MONDAY - PROTEST CITY PLANNING VOTE
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Tina Musa
Nov 24, 2007, 2:57:43 PM11/24/07
to columbia-...@googlegroups.com, columb...@googlegroups.com
To Coalition to Preserve Community members and others interested: 11/24/07
ALL OUT THIS MONDAY (11/26/07) TO PROTEST THE CITY PLANNING VOTE WHICH WILL
BE HELD AT 1:00PM AT 22 READE STREET. IT WILL BE HELD IN SPECTER HALL, A SMALL
ROOM WHICH COLUMBIA ALWAYS FILLS WITH ALL ITS EMPLOYEES TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY
OUT. PLEASE COME OUT BY 11:30AM TO GET A SEAT. THE COALITION TO PRESERVE
COMMUNITY WILL HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER THE VOTE. READ CHAIR BURDEN'S
COMMENTS BELOW, AND OUR COMMENTS AND COME OUT AND SPEAK UP.
(1) This Monday, Nov. 26th, at 1:00PM, the City Planning Commissioners will
cast their votes against the Harlem community in favor of powerful Columbia.
Even before the Final Environmental Impact Statement had been released, Chair
Amanda Burden announced the Commission's (and the Mayor's) position as she read
the Department Recommendations Opening Statement at the CPC Review Session if
the CB 9 197-a Plan and Columbia University Proposal held on11/13/07. We
have pasted in the entire statement at bottom of this E-mail, and
have excerpted
and commented on some of it a directly below:
From Burden's 11/13/07 statement:
"The Commission has been guided by the principle that both should be reviewed
simultaneously and that each should be afforded equal treatment in the
process."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
Saying Harlem got "equal treatment" in this process is like telling us that
BP Stringer did not sell out the community when he failed to support the
Community Board's 32 to 2 vote against Columbia and cut his deal to support its
eviction plan. They are paving the way for displacement, eminent domain,
environmental hazards from the bathtub to bio-level #3 labs, and the
elimination of a
diverse community.
Burden:
"It is important to note that at the end of its ULURP review period,
Community Board 9 significantly revised its plan by increasing the
community facility FAR to the same FAR as proposed by Columbia, and by
eliminating the ground floor requirement for manufacturing uses. As
discussed at our October 29 Review Session that development under the
revised 197-a plan would therefore result in an area predominantly
devoted to Columbia University. As a result, we no longer have before
us two radically different visions of land use in Manhattanville, but
instead two different visions of how Columbia can, and should grow in
Manhattanville."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
So even with all the compromises that CB 9 offered in the last few weeks, the
City only supports the all or nothing concept. Burden and the Commission give
lip service to the 197A Community Plan, and then think that the peasants up
in the low income, "minority" neighborhood will sit back and accept their
double talk!
Burden:
"The 197a plan, on the other hand, would not permit this concentration
of uses, missing an important opportunity to transform and activate
125th Street as a connector between the upland neighborhoods and the
waterfront and precluding the range and scale of open spaces made
possible by the Columbia plan."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
Well the conflicts of interest of City Planning Commissioners are clear so it
is no wonder why the Commission is handing over 17 plus acres to Columbia. We
have called for Cantor, Knuckles and Williams to recuse themselves from
voting on Manhattanville issues, but the fact is that the whole system is rigged
in favor of the real estate industry and that means Columbia. Burden literally
did not even wait for the final impact statement to be released before she
announced that the fix was in! The nerve of Burden to make claims that the
Columbia plan allows for an integration of uses. This is an all or
nothing, eminent
domain driven, eviction plan which will cause massive displacement. Columbia
wants to use eminent domain against other entities besides the private property
owners so it can avoid other lengthy processes which could occur with the MTA
and other corporate owners. City Planning is not planning, it is
participating in evicting.
Burden:
"On balance, the two plans before us are very strong but as I said earlier,
differ fundamentally in their visions of how Columbia can and should grow in
Manhattanville."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
And the priority always is the entity with the power and the millions spent
on lobbying has certainly paid off for Columbia. At its heart this is a
decision based on race and class, and no amount of spinning by Burden,
the Mayor, all
Columbia's politicians and lobbyists, or other compromisers can avoid the
ugly racism and classism behind this land grab. They all want to avoid the issue
of eminent domain, but it is not going to go away, and neither are the folks
who will be sitting in front of the bulldozers after this "equal treatment"
ULURP process reaches its conclusion.
WE KNOW MONDAY IS A WORK DAY, BUT DO YOUR BEST TO COME OUT THIS MONDAY.
This is the web link URL for the special meeting for City Planning to vote on
zoning changes for the CU197-c and CB9 197-a plans:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/112607sp.pdf
(2) Below is an article about ESDC and the legal challenge that continues by
the West Harlem Business Group, notice of a housing demonstration today in
Harlem, and Amanda Burden's complete statement which was excerpted above.
ARTICLE ABOUT LEGAL CHALLENGE TO EMPIRE STATE DEV CORP AND ITS ROLE IN THE
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS:
City Limits WEEKLY
Week of: November 19, 2007
Number: 614
COLUMBIA CRITICS CLAIM CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The university's expansion plans hit the latest rock on a bumpy road: local
businesses crying foul over a development consultant's various roles.
> By Kate Pastor
Among the many controversies and complexities involved in Columbia
University's plan to expand its campus into West Harlem, a fight over
the flow of
information has emerged that may set a precedent for public
development struggles
to come.
Several businesses occupying property on which Columbia would like to build
have been resisting takeover by using Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
requests, among other means â " plus legal actions to enforce those requests â "
in preparation for an eminent domain battle they vow to take all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
The businesses seek access to communications between one development
consultant and two of its clients. Alee King Rosen and Fleming, an environmental
planning and engineering firm known as AKRF, has been hired by both Columbia,
which must clear public process hurdles on the way to redevelopment; and the
Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a state authority with
the ability to
label an area "blighted," thus allowing the state to use its eminent domain
powers to claim the area for redevelopment.
The issue is particularly contentious because Columbiaâ ™s 17-acre plan is
competing with the rezoning proposal of the local community board, which also
would allow the university to expand, but on different terms.
Attorneys representing the self-storage company Tuck-It-Away, at 131st
Street and Broadway, along with the West Harlem Business Group â " a clutch of
companies that's resisting being bought out â " filed two briefs in
state Supreme
Court last week in favor of unveiling more than 100 previously unreleased
documents. Some of the sought-after communications are between AKRF â " an
increasingly visible development consultant on city projectsâ " and
clients Columbia
and ESDC. Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-it-Away Storage, says he hopes the
documents will reveal that there was a â œconflict of interest at the very
least,â that could delay the whole condemnation process.
Attorney Norman Siegel, the former New York Civil Liberties Union chief and
candidate for public advocate, represents the businesses in their bid to
uphold a June 27 state Supreme Court decision ordering the documents be made
public. That decision was appealed by ESDC.
The case "opens serious and substantial questions about the status quo of
how development goes on in New York," Siegel said. That's because AKRF wore two
hats â " one representing Columbia University and the other representing the
very body Columbia was asking for approval of its plans, he said. â œIf AKRF
was brought in to have a results-oriented process ... as I said in the brief,
you canâ ™t serve two masters.â
ESDC is contesting Judge Shirley Kornreich's ruling, saying some of the
documents requested are protected because communications between itself and AKRF
are confidential and exempt from Freedom of Information Law requests. FOIL
offers exemptions for deliberative communications within a government
agency, and
in the past courts have recognized that since many government agencies use
consultants to act on their behalf, exemptions should also be extended to
consultants standing in the shoes of a government agency. ESDC argues
in its appeal
of the Tuck-It-Away decision that AKRF was retained to provide â œaccurate and
objective informationâ and â œAKRFâ ™s reputation depends on using its
good judgmentâ providing agency decision makers with unbiased information.
Of the "two masters" concept, ESDC said in its appeal: â œThat conclusion,
however, reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the environmental and
land use approval process in New York. In fact, letting that decision stand
would profoundly alter how environmental review is conducted by state and local
agencies throughout New York State.â That, said Siegel, is exactly the point.
He and co-counsel Philip van Buren argue that the information is fair game
because the consultantsâ ™ relationship with the university makes it
an advocate,
not a consultant. Siegel said the case spotlights what he calls â œa cozy
relationship between developers and the politicians.â An AKRF spokesperson
declined to comment on matters involving litigation.
â œItâ ™s not within the purposes of Freedom of Information to protect
conversations with lobbyists,â added van Buren. He said that if the court
upholds that principle in this case, â œagencies are going to have to
release a lot
more stuff and are really going to have to prove that itâ ™s really about
protecting their deliberative processâ when they claim information is
protected.
Russ Haven, legislative counsel with the government watchdog group NYPIRG,
said he thinks the outcome of this clash "will only become increasingly
important" because of public contracting trends. â œIt looks like increasingly
government is outsourcing a lot of projects and looking for assistance
in decision
making [from] consultants,â Haven said.
According to Siegel's briefs, the history is that by June 2004, Columbia
had hired AKRF to help plan and secure necessary approvals for its development
project. Among other things, AKRF prepared a City Map Override Proposal to
allow the sale of city land for Columbia Universityâ ™s underground use, and an
Environmental Impact Statement detailing the effect Columbiaâ ™s project would
have on the neighborhood.
According to the brief, after Columbia hired AKRF as a consultant, ESDC
agreed that the university could cover the ESDC's preparatory costs for its
potential participation in Columbiaâ ™s expansion plan. That agreement
allowed the
ESDC to later defray the costs of a blight study to Columbia. If the study
found the area blighted, the ESDC would be authorized to take the
property by the
stateâ ™s power of eminent domain. A FOIL request made by the Columbia
Spectator student newspaper revealed that Columbia paid ESDC $300,000
in Aug. 2004
for expenses related to the project.
The briefs argue that before ESDC hired AKRF, the consultant â " most
likely under contract with Columbia â " performed preparatory work for a blight
study. More than one year later, in Sept. 2006, the ESDC contracted the same
consultant to execute a blight study on its behalf. The outline of that study is
one of the documents being requested.
â œIf AKRF was an interested partyâ |perhaps the whole process is tainted
and they canâ ™t go forward,â said Siegel. He said his clients hope their own
FOIL requests will reveal how many more payments have been made. Columbiaâ ™s
vice president of public affairs, La-Verna Fountain, declined to comment on
the case.
Both Tuck-It-Away and the West Harlem Business Group separately requested
documents from the ESDC under FOIL. After several requests and legal actions
that resulted in the ESDC providing some documents, Judge Kornreich ordered the
disclosure of 117 documents.
Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away said ESDCâ ™s resistance to disclosure â
œreally raises the question as to what they have to hide given that they are
spending countless months and â | tens of thousands dollars of
taxpayersâ ™ money
fighting us.â
The development corporation's senior vice president of communications, A.J.
Carter, would not comment on the matter. â œItâ ™s something weâ ™ll respond
to in the proper forum, which is in court,â Carter said.
In her decision, Kornreich enumerated exceptions to the inter- or
intra-agency exemption. â œA document that has been disclosed to a
third party, outside
of the agency or agencies, generally is not covered by the agency exemption,â
she wrote.
The judge denied the validity of ESDCâ ™s claim that there was a â
œChinese wall," or ethical barrier, between the consultantâ ™s work
for Columbia and
for ESDC. But ESDCâ ™s appeal of the Tuck-It-Away decision maintains that â
œdespite its role in the Cityâ ™s environmental review process, AKRF is not
Columbiaâ ™s advocate and thus does not represent its own or Columbiaâ ™s
interest.â
â œWeâ ™re saying no, Columbia hired AKRF for multiple services and
representation in connection with the project,â says attorney van Buren.
Kornreich agreed, writing, "The rationale for the consultant exception
falls apart where the consultant acts â œin their own interest or on
the behalf of
any interest or on behalf of any person or group whose interest might be
affected by the Government action addressed by the consultant,"
quoting Department
of the Interior et al. v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, a
Supreme Court case that formed the basis of her decision.
â œAny doubts about the neutrality of AKRF must be resolved in favor of
disclosure,â read the decision.
Bob Freeman, executive director of New York stateâ ™s Committee on Open
Government, thought Kornreich made the right call. "The reasoning seems to be
appropriate,â said Freeman, though he found it odd that the judge
cited federal
Freedom of Information law as precedent when there are state laws she could
have relied on. It's an interesting case but not necessarily a groundbreaking
one, he said.
Siegel thinks this could play a part in changing the tenor of the city's
frequent land-use fights, however. Development projects are too often a David
and Goliath matter, he said. â œThe playing field is not even. What FOIL does,
it gives the David a slingshot with regards to getting information that the
communityâ ™s entitled to.â
- Kate Pastor
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3446
Harlem Tenants Mount Anti-Gentrification
Campaign with Huge Protest
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 22, 2007
Contact: Nellie Hester Bailey 646-812-5188 Valerie Orridge: 212-368-5249
Harlem Tenants Mount Anti-Gentrification
Campaign with Huge Protest
On Saturday, November 24th hundreds of Delano Village residents and their
supporters will assemble at 2:00 PM on Malcolm X Blvd between 139th and 142nd
Streets to protest against gentrification, displacement and ethnic cleansing
sweeping throughout Harlem. Tenants in the complex will hang towels out of their
windows to exhibit unity, strength and solidarity with the protest action.
Demonstrators will march in a "unity circle" around the 1,800 residential unit
complex of seven buildings stretching from 139th to 142nd Street between
Malcolm X Blvd and Fifth Avenue . The protest calls attention to the plight of
tenants at Delano Village , the gentrification crisis in Harlem and
throughout the
City that has driven out long time residents, destroyed local small
businesses and attacked the vibrancy and character of so called "marginalize"
neighborhoods, now gentrification hot spots.
Tenants in the Delano complex, since renamed Savoy Parks by its recent
joint venture owners- Vantage Properties and Apollo Real Estate Advisors- have
accused owners of waging a campaign of harassment, reduced services/security,
over charges and frivolous lawsuits to replace Black residents with a different
economic and ethnic population. Delano Village, long regarded as a stable
African American residential community in Central Harlem was purchased
in March of
2006 for $175 million and refinanced for $350 million in less than a year,
financing provided by the international banking company Credit Suisse.
Valerie Orridge, President of the Delano Village Tenants Association said,
"These landlords don't believe Black people are capable of fighting back with
a coordinated and sustainable drive. But they had better think again, we are
not leaving Harlem and they haven't seen anything yet, we've just got start
ed!" On October 22nd and 23rd of 2007, Delano tenants staged demonstrations in
front of 750 Lexington Avenue at 59th where Savoy Park LLC (the management
company for Delano Village and a subsidiary of Vantage & Apollo) has
an office on
the 17th floor. To the chagrin of the joint venture owners, Delano tenants
staged a lively protest on November 2nd in front of 11 Madison Avenue at 23rd
Street , headquarters of Credit Suisse Group that provided the whopping $320
million refinancing.
According to Nellie Hester Bailey, Director of the Harlem Tenants Council
that provides logistical support to Delano Tenants Association, the action will
also draw attention to National Black Solidarity Day that falls on Friday
after Thanksgiving. The group also supports the "No Black Shopping in Harlem "
campaign for November 23rd and 24th. Local residents are called upon to flex
their billion dollars consumer muscle by not shopping on 125th in protest
against gentrification, growing homelessness, police brutality and
executions, high
unemployment, and growing rates of incarceration. Bailey said, "This is class
warfare against poor and working class people of color, Blacks in particular."
She continued, "We stand in the way of a master plan to dismantle and
restructure Harlem into a major regional business and tourist corridor
that will reap
billion dollars in profits for the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
industries including Columbia University . Orridge added,
"Our message is clear, you won't drive us out and get our money at the same
time! Black Harlem isn't going anywhere, no justice no peace!"
*** The End ***
THE STATEMENT BY AMANDA BURDEN:
CPC Review Session 11/13/07 – Department Recommendations
Opening Statement—CB 9 197-a Plan and Columbia University Proposal
Amanda M. Burden, Chair
We are approaching the end of a long and intensive review process for
two competing land use plans – the Community Board 9 197-a Plan, and
the Columbia University application for Manhattanville. The Commission
has been guided by the principle that both should be reviewed
simultaneously and that each should be afforded equal treatment in the
process.
I believe that we have lived up to that promise through the entire Land
Use Review process. The record is full and the proceedings have been
robust. Both parties have been given ample opportunity to present their
case, and the Commission's understanding of the plans and the issues
has been greatly enhanced.
I must begin by acknowledging the incredible work of Community Board 9
in preparing the 197-a plan, presenting it to the Commission, and
modifying it in response to the discussions that have taken place
during this process. The leadership, commitment, and thoughtfulness of
all who contributed to the Board 197-a Plan is to be commended, and the
Department looks forward to working with the Board as we help
implement aspects of their plan in the future.
It is important to note that at the end of its ULURP review period,
Community Board 9 significantly revised its plan by increasing the
community facility FAR to the same FAR as proposed by Columbia, and by
eliminating the ground floor requirement for manufacturing uses. As
discussed at our October 29 Review Session that development under the
revised 197-a plan would therefore result in an area predominantly
devoted to Columbia University. As a result, we no longer have before
us two radically different visions of land use in Manhattanville, but
instead two different visions of how Columbia can, and should grow in
Manhattanville.
While the community board has prepared a highly thoughtful set of
recommendations for the area covered by the heart of the Columbia
proposal, the Department believes it has a fundamental failing:
It limits the extent and manner in which Columbia can grow. The 197-a
Plan promotes an irregular pattern of development which works against a
coordinated growth strategy in comparison to the integrated development
possible under the Columbia plan.
As articulated by Columbia, one of the goals of their plan is "to move
away from past ad-hoc growth of University buildings and instead create
a widely thought-out, predictable plan for the next quarter century
that is woven into the fabric of the surrounding community." The
Columbia plan for Manhattanville will allow Columbia to address its
space shortages and to provide the kinds of research, academic, and
teaching facilities that are needed to respond to a changing and
dynamic world.
The Columbia plan is necessary to accommodate the University's long
term growth over several generations. Why is this important? Columbia
is an institution of major importance to the City as a center of
intellectual inquiry, scientific discovery and economic growth, and
there is no question that it makes New York City more competitive on
the world stage. Columbia is part of a concentration of university,
higher education and related facilities in New York City that attracts
intellectual, technical and scientific capital from around the world,
and helps distinguish New York from other cities. Columbia, itself, is
one of the largest private employers in the City and one of the most
respected research universities in the world. This plan represents a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address for decades to come
Columbia's needs, while at the same time enhancing New York City's
economy and renown, and providing an infusion of investment, jobs, and
people into the Manhattanville area.
Columbia's phasing is compelling because it proposes to cluster during
the first phase the schools of business, international and public
affairs and arts together with the planned Mind, Brain, and Behavior
Center. Through this concentration of uses on 125th Street, Phase I
benefits the area by energizing both sides of 125th Street, as well as
promoting the street as the primary connector leading to the new
waterfront park on the Hudson River. This phase of development also
includes a network of new public open spaces.
The 197a plan, on the other hand, would not permit this concentration
of uses, missing an important opportunity to transform and activate
125th Street as a connector between the upland neighborhoods and the
waterfront and precluding the range and scale of open spaces made
possible by the Columbia plan.
The Columbia plan envisions the construction of a Central Below Grade
space, whereby most support functions would be provided below grade,
thereby allowing more active street life with a minimum of disruptions
from above-grade parking, loading, and curb cuts. The Central Below
Grade space is one of the most forward thinking and significant
elements of both Phase I and the entire plan, and it facilitates
weaving the new Columbia facilities and open space into the fabric of
the community. It allows Columbia to create an integrated campus plan
that would attract faculty and students and promote interaction among
students, faculty and researchers of all disciplines. The City would
likewise benefit as well from a well-planned, vibrant and open campus
which links adjoining neighborhoods through the campus.
Under the 197a plan, the Central Below Grade space would not be
possible and Columbia's ability to achieve program floor area goals
would be constrained. The 197a plan would force much of the mechanical
space, loading and parking entrances above grade along with a
proliferation of curb cuts. As a result, the pedestrian environment
would be significantly degraded in comparison to the Columbia plan.
Columbia's program also would be unable to achieve the efficiencies
made possible by a shared below-grade support space, underground truck
loading level, and shared energy plant, for example. Columbia would be
unable to meet its future space needs and it would lose considerable
efficiencies and the benefits made possible by a cohesive campus plan.
At the heart of the difference between the 197a plan and Columbia's
plan is the ability to assemble private sites. The Below Grade Space,
the open space and all the other features of the Columbia Plan that we
support and are not achievable under the 197a plan and can only be
realized with assemblage. This brings to the fore the issue of eminent
domain.
The Commission is not being asked whether to approve eminent domain.
That determination will be made at a later date by the ESDC. Approval
of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent
domain and it is altogether possible that Columbia's plan will be fully
realized without eminent domain.
While we hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, it needs to be
recognized that it has been a feature of plans approved by the
Commission in the past including Hudson Yards, Downtown Brooklyn and
most recently, Jamaica.
It is also important to note, as was made clear in the Review Session
presentation by HPD, that there will be no condemnation of residential
units and any relocation of residents will be voluntary in nature.
On balance, the two plans before us are very strong but as I said
earlier, differ fundamentally in their visions of how Columbia can and
should grow in Manhattanville.
While the Department is recommending approval of the 197-a plan, it is
with modifications that recognize the importance of accommodating the
long term growth of Columbia University. In a few moments, Betty will
describe those modifications as well as the many aspects of the plan
about which the Department is enthusiastic. As you will hear, there are
some aspects of the 197-a plan that we think should be reflected in
modifications to Columbia's Special District proposal particularly with
respect to the waterfront.
While the Department does support Columbia's need to grow and the plan
which will facilitate that expansion, Columbia must implement
significant measures to address the impacts of its project in such
areas as affordable housing. It must also make a number of
modifications to improve upon the plan to make it a better fit in the
community. These changes range from modifying the mix of uses along
Broadway, to substantially improving the quality of the central open
space and the connections to it.
After Betty Mackintosh discusses the Department's proposed
modifications to the 197-a Plan, David Karnovsky will describe
Columbia's mitigation commitments in key areas. And then Ray Gastil
will discuss the Department's recommendations for modifications to the
Columbia plan.
NOTE THAT THE CPC WEBSITE, www. stopcolumbia.org, IS HAVING TECHNICAL
PROBLEMS BUT WE ARE WORKING ON THEM.
ALL OUT THIS MONDAY (11/26/07) TO PROTEST THE CITY PLANNING VOTE WHICH WILL
BE HELD AT 1:00PM AT 22 READE STREET. IT WILL BE HELD IN SPECTER HALL, A SMALL
ROOM WHICH COLUMBIA ALWAYS FILLS WITH ALL ITS EMPLOYEES TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY
OUT. PLEASE COME OUT BY 11:30AM TO GET A SEAT. THE COALITION TO PRESERVE
COMMUNITY WILL HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER THE VOTE. READ CHAIR BURDEN'S
COMMENTS BELOW, AND OUR COMMENTS AND COME OUT AND SPEAK UP.
(1) This Monday, Nov. 26th, at 1:00PM, the City Planning Commissioners will
cast their votes against the Harlem community in favor of powerful Columbia.
Even before the Final Environmental Impact Statement had been released, Chair
Amanda Burden announced the Commission's (and the Mayor's) position as she read
the Department Recommendations Opening Statement at the CPC Review Session if
the CB 9 197-a Plan and Columbia University Proposal held on11/13/07. We
have pasted in the entire statement at bottom of this E-mail, and
have excerpted
and commented on some of it a directly below:
From Burden's 11/13/07 statement:
"The Commission has been guided by the principle that both should be reviewed
simultaneously and that each should be afforded equal treatment in the
process."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
Saying Harlem got "equal treatment" in this process is like telling us that
BP Stringer did not sell out the community when he failed to support the
Community Board's 32 to 2 vote against Columbia and cut his deal to support its
eviction plan. They are paving the way for displacement, eminent domain,
environmental hazards from the bathtub to bio-level #3 labs, and the
elimination of a
diverse community.
Burden:
"It is important to note that at the end of its ULURP review period,
Community Board 9 significantly revised its plan by increasing the
community facility FAR to the same FAR as proposed by Columbia, and by
eliminating the ground floor requirement for manufacturing uses. As
discussed at our October 29 Review Session that development under the
revised 197-a plan would therefore result in an area predominantly
devoted to Columbia University. As a result, we no longer have before
us two radically different visions of land use in Manhattanville, but
instead two different visions of how Columbia can, and should grow in
Manhattanville."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
So even with all the compromises that CB 9 offered in the last few weeks, the
City only supports the all or nothing concept. Burden and the Commission give
lip service to the 197A Community Plan, and then think that the peasants up
in the low income, "minority" neighborhood will sit back and accept their
double talk!
Burden:
"The 197a plan, on the other hand, would not permit this concentration
of uses, missing an important opportunity to transform and activate
125th Street as a connector between the upland neighborhoods and the
waterfront and precluding the range and scale of open spaces made
possible by the Columbia plan."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
Well the conflicts of interest of City Planning Commissioners are clear so it
is no wonder why the Commission is handing over 17 plus acres to Columbia. We
have called for Cantor, Knuckles and Williams to recuse themselves from
voting on Manhattanville issues, but the fact is that the whole system is rigged
in favor of the real estate industry and that means Columbia. Burden literally
did not even wait for the final impact statement to be released before she
announced that the fix was in! The nerve of Burden to make claims that the
Columbia plan allows for an integration of uses. This is an all or
nothing, eminent
domain driven, eviction plan which will cause massive displacement. Columbia
wants to use eminent domain against other entities besides the private property
owners so it can avoid other lengthy processes which could occur with the MTA
and other corporate owners. City Planning is not planning, it is
participating in evicting.
Burden:
"On balance, the two plans before us are very strong but as I said earlier,
differ fundamentally in their visions of how Columbia can and should grow in
Manhattanville."
Coalition to Preserve Community comment:
And the priority always is the entity with the power and the millions spent
on lobbying has certainly paid off for Columbia. At its heart this is a
decision based on race and class, and no amount of spinning by Burden,
the Mayor, all
Columbia's politicians and lobbyists, or other compromisers can avoid the
ugly racism and classism behind this land grab. They all want to avoid the issue
of eminent domain, but it is not going to go away, and neither are the folks
who will be sitting in front of the bulldozers after this "equal treatment"
ULURP process reaches its conclusion.
WE KNOW MONDAY IS A WORK DAY, BUT DO YOUR BEST TO COME OUT THIS MONDAY.
This is the web link URL for the special meeting for City Planning to vote on
zoning changes for the CU197-c and CB9 197-a plans:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/112607sp.pdf
(2) Below is an article about ESDC and the legal challenge that continues by
the West Harlem Business Group, notice of a housing demonstration today in
Harlem, and Amanda Burden's complete statement which was excerpted above.
ARTICLE ABOUT LEGAL CHALLENGE TO EMPIRE STATE DEV CORP AND ITS ROLE IN THE
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS:
City Limits WEEKLY
Week of: November 19, 2007
Number: 614
COLUMBIA CRITICS CLAIM CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The university's expansion plans hit the latest rock on a bumpy road: local
businesses crying foul over a development consultant's various roles.
> By Kate Pastor
Among the many controversies and complexities involved in Columbia
University's plan to expand its campus into West Harlem, a fight over
the flow of
information has emerged that may set a precedent for public
development struggles
to come.
Several businesses occupying property on which Columbia would like to build
have been resisting takeover by using Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
requests, among other means â " plus legal actions to enforce those requests â "
in preparation for an eminent domain battle they vow to take all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
The businesses seek access to communications between one development
consultant and two of its clients. Alee King Rosen and Fleming, an environmental
planning and engineering firm known as AKRF, has been hired by both Columbia,
which must clear public process hurdles on the way to redevelopment; and the
Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a state authority with
the ability to
label an area "blighted," thus allowing the state to use its eminent domain
powers to claim the area for redevelopment.
The issue is particularly contentious because Columbiaâ ™s 17-acre plan is
competing with the rezoning proposal of the local community board, which also
would allow the university to expand, but on different terms.
Attorneys representing the self-storage company Tuck-It-Away, at 131st
Street and Broadway, along with the West Harlem Business Group â " a clutch of
companies that's resisting being bought out â " filed two briefs in
state Supreme
Court last week in favor of unveiling more than 100 previously unreleased
documents. Some of the sought-after communications are between AKRF â " an
increasingly visible development consultant on city projectsâ " and
clients Columbia
and ESDC. Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-it-Away Storage, says he hopes the
documents will reveal that there was a â œconflict of interest at the very
least,â that could delay the whole condemnation process.
Attorney Norman Siegel, the former New York Civil Liberties Union chief and
candidate for public advocate, represents the businesses in their bid to
uphold a June 27 state Supreme Court decision ordering the documents be made
public. That decision was appealed by ESDC.
The case "opens serious and substantial questions about the status quo of
how development goes on in New York," Siegel said. That's because AKRF wore two
hats â " one representing Columbia University and the other representing the
very body Columbia was asking for approval of its plans, he said. â œIf AKRF
was brought in to have a results-oriented process ... as I said in the brief,
you canâ ™t serve two masters.â
ESDC is contesting Judge Shirley Kornreich's ruling, saying some of the
documents requested are protected because communications between itself and AKRF
are confidential and exempt from Freedom of Information Law requests. FOIL
offers exemptions for deliberative communications within a government
agency, and
in the past courts have recognized that since many government agencies use
consultants to act on their behalf, exemptions should also be extended to
consultants standing in the shoes of a government agency. ESDC argues
in its appeal
of the Tuck-It-Away decision that AKRF was retained to provide â œaccurate and
objective informationâ and â œAKRFâ ™s reputation depends on using its
good judgmentâ providing agency decision makers with unbiased information.
Of the "two masters" concept, ESDC said in its appeal: â œThat conclusion,
however, reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the environmental and
land use approval process in New York. In fact, letting that decision stand
would profoundly alter how environmental review is conducted by state and local
agencies throughout New York State.â That, said Siegel, is exactly the point.
He and co-counsel Philip van Buren argue that the information is fair game
because the consultantsâ ™ relationship with the university makes it
an advocate,
not a consultant. Siegel said the case spotlights what he calls â œa cozy
relationship between developers and the politicians.â An AKRF spokesperson
declined to comment on matters involving litigation.
â œItâ ™s not within the purposes of Freedom of Information to protect
conversations with lobbyists,â added van Buren. He said that if the court
upholds that principle in this case, â œagencies are going to have to
release a lot
more stuff and are really going to have to prove that itâ ™s really about
protecting their deliberative processâ when they claim information is
protected.
Russ Haven, legislative counsel with the government watchdog group NYPIRG,
said he thinks the outcome of this clash "will only become increasingly
important" because of public contracting trends. â œIt looks like increasingly
government is outsourcing a lot of projects and looking for assistance
in decision
making [from] consultants,â Haven said.
According to Siegel's briefs, the history is that by June 2004, Columbia
had hired AKRF to help plan and secure necessary approvals for its development
project. Among other things, AKRF prepared a City Map Override Proposal to
allow the sale of city land for Columbia Universityâ ™s underground use, and an
Environmental Impact Statement detailing the effect Columbiaâ ™s project would
have on the neighborhood.
According to the brief, after Columbia hired AKRF as a consultant, ESDC
agreed that the university could cover the ESDC's preparatory costs for its
potential participation in Columbiaâ ™s expansion plan. That agreement
allowed the
ESDC to later defray the costs of a blight study to Columbia. If the study
found the area blighted, the ESDC would be authorized to take the
property by the
stateâ ™s power of eminent domain. A FOIL request made by the Columbia
Spectator student newspaper revealed that Columbia paid ESDC $300,000
in Aug. 2004
for expenses related to the project.
The briefs argue that before ESDC hired AKRF, the consultant â " most
likely under contract with Columbia â " performed preparatory work for a blight
study. More than one year later, in Sept. 2006, the ESDC contracted the same
consultant to execute a blight study on its behalf. The outline of that study is
one of the documents being requested.
â œIf AKRF was an interested partyâ |perhaps the whole process is tainted
and they canâ ™t go forward,â said Siegel. He said his clients hope their own
FOIL requests will reveal how many more payments have been made. Columbiaâ ™s
vice president of public affairs, La-Verna Fountain, declined to comment on
the case.
Both Tuck-It-Away and the West Harlem Business Group separately requested
documents from the ESDC under FOIL. After several requests and legal actions
that resulted in the ESDC providing some documents, Judge Kornreich ordered the
disclosure of 117 documents.
Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away said ESDCâ ™s resistance to disclosure â
œreally raises the question as to what they have to hide given that they are
spending countless months and â | tens of thousands dollars of
taxpayersâ ™ money
fighting us.â
The development corporation's senior vice president of communications, A.J.
Carter, would not comment on the matter. â œItâ ™s something weâ ™ll respond
to in the proper forum, which is in court,â Carter said.
In her decision, Kornreich enumerated exceptions to the inter- or
intra-agency exemption. â œA document that has been disclosed to a
third party, outside
of the agency or agencies, generally is not covered by the agency exemption,â
she wrote.
The judge denied the validity of ESDCâ ™s claim that there was a â
œChinese wall," or ethical barrier, between the consultantâ ™s work
for Columbia and
for ESDC. But ESDCâ ™s appeal of the Tuck-It-Away decision maintains that â
œdespite its role in the Cityâ ™s environmental review process, AKRF is not
Columbiaâ ™s advocate and thus does not represent its own or Columbiaâ ™s
interest.â
â œWeâ ™re saying no, Columbia hired AKRF for multiple services and
representation in connection with the project,â says attorney van Buren.
Kornreich agreed, writing, "The rationale for the consultant exception
falls apart where the consultant acts â œin their own interest or on
the behalf of
any interest or on behalf of any person or group whose interest might be
affected by the Government action addressed by the consultant,"
quoting Department
of the Interior et al. v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, a
Supreme Court case that formed the basis of her decision.
â œAny doubts about the neutrality of AKRF must be resolved in favor of
disclosure,â read the decision.
Bob Freeman, executive director of New York stateâ ™s Committee on Open
Government, thought Kornreich made the right call. "The reasoning seems to be
appropriate,â said Freeman, though he found it odd that the judge
cited federal
Freedom of Information law as precedent when there are state laws she could
have relied on. It's an interesting case but not necessarily a groundbreaking
one, he said.
Siegel thinks this could play a part in changing the tenor of the city's
frequent land-use fights, however. Development projects are too often a David
and Goliath matter, he said. â œThe playing field is not even. What FOIL does,
it gives the David a slingshot with regards to getting information that the
communityâ ™s entitled to.â
- Kate Pastor
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3446
Harlem Tenants Mount Anti-Gentrification
Campaign with Huge Protest
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 22, 2007
Contact: Nellie Hester Bailey 646-812-5188 Valerie Orridge: 212-368-5249
Harlem Tenants Mount Anti-Gentrification
Campaign with Huge Protest
On Saturday, November 24th hundreds of Delano Village residents and their
supporters will assemble at 2:00 PM on Malcolm X Blvd between 139th and 142nd
Streets to protest against gentrification, displacement and ethnic cleansing
sweeping throughout Harlem. Tenants in the complex will hang towels out of their
windows to exhibit unity, strength and solidarity with the protest action.
Demonstrators will march in a "unity circle" around the 1,800 residential unit
complex of seven buildings stretching from 139th to 142nd Street between
Malcolm X Blvd and Fifth Avenue . The protest calls attention to the plight of
tenants at Delano Village , the gentrification crisis in Harlem and
throughout the
City that has driven out long time residents, destroyed local small
businesses and attacked the vibrancy and character of so called "marginalize"
neighborhoods, now gentrification hot spots.
Tenants in the Delano complex, since renamed Savoy Parks by its recent
joint venture owners- Vantage Properties and Apollo Real Estate Advisors- have
accused owners of waging a campaign of harassment, reduced services/security,
over charges and frivolous lawsuits to replace Black residents with a different
economic and ethnic population. Delano Village, long regarded as a stable
African American residential community in Central Harlem was purchased
in March of
2006 for $175 million and refinanced for $350 million in less than a year,
financing provided by the international banking company Credit Suisse.
Valerie Orridge, President of the Delano Village Tenants Association said,
"These landlords don't believe Black people are capable of fighting back with
a coordinated and sustainable drive. But they had better think again, we are
not leaving Harlem and they haven't seen anything yet, we've just got start
ed!" On October 22nd and 23rd of 2007, Delano tenants staged demonstrations in
front of 750 Lexington Avenue at 59th where Savoy Park LLC (the management
company for Delano Village and a subsidiary of Vantage & Apollo) has
an office on
the 17th floor. To the chagrin of the joint venture owners, Delano tenants
staged a lively protest on November 2nd in front of 11 Madison Avenue at 23rd
Street , headquarters of Credit Suisse Group that provided the whopping $320
million refinancing.
According to Nellie Hester Bailey, Director of the Harlem Tenants Council
that provides logistical support to Delano Tenants Association, the action will
also draw attention to National Black Solidarity Day that falls on Friday
after Thanksgiving. The group also supports the "No Black Shopping in Harlem "
campaign for November 23rd and 24th. Local residents are called upon to flex
their billion dollars consumer muscle by not shopping on 125th in protest
against gentrification, growing homelessness, police brutality and
executions, high
unemployment, and growing rates of incarceration. Bailey said, "This is class
warfare against poor and working class people of color, Blacks in particular."
She continued, "We stand in the way of a master plan to dismantle and
restructure Harlem into a major regional business and tourist corridor
that will reap
billion dollars in profits for the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
industries including Columbia University . Orridge added,
"Our message is clear, you won't drive us out and get our money at the same
time! Black Harlem isn't going anywhere, no justice no peace!"
*** The End ***
THE STATEMENT BY AMANDA BURDEN:
CPC Review Session 11/13/07 – Department Recommendations
Opening Statement—CB 9 197-a Plan and Columbia University Proposal
Amanda M. Burden, Chair
We are approaching the end of a long and intensive review process for
two competing land use plans – the Community Board 9 197-a Plan, and
the Columbia University application for Manhattanville. The Commission
has been guided by the principle that both should be reviewed
simultaneously and that each should be afforded equal treatment in the
process.
I believe that we have lived up to that promise through the entire Land
Use Review process. The record is full and the proceedings have been
robust. Both parties have been given ample opportunity to present their
case, and the Commission's understanding of the plans and the issues
has been greatly enhanced.
I must begin by acknowledging the incredible work of Community Board 9
in preparing the 197-a plan, presenting it to the Commission, and
modifying it in response to the discussions that have taken place
during this process. The leadership, commitment, and thoughtfulness of
all who contributed to the Board 197-a Plan is to be commended, and the
Department looks forward to working with the Board as we help
implement aspects of their plan in the future.
It is important to note that at the end of its ULURP review period,
Community Board 9 significantly revised its plan by increasing the
community facility FAR to the same FAR as proposed by Columbia, and by
eliminating the ground floor requirement for manufacturing uses. As
discussed at our October 29 Review Session that development under the
revised 197-a plan would therefore result in an area predominantly
devoted to Columbia University. As a result, we no longer have before
us two radically different visions of land use in Manhattanville, but
instead two different visions of how Columbia can, and should grow in
Manhattanville.
While the community board has prepared a highly thoughtful set of
recommendations for the area covered by the heart of the Columbia
proposal, the Department believes it has a fundamental failing:
It limits the extent and manner in which Columbia can grow. The 197-a
Plan promotes an irregular pattern of development which works against a
coordinated growth strategy in comparison to the integrated development
possible under the Columbia plan.
As articulated by Columbia, one of the goals of their plan is "to move
away from past ad-hoc growth of University buildings and instead create
a widely thought-out, predictable plan for the next quarter century
that is woven into the fabric of the surrounding community." The
Columbia plan for Manhattanville will allow Columbia to address its
space shortages and to provide the kinds of research, academic, and
teaching facilities that are needed to respond to a changing and
dynamic world.
The Columbia plan is necessary to accommodate the University's long
term growth over several generations. Why is this important? Columbia
is an institution of major importance to the City as a center of
intellectual inquiry, scientific discovery and economic growth, and
there is no question that it makes New York City more competitive on
the world stage. Columbia is part of a concentration of university,
higher education and related facilities in New York City that attracts
intellectual, technical and scientific capital from around the world,
and helps distinguish New York from other cities. Columbia, itself, is
one of the largest private employers in the City and one of the most
respected research universities in the world. This plan represents a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address for decades to come
Columbia's needs, while at the same time enhancing New York City's
economy and renown, and providing an infusion of investment, jobs, and
people into the Manhattanville area.
Columbia's phasing is compelling because it proposes to cluster during
the first phase the schools of business, international and public
affairs and arts together with the planned Mind, Brain, and Behavior
Center. Through this concentration of uses on 125th Street, Phase I
benefits the area by energizing both sides of 125th Street, as well as
promoting the street as the primary connector leading to the new
waterfront park on the Hudson River. This phase of development also
includes a network of new public open spaces.
The 197a plan, on the other hand, would not permit this concentration
of uses, missing an important opportunity to transform and activate
125th Street as a connector between the upland neighborhoods and the
waterfront and precluding the range and scale of open spaces made
possible by the Columbia plan.
The Columbia plan envisions the construction of a Central Below Grade
space, whereby most support functions would be provided below grade,
thereby allowing more active street life with a minimum of disruptions
from above-grade parking, loading, and curb cuts. The Central Below
Grade space is one of the most forward thinking and significant
elements of both Phase I and the entire plan, and it facilitates
weaving the new Columbia facilities and open space into the fabric of
the community. It allows Columbia to create an integrated campus plan
that would attract faculty and students and promote interaction among
students, faculty and researchers of all disciplines. The City would
likewise benefit as well from a well-planned, vibrant and open campus
which links adjoining neighborhoods through the campus.
Under the 197a plan, the Central Below Grade space would not be
possible and Columbia's ability to achieve program floor area goals
would be constrained. The 197a plan would force much of the mechanical
space, loading and parking entrances above grade along with a
proliferation of curb cuts. As a result, the pedestrian environment
would be significantly degraded in comparison to the Columbia plan.
Columbia's program also would be unable to achieve the efficiencies
made possible by a shared below-grade support space, underground truck
loading level, and shared energy plant, for example. Columbia would be
unable to meet its future space needs and it would lose considerable
efficiencies and the benefits made possible by a cohesive campus plan.
At the heart of the difference between the 197a plan and Columbia's
plan is the ability to assemble private sites. The Below Grade Space,
the open space and all the other features of the Columbia Plan that we
support and are not achievable under the 197a plan and can only be
realized with assemblage. This brings to the fore the issue of eminent
domain.
The Commission is not being asked whether to approve eminent domain.
That determination will be made at a later date by the ESDC. Approval
of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent
domain and it is altogether possible that Columbia's plan will be fully
realized without eminent domain.
While we hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, it needs to be
recognized that it has been a feature of plans approved by the
Commission in the past including Hudson Yards, Downtown Brooklyn and
most recently, Jamaica.
It is also important to note, as was made clear in the Review Session
presentation by HPD, that there will be no condemnation of residential
units and any relocation of residents will be voluntary in nature.
On balance, the two plans before us are very strong but as I said
earlier, differ fundamentally in their visions of how Columbia can and
should grow in Manhattanville.
While the Department is recommending approval of the 197-a plan, it is
with modifications that recognize the importance of accommodating the
long term growth of Columbia University. In a few moments, Betty will
describe those modifications as well as the many aspects of the plan
about which the Department is enthusiastic. As you will hear, there are
some aspects of the 197-a plan that we think should be reflected in
modifications to Columbia's Special District proposal particularly with
respect to the waterfront.
While the Department does support Columbia's need to grow and the plan
which will facilitate that expansion, Columbia must implement
significant measures to address the impacts of its project in such
areas as affordable housing. It must also make a number of
modifications to improve upon the plan to make it a better fit in the
community. These changes range from modifying the mix of uses along
Broadway, to substantially improving the quality of the central open
space and the connections to it.
After Betty Mackintosh discusses the Department's proposed
modifications to the 197-a Plan, David Karnovsky will describe
Columbia's mitigation commitments in key areas. And then Ray Gastil
will discuss the Department's recommendations for modifications to the
Columbia plan.
NOTE THAT THE CPC WEBSITE, www. stopcolumbia.org, IS HAVING TECHNICAL
PROBLEMS BUT WE ARE WORKING ON THEM.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages