Code: Minor Civil Division: Total project cost: $ AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL Name: Title: Business Address: State: Telephone #: FAX #: E-Mail Address: 19 Zip Code: County: Legislative Districts: NYS Assembly: NYS Senate: U.S. Congress: Grant request: $ CONTACT Name: Title: Firm: Address: State: Telephone #: FAX #: E-mail: Zip Code: Zip Code: Federal ID #: Charities Registration #:

350

____________________________

Project Name and Location Part B Page _________

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

20

351

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

____________________________

Project Name and Location Part C Page _________

PART C

PROJECT SCHEDULE Scope, Budget and Timeframe


*Completion Cost

Component 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 ADMINISTRATION Construction Supervision Grant Administration Procurement Costs CPA Audit Report Project Sign Subtotal:

Subtotal: Total Project Cost: Grant Request:

*calculated in months from start of project

21

352

____________________________

Project Name and Location Part D Page _________

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:

22

353

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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, Queerness To all media activists, creative workers, radical artists, union organizers, immigrant and precarious youth In 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 EuroMayDay Neoliberalism 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 its 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, its economically counterproductive. Banks are hoarding

354

liquidity for fear of going bust and dont supply new credit. As Keynes and Kalecki first showed, during great depressions monetary policy doesnt 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 lites 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 superritzy 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 Great Depression. 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 and Ucraine threaten a financial abyss for the eurozone. Japan, like Korea, has experienced a dramatic drop in exports and industrial production. China faces a socially problematic slowdown in growth. The global downward spiral has become selfreinforcing 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 were 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, in Europe 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 of Europe 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

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 israels 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 Fools Day!) 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 Great Recession 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 Malm 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 in Spain: 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; the Lige 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.)))

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 wont happen by default in the Great Recession. 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: ets fight the police state, lets 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 Makers MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, THE FIRST OF MAY WELL MAKE YOU PAY!

357

9.

/// Wks. 11.4.12 11.25.12 I. II. III. IV. V. Reading Diagram Report #9 Images from La Unin discussion role-play Process sketches Potential Properties Map

VI. Potential Properties Chart VII. Initial Prezi VIII. Historic Images if Sunset Park

Reading Diagram The Urban Question, Section 5 The Urban Process. M. Castells

359

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

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 groups synthesis of information.

360

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 built in 1907 - large mixed use building

5020 4th Ave

CONGREGATION IMREI YEHUDAH

Vacant/used as storage For Sale - vacant store front under construction For Lease Vacant store front - for rent Vacant - some permits visible vacant store front two store fronts Occupied/vacant upper Vacant lot vacant lot

5008 4th Ave 5705 4th Ave 5915 4th Ave

CAMPOS, MARGARITA H C P REALTY LLC MNG US CORP.

historic looking, mixed use historic looking, mixed use mixed use

6112 4th Ave

6112 AVENUE LLC SUN NG CHAN KAN REVOCABLE TRUST 771-773 PLUS INC. JONG, DAISY THEMILION REALTY CORP M.C.P.Y.E.L. ASSOC INC ???? THE MARY CATALDO REVOCABLE TRUST TW88 REALTY LLC CASHMAN LYNNE R (???) SUN HOP HOLDINGS, LLC
MING, YEUNG MEI / Kings USA Group on Sign PARKSET 7TH AVE., LLC no owner info no owner info SUNPARK REALTY CORP no owner info

mixed use building

6215 5th Ave 6219 5th Ave 6202 5th Ave 6102 5th Ave 5912 5th Ave 538 57th St

mixed use mixed use mixed use US Post Office/store

Seems abandoned/no tax info historic building on oversized lot 2 store fronts mixed use Looks like the post office completely vacant mixed use

618 56th St 5524 7th Ave 5501 7th Ave 5202 7th Ave
5102 7th Ave 4521 7th Ave 4520 7th Ave 4522 7th Ave 684 45th St 4518 5th Ave

occupied vacant occupied Vacant


under construction current laundromat looks abandoned looks abandoned large apt complex looks vacant

mixed use mixed use historic/could be a coop 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

4thAveSubway.jpg

ArmyTerminal.JPG

Brownstones-1989.JPG
383

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

Bushteminal1.jpg

Bushteminal2.jpg

Bushteminal3.jpg

BushTerminal4.JPG

384

BushTerminal5.JPG

FactoryBecomesHospital.JPG

FinnishCoops-1989.JPG

Gowanus.JPG

385

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

HispanicNeighborhood-1989.JPG

HousingforLaborers-c1911.JPG

HousingFortheMiddleClass-c1900.JPG

IrvingBushZCommemoration-c1950.JPG

386

Marien-Heim-1989.JPG

NewChinatown-1989.JPG

NorwegianHospitalAmbulence.jpg

OldPondinWhatWouldBecomeSunsetPark.JPG
387

CITYZEN

Design and Urban Ecologies, Studio I, Fall 2012

RemnantsofScandianviansonEighthAve-1989.JPG

StMichaels-1989.JPG

SunsetParkCommCenter-1989.JPG

WaterfrontRuins1989-1.JPG

388

WaterfrontRuins1989-2.JPG

389

10.

/// Wks. 12.2.12 12.16.12 I. Final Presentation to La Unin

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai