Seward Park City Limits May 1980 Issue

8/20/2019 Seward Park City Limits May 1980 Issue

1/3

SEWARD PARK WHOSE PROMISED LAND

Seward Park Extension Urban Renewal rea

by Tom Robbins

Just south

of

Delancey Street on the Lower East Side,

where traffic headed

onto

and off the Williamsburg

Bridge whizzes past swarms of shoppers seeking out the

area's famed bargains, lie several vacant acres of city

owned real estate. Except for a handful of buildings that

have escaped the wrecker's ball, and two fiercely con

tested housing developments, most of the

14

square

blocks have remained largely unused since the late 196 s

when they were designated an urban renewal area. Since

that time the use

of

those acres has been fought over

almost as much as certain areas of the Middle East, and

nearly as many failed peace initiatives lie buried in the

rubble

of

its demolished buildings.

The latest, and perhaps the final, city attempt to

balance the competing demands of the area's Jewish

and Hispanic populations, received only partial approv

al by the Board of Estimate on April 24. The Jewish

community, based mainly in 4,500 cooperative apart

ments south of the renewal area, has sought commercial

buildings

or

middle income housing on the sites. The

large, housing-needy Hispanic population to the north

and west, has long urged the construction of lower

income housing units.

CITY LIMITS May 1980

14

The Board's decision, to amend the plan to exclude

low income family housing from the site has left the

Hispanic community feeling

cut

out and more bitter

than before.

By

a 9-2 vote, with only the Mayor's off ice dissenting,

the Board voted to adopt an amended proposal by Man

hattan Borough President Andrew Stein that called for

approval of an international

mall

along the south

side of Delancey Street, and 156 apartments for the

elderly and handicapped. The prime bone of conten

tion, 1 units of low income family housing was

eliminated by Stein's amendment.

A third factor in the proposal, the fate

of several city

owned buildings, two of which are tenanted, remains

unclear as present building plans call for their demoli

tion.

Argument and debate over the sites has always been

heated and often laced with charges of racism. The

struggle between the two communities has spilled over

into the streets at times, and has also led to lengthy and

involved legal challenges on the tenancy of the projects

that have been built.


2/3

The Board

of

Estimate meeting was no exception to

that strain, and spectators for and against the family

housing traded insults during the hearing. When Stein

left the chamber, following the adoption

of

his amend-

ment, a chant

of

"Racist Racist " arose from many

spectators. Stein was quoted later as saying that to at-

tempt to combine economic development with low in-

come housing was

ludicrous

and that "every ex-

perience with low income housing shows it creates crime

and social problems." Stein's office later insisted that

those remarks were taken out

of

context,

and

were

not

indicative of his feelings about subsidized housing for

the poor.

We

believed it was a unique opportunity to do com-

mercial development," said Stein's Deputy Jesse Masyr,

and

we didn't

think it essential

or

wise

to

place on

top

of

economic development a low income project." The

area north

of

Delancey Street, Masyr said, needs stabili-

zation much more.

Around

(Avenues)

Band

C there's

just a lot of rubble," he said.

While the United Jewish Council, the major group

that has contested low income housing, had opposed the

construction

of

the elderly as well as family apartments,

it still reacted to the Board' s vote as a victory.

The homework was taken care

of,

said Douglas

Balin, Executive Director

of

the UJC, when asked about

the lobbying effort his group had undertaken before the

vote, including reports that delegations

of

rabbis from

around

the city visited Board members to press their

concerns about the plan.

In

our Board's eyes, said Balin, there

is

nothing

wrong with saying this

is

our neighborhood. This

is

a

large Jewish community and

we

want

to

preserve it."

The plans for the Seward Park Extension Urban Re-

newal Area had already been thrashed out

on

a local

level, with Community Board

#3

voting in favor

of

the

plan.

The Lower East Side Joint Planning Council, which

has actively promoted the construction

of

low income

housing on the sites to replace the more than 1,400 low

income apartments lost to demolition when the area was

cleared, asserted at the hearing that the United Jewish

Council was attempting to make Delancey Street a de-

marcation line between the two communities . The city,

the group stated, had a moral obligation to provide

housing for those in need in an area where an inte-

grated, low income neighborhood had existed.

We

took a lesson in hate," said Nestor Cortijo

of

the JPC after the Board's vote.

But

those who hate are

going to have to realize that they will reap hate as well ."

While the thrust of Stein's amendment-eliminate the

low income units-was understood by the Board mem-

bers, it was not until some days after the vote that the

specifics

of

the changes adopted were understood by all.

Presently the disputed site, 2B,

is

listed as residential

without specifications at to type.

15

We're still committed to the original goals

of

Seward Park Extension," said HPD Deputy Commis-

sioner Ron Marino,

but,

as it stands now, the amend-

ment bars any low income housing on that site other

than elderly. t

is

too politically charged a situation to

attempt to amend the plan again. We'll have to look

at

other sites for housing."

According

to

Balin, that

is

exactly what the

JPC

should have been doing originally.

There

are plenty

of

other parts

of

this community

board

that are in more

desperate need of housing," said Balin, but this area

has generated interest in economic development and

that is what it is best suited for. The JPC, said Balin,

wants to see this as a turf battle. They look for sym-

bols. They would settle for a couple

of

tents on Grand

Street."

Part of

the argument for integrated low income hous-

ing in the urban renewal area stems from the identity

of

those who originally lived there, who, according to city

figures, were more than two thirds Hispanic, black and

Asian, and one third white. Most

of

the buildings de-

molished were aging old law tenements, but some were

spacious structures with elegant facades.

One of the better buildings on the urban renewal area

still stands at 384 Grand Street, and is home to twenty

five families, eight of whom lived on the site in

1965

and

thus have vested rights to reside in whatever housing

is

built, provided it is within their income range.

Joyce Burger, who lived in two other buildings in the

renewal area since 1965 before moving into 384,said she

had no interest in living in a high rise. Her three and one

half rooms, for which she pays $73 per month, are large

and airy, she says, compared

to

the other buildings she

has lived in. The places they want to send me from

here," she said,

you

wouldn't want to house an animal

in.

But saving 384 Grand Street, along with another

building on the site designated for senior citizen's hous-

ing, is

a thorny problem, which would take some deft

maneuvering and strong commitment from the city-a

commitment city officials don't appear to have at this

point. HPD insists that maintaining the building would

mean consuming over 30 per cent

of

the open space, an

amenity they say is crucial to the plan. In addition, of-

ficials say, there are legal and financial difficulties in-

volved,

anyone

of

which might cause enough

of

a delay

to make

HUD

withdraw funding for the project.

Beni Matias, a tenant

of

384 Grand Street for two

years, insisted that demolition

of

the buildings would be

wasteful: the other building, 195 Broome, will be

demolished, she points out, for parking, which

HPD

says the project doesn't need

but is

mandated by

HUD

to have. The rest

of

the area will be landscaping said

Matias.

We

support the planned housing," she said,

both

the senior citizen and the family. The original

plan included the existing buildings and

we

think the



3/3

city has managed

on

other

urban

renewal sites to pro

vide for standing buildings

and

they should do it here as

well.

According

to

Marino, demolition of the buildings will

take place,

but

not for some time. At the moment no

evictions will be ordered. While the Stein amendment

provided for rehabilitation of

the buildings for low in

come families, there are no plans in the works

to

do

that.

On site 2B, where the low income family initiative was

defeated, things appear to be in limbo. A firehouse on

the site

that

has served as a youth center for several

years may face ultimate demolition as well. The plan ad

vanced by the Grand Street Settlement, which was the

sponsor of the housing, called for the firehouse to be

preserved.

What will ultimately be built there remains

to

be seen,

and may call for a new round of negotiations. But hav

ing demonstrated they have the political clout to stymie

low income housing, the United Jewish Council

is

not

expected to concede much. Balin

of

the

UJC

said his

organization would be in support

of

elderly housing on

that site as well. But Marino, noting that

an

additional

site has been slated for elderly housing to be sponsored

by the

UJC

and the Bialystoker Synagogue, said I

don't

think it makes sense to make that area the geron

tology center of the U.S.

According to Ken Kimmerling, attorney for the Joint

Planning Council, the group is looking into the

possibility of litigation, challenging the Board's vote.

We originally fought to keep the city from taking

any

of

the buildings

around

here, said Nestor Cortijo,

then we fought their original plan to build nothing but

middle

and

upper income housing. Now we're still

fighting

to

get the housing

our

people need. 0

VOLCKER SPURNS 8

INTEREST R TE IDE

Eight community leaders representing hundreds of

local organizations throughout the country met with

Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, on

May 6

to

present him with ideas for reducing interest

rates in low and moderate income neighborhoods. The

lower rates would apply

to

mortgages, home improve

ment and rehabilitation loans for small homes and

multiple dwellings.

The meeting took place as the result

of

a demonstra

tion at Volcker's officer

on

April 14 by about 700

delegates to the 9th Annual National Peoples Action

Conference.

Neighborhood groups from around the country have

felt over the past year that victories won through the

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were often being

nullified because of soaring interest rates. Redlining by

price has begun to replace redlining by location. Neigh-


16

borhood leaders are asking what good it

is to

win im

pressive agreements

on

reinvestment from banks when

the interest rate is 15 or 16 per cent, rates that even more

affluent people have trouble affording.

They have linked the high interest rates to policies

enacted by the Fed as

part of

the Carter

Administration's a ttempt to reduce inflation.

The neighborhood participants at the meeting came

armed with two specific proposals.

• The Fed should require lower reserves from banks

that

are willing

to

lend

to

low

and

moderate income per

sons

at

8 per cent instead of

15

per cent.

•

For

banks

that

agree to lend

to

low

and

moderate

income borrowers, the Fed should lower the interest rate

it charges from 13 per cent to 6 or 7 per cent.

These demands were the first real attempt to crack

open the so-far impenetrable wall

that

seems to protect

the traditional ways housing is financed in this country.

Instead of subsidizing interest rates for large developers

the way programs such as 236 and 221(d)(3) were de

signed, these lower rates would be offered to low

and

moderate income homeowners tenant cooperatives and

responsible landlords by banks with the aid of the

Federal Reserve.

In keeping with his tough-guy image as the sole

protector of the U.S. economy, Volcker refused

to

agree to any of the group's demands, saying they re

presented activities the Fed has traditionally not

engaged

in.

It was brought to his attention that 16 per

cent interest rates

on

mortgages were something most

people

had

never dealt with either.

Volcker's aides said a program of requiring lower

reserves in exchange for lower interest rates on mort

gages would be illegal. This point has been disputed by

other economists with whom neighborhood leaders and

researchers have consulted. As for the idea

of

lowering

the rate of interest for loans

to

banks so they could pass

these on to consumers, one aide

to

Volcker remarked

that

this was clearly possible legally. Then why wouldn' t

Volcker

do

it? It 's a political decision, the aide said.

Volcker was clearly not prepared to agree to anything

at this meeting. He did not want to understand tha t we

were there

to

pressure him to get after the financial in

stitutions, said Richie Gallagher of the Northwest

Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, who attended

the meeting.

He

kept saying that

if

we were looking for

subsidies that we should go knock on HUD's door.

Neighborhood leaders are now putting together

strategies for dealing with the Fed

at

the local level as

well as trying

to

push for Congressional hearings into

the crisis of housing financing in low and moderate in

come neighborhoods. New York City's Coalition

Against Redlining is considering various says to

organize around this issue locally. Any reader who is in

terested in learning more should contact Roger Hayes,

CAR,

198

Broadway, Room 1100

N.Y.

10038. (212)

964-7200.0

Roger Hayes

Documents

Seward Park City Limits May 1980 Issue