| Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 04:05 am Reprinted from TenantNet: NYtenants Online/TenantNet 9/11/01 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hey, vote! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Vallone pulled the race card at Sunday's mayoral debates, bringing up the unrequested endorsement of Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer by Sonny Carson, an alleged anti-white racist who organized Korean grocery boycotts in Brooklyn several years ago. Despite Ferrer's insistence that he neither sought nor accepted Carson's endorsement, some speculate that Vallone's maneuver was a Hail-Mary Pass, hoping to climb from his gutter 10-11% poll showing and maybe edging our Ferrer for a place in the runoff. Or was it? By allowing Vallone, the man who decontrols tenants, destroys neighborhoods and exposes kids to lead paint poisoning, and who represents everything about who is bought and paid for by developers and corporations, to inflame the Archie Bunkers of the world with the racial fears, the media is framing the debate for the expected runoff between Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer. The media may be doing much more than simple reporting on Vallone's statements; it may be cheering him on. You can read it between the lines in the New York Observer's recent endorsement of Mark Green: "[Green] has tried to mollify the leftist-liberals of New York who wish him to be the second coming of John Lindsay, with handouts for unions and feel-good appointments from the racial-preference hiring hall, while sending centrist signals to level-headed, outer-borough Democrats concerned about public safety and education, and rightfully suspicious of Manhattan liberals with a weakness for social engineering." That's because the central theme of this year's campaign has been to see who is most like (or unlike) outgoing Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Even earlier this year, Mark Zelig Green was telling the Kings Highway Democratic Club in Brooklyn that he was more like Giuliani than they had ever suspected. You've heard it from Hevesi, Vallone and Bloomberg; they're falling over themselves to aspire to Rudyism. Which brings us to Fernando Ferrer's "Other New York." From the objections being raised by his rivals, you would think Ferrer has committed blasphemy. Just suggesting there's another New York is being portrayed as attacking children, motherhood, seniors, the American flag, Broadway, the Olympics and everything else that no candidate can appear to be attacking. But Ferrer's divide is not racial; it's economic. Those who were left behind in the booming economy, who were trampled by others in the gold rush of dotcoms, those who no longer have any quality of life in the new Disneyized suburban Manhattan, those residents and small businesses who have been subjected to eviction and displacement pressures -- are all part of Ferrer's other New York. To Peter Vallone and Alan Hevesi and Mark Green, even acknowledging that the divide exists undermines the legitimacy and messages of their candidacies. There is another New York. And Fernando Ferrer is right to ask the question. Yes, we must ask if he's the right man to answer the question. But, for the simple act of stating the obvious -- that Sir Rudolph has no clothes -- that Giulianism has been harmful to New Yorkers, we urge our readers to ensure Fernando Ferrer has a place in the September 25th runoff by voting for him Tuesday, September 11th. And we hope that in the next two weeks Mr. Ferrer will broaden his base, with specifics responsive to NYC tenant and neighborhood needs. TENANT ISSUES From a tenant perspective, Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer's record is not exemplary. Tenant activists tell us that over the years Ferrer has not been very visible on such issues as Vallone's 1994 Decontrol bill, self-certification by landlords, court rent deposits, and the Rent Guidelines Board. Both Green and Hevesi have more tenant credentials when it comes to attending press conferences and giving testimony. Those involved with the lead paint issue tell us that Ferrer has not been as visible as others, although he did come to a press conference to speak out against Peter Vallone's 1999 "Lead Poisoning Act." (Local Law 38). Nor did he use his bully pulpit or rally the Bronx delegation of City Council to oppose Vallone's bill. Both the Voice and City Limits have reported that Ferrer and Green have drawn heavily from members of the landlord (eviction mill) law firm Borah Goldstein and Altschuler. See http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0107/lobbia.php and http://www.citylimits.org/archives/9702bref.htm. Ferrer has also relied on contributions from many of the City's major developers, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA). One tenant reminded us that, "other politicians well-endowed by the slumlord law firm are C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan Borough President, and her protege Bill Perkins." "Borah Goldstein seems to favor liberals," the tenant observed. "That's smart, as liberals usually win in Manhattan and the Bronx. Also, the slumlord law firm seems to favor politicians of color. Also smart. They represent the districts with the greatest number of evictions." Ferrer's campaign acknowledged the Borough President's prior record. As an outer-borough Borough President, they explained, you would not necessarily expect Ferrer to be that visible. After all, when is the last time you saw Queens BP Claire Schulman, Brooklyn BP Howard Golden or Staten Island BP Molinari come to the RGB hearings? They also state that Ferrer has been rebuilding his staff over the last several years. It may be in anticipation of the mayoral campaign, but there does appear to be a certain openness and honesty we haven't seen in other campaigns. Ferrer's staff also acknowledge the real estate contributions, but they claim that all the campaigns accept money from real estate as a necessary evil of running a mayoral campaign. Ferrer's campaign tells us that of all the candidates, he's taken the least from REBNY and the RSA, but we haven't had the time to verify this. This year, several of the candidates (including Ferrer) have called for RGB rent freezes. Ferrer now opposes rent deposits (albeit a bit too late). And Ferrer has joined the activists working to prevent eviction of the Lower East Side Charas Cultural Center. Like several of the candidates, Ferrer is calling for Home Rule on tenant issues -- to take rent regulation out of the hands of the state legislature. Like others, he is calling for the repeal of the Urstadt Law (which says that rent laws can only be changed to favor landlords, not tenants). But he is also saying (unlike other candidates) that the administration of the rent laws by DHCR should be revisited. DHCR took over the administration of the rent regulatory system in 1984 and has created an unworkable system, strongly biased towards landlords, and willing to let tenant complaints languish for years. When the system doesn't work, then why have it? LITTLE HOUSES, LOTS OF THEM While not as proactive on tenant issues, Ferrer's strength in housing appears to be more in Housing Production. In August, the Village Voice profiled Ferrer (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0131/robbins.php), his rise from the democratic machine to the Bronx Borough Presidency, taking over from then BP Stanley Simon who was caught in a bribery scheme, how Ferrer instituted a code of ethics, brought in auditors, and had his staff file statements of personal finances. During his term the Bronx -- in 1987 a long-time symbol for urban decay -- turned around. Over 60,000 new housing units were built and neighborhoods were revived. There is debate how much of that credit Ferrer deserves, given that much of the $5 billion for the new housing units came from the Koch administration and that the effort had many players, but it can't be denied that he was a part of it. There is also debate over the manner and impact of the effort. How much of it went to cronies of the Ferrer/Ramirez Bronx machine, who got rich on the backs of low-income neighborhoods and how many low-income residents were displaced -- all seem to go hand-in-hand with the effort itself. According to the New York Times, "...when city planners were preparing to earmark buildings for exclusive occupancy by homeless people, Mr. Ferrer helped persuade the planners to allow for more diversity. And in the early 1990's, when city planners wanted to bulldoze much of a 33-block area near Yankee Stadium, Mr. Ferrer helped persuade City Hall to give way. He helped devise a new plan for the area, called Melrose Commons, that allowed the residents to stay put." Also from the Times, "Many people also credit Mr. Ferrer with the wisdom to back off himself. Some of the people active in housing issues in the 1990's say that Mr. Ferrer rarely tried to delay projects or steer contracts to his friends. Some of the same housing experts point to Harlem as an example of where interference by elected officials sometimes derailed rebuilding. "In Harlem, they wanted to turn it into a political patronage operation," Mr. Koch said. "Freddie did not in any way. By not demanding, he got a larger share." This part of his record puts him in good stead, but does success in the Bronx translate to being able to discern the needs of the broader New York City communities? STADIUMS, COSTCOS AND MORE STARBUCKS Ferrer has said he will "engage communities to develop their own destiny in partnership with government and that he will work with communities to make zoning changes reflective of and protecting the character of the neighborhood." That sounds good, but given the forces at work, this may be as difficult, especially where neighborhoods and communities (the people as well as the buildings) need to be preserved, not rebuilt. It also lacks specifics, relies on vague generalities. If such words were uttered by Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, we would recommend it's time to consider the West Coast. In Manhattan, viable neighborhoods are disappearing at an accelerated pace and Giuliani's Quality of Life initiates have actually made the residential quality of life even worse. It's happening on the Lower East Side, in Harlem, in Chelsea, the Village, the Upper West and East Sides. Coupled with Peter Vallone's 1994 weakening of rent regulations, with DHCR's abandonment (if they ever had it) of equitable adjudication of rent complaints, with HPD's selling-off of massive parcels of land to Friends of Rudy, Manhattan is quickly becoming unlivable. What we hear from residents throughout the borough (in no particular order): 1. traffic is out of control - trucks and buses 2. the 24-hour din of noise (helicopters, commercial air conditioning units, etc.) is horrendous 3. Nightclubs and noisy bars have saturated neighborhoods 4. sidewalks in some areas are clogged with tourists, newspaper racks or oversized telephone booths 5. City Planning and City Council rubber-stamp inappropriate mega-developments in residential neighborhoods 6. Environmental impacts air, noise, light/shadow, etc., are routinely ignored 7. Small neighborhood businesses and services are being forced out with unbelievable rents 8. Neighborhoods are becoming destabilized 9. Evictions are rampant; rents have skyrocketed 10. Police ignore the problems that they can deal with (if they desire to) Even John Tierney wrote in the New York Times that the mayoral candidates were ignoring noise issues. At ABC's Sunday debate, the candidates were asked about noise. Except for some blather about greater enforcement, they ignored the issue. No one addressed the 25% increase in traffic in Manhattan and the noise it brings. No one addressed the nightclubs. No one addressed the trendy restaurants with overly-loud and misplaced air conditioning units. They didn't speak about helicopters or construction noise. Whichever candidate speaks to these issues in the runoff election will most likely find a very responsive audience. WEST SIDE BINGO On the west side, the Mayor and others have plotted to replace vast portions of the Chelsea and Clinton neighborhoods, from 28th to 42nd Streets from Ninth Avenue to the Hudson River and even further north west of Tenth Avenue. It never was about the stadium; it's about everything around it. Senator Charles Schumer released a report earlier this summer calling for massive condemnation of west side areas, rezoning and assemblage, and then handing them over to developers with massive tax breaks. Without the stadium, they lose the ability to use sports as a public relations crutch, but they've now created the Big Lie that Manhattan is in severe crisis due to lack of office space. Of course, the report was written by developers seeking the land, the tax breaks and the office towers. And Mark Green has bested Schumer by calling for doubling of the Javits Center, towering hotels, a new subway and the creation of a new Central Business District going to the Hudson River. Mark Green is for all this. So is Vallone. And Hevesi appears to have signed on. To his credit, Ferrer has called for preservation of the Garment Center rules (requiring space be available for the needle trades), unlike Green or Hevesi. And also to his credit, he is calling for office expansion in the outer boroughs -- where that kind of development is wanted, needed and would be accepted. But we're not convinced that Ferrer has yet understood the full problem on Manhattan's west side. He too, unfortunately, has signed on to the subway extension, the precursor to the Central Business District. Would Ferrer listen to the communities, or would he be guided by Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, who sold her soul to developers and destroyed community boards. At this point, Ferrer has been ambiguous and lacks specifics about his positions. How much of a leap of faith can we take on Ferrer? Unless Hevesi or Vallone can perform a miracle, Ferrer will be in the runoff. He may not need to reach out now, but in two weeks, will he be able to win over Mark Green without having expanded his base into Manhattan? Ferrer will need to speak to the issues that neighborhood people are complaining about. That's why we submit that it is about Bloc(k)s -- the buildings, the tenants, the small retail stores, the stability of neighborhoods -- that will strike a responsive chord. Green hasn't done this and we question if he can. We think Ferrer could. If Ferrer takes the neighborhood blocks, he will find his voting bloc. Because we are your other New York, too.
|