To the Editor:

How sad that George Pataki’s Commissioner of DHCR (Division of Housing and Community Renewal) resorts so easily to name-calling when her self-congratulatory pronouncements are challenged.

That’s what happened when Judith Calogero, who also chairs the Board of Directors of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), appeared as a panelist at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) meeting about Roosevelt Island on October 23. I sat in an audience that included several Island residents who had grown weary, astounded, even outraged at a re-writing of history as an endless round of developers and officials, including Ms. Calogero, patted themselves on the back for what they’ve done to Roosevelt Island.

I’ve lived here 26 years. I have been an officer of the RIRA Common Council. I have been active in the Maple Tree Group, which wrote the legislation, endorsed by 92% of voting residents and passed by the State Assembly (though not the Senate, as yet), to get a locally-elected RIOC Board empowered to hire professionals (rather than political hacks) to run Roosevelt Island. I have been involved in meetings with the Governor, developers, and other top officials and my involvement in numerous other Island organizations and activities leads me to believe that my knowledge of Roosevelt Island, from the perspective of someone who lives here, is broader and deeper than that of Ms. Calogero who, as far as we know, visits once or twice a month for a few hours, and that, only for the past year or so. She has other responsibilities, so perhaps has not had the time to study the history of what has gone on here for the last twelve years of the Pataki administration.

At the AIA meeting, I stood during a comments and questions period to praise Ed Logue and the original architects of the Island (some of whom were present) for their brilliant, visionary plans and execution. I conversely pointed out that much of their vision has been and continues to be destroyed because DHCR/RIOC and/or developers have:

• Misappropriated parkland and violated the General Development Plan (GDP);

• Walled off Main Street by placing the first Southtown building across it where the GDP had designated a six-acre park, thereby creating darkness vs. an open vista and segregation vs. an integration of Southtown with Northtown;

• Built imposing, institution-like 13-story wings to the Octagon landmark vs. the eight-story buildings with attractive mansard roofs first proposed by Becker & Becker because RIOC kept insisting on more money – and this on land where the GDP called for a park, not residential buildings;

• Sold the first two buildings of Southtown to hospitals for (unbelievably) less than $1 per square foot and essentially asked residents to foot the bill of $4.5 million (i.e., half the cost of $9 million) to extend the infrastructure to Southtown;

• Served the interests of political contributors and gubernatorial appointees vs. those of residents and the community envisioned by Logue and the original planners/architects of our unique Island.

DHCR/RIOC have repeatedly taken steps which should be a cause for shame, not self-praise. (I obviously did not have time to relate them all at the meeting.) Neither race nor economic status were mentioned in my remarks – not even implied. But, as though to pretend that the expensive Octagon Apartments and the costly Southtown condominiums at 455 Main Street are occupied predominantly by minorities, Ms.Calogero attributed my remarks to racism. To make that clear, she said, "I find your NIMBY remarks...racist." Believe me, I was not the only person present astounded by her response.

I guess Ms. Calogero and RIOC have the same philosophy. For both, failure is a source of pride, mistakes happen only in passive voice, and self-serving is the norm. Any resident with a thought of criticism, beware – Ms. Calogero’s only defense, apparently, is to reach for the hot branding iron in the shape of an R.

Linda Heimer

 

To the Editor:

We have all complained to each other in the mornings standing at the Deli waiting for the Red Bus to make its way down Main Street, wondering if it’s going to stop due to its being packed, only to have it go right by without stopping. Then, along comes another bus from Gristedes which is crowded but stops and fills right up. Do we pass up the next stop? No, some more people get on, leaving the remainder to wait.

By the time we get to the subway and make our way through the turnstiles, along come two more Red Buses, both almost empty.

No thanks to RIOC’s poor planning when it comes to the infraststructure of Roosevelt Island, the tenants that have been living here the longest are the ones that are being put out.

Why can’t they dedicate one Red Bus just for Octagon since that seems to be where it’s filling up?

Maybe someone can come up with another idea?S.

Kleinberg

 

To the Editor:

In response to Gregory Halverson’s letter, in the October 21 issue, complaining about Red Bus service:

I do believe that Becker sold you a bill of goods. I have lived on Roosevelt Island since 1986 and I have been trying to figure out why people like you have moved here. What were you expecting? A cheaper version of the Village? The Upper East Side?

Your complaints about the Red Bus fall on deaf ears. To expect it to be efficient is one thing, but to stop the driver from hugging some old guy is contrary to what Roosevelt Island is all about. If I were you, instead of complaining about the bus that picks you up at your front door, you should be complaining about the F train.

Peter Goodridge

 

To the Editor:

This letter may help WIRE readers better understand the issues being discussed at the RIOC Board level and among tenants of the original Island "WIRE" buildings (meaning Westview, Island House, Rivercross and Eastwood) who seek to change their legal status, leave the Mitchell Lama system, and become privately owned with the right to sell apartments at free market prices.

The WIRE (October 21) printed some of the RIOC Board’s deliberations as they grapple with how to comply with the recently enacted Public Authorities Accountability Act. That law puts restraints on public entities, such as RIOC, when it comes to the sale or lease of property, essentially requiring an appraisal and sale/lease at fair market values. The RIOC Board’s discussions led some members to discuss how that Act is to be interpreted with RIOC’s Master Lease obligations, which has "priority," and what action RIOC can take to extend the term of the ground lease that each building has and yet be in compliance with both the Master Lease and new law.

It must be noted that no Island building "owns" the land; the City owns it; each building simply is renting it under a ground lease from the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) which, in turn, is renting it from the City under a "Master Lease," which ends in 2068. When the current buildings’ ground leases end in 2027, the tenant-occupant’s rights end. Without an extension, that means, at least "theoretically," that all tenant/owner’s rights to remain in occupancy end in about 20 years. Selling an apartment with only a 20 year lease term remaining is, at best, very difficult, and certainly will depress prices. Thus, extending the ground leases until 2068 is essential to each building’s wish to leave the Mitchell-Lama system, "privatize" and sell units at free market prices.

Originally, under the "Master Lease" signed in 1968 between the City and State, UDC had the obligation to develop the Island with approximately 5,000 units of housing located in two areas, Northtown and Southtown, but such housing had to conform to the "General Development Plan" (GDP) in the Lease. That meant that only 25% of the 5,000 units (1,250) could be for "persons and families who can afford conventionally financed and fully tax paying units." That is, only 25% could be free-market housing. The other 75% of the units were required to be divided up into various subsidized categories: 20% for those eligible for Federally-assisted public housing; 10% for the elderly of the same class; 25% for those eligible for federal mortgage interest-rate reductions; and 20% for those eligible for middle income housing under the Mitchell-Lama program.

In 1990, in connection with plans to build "Southtown" (now called "Riverwalk" by its developers), the GDP was amended by the City and RIOC so as to enlarge the percentage of permitted free-market units from the original 25% of the entire 5,000 units to up to 60% (1200) of the 2,000 or so units projected for Southtown. The original WIRE buildings are in "Northtown" and remained subject to the 25% free-market limitation, but the 1990 changes also permit the amount of middle income housing under the Mitchell Lama law to increase from 20% to 35%. (By 1990, Northtown consisted of some 3,225 units, of which more than 25% are or will soon be free market, i.e., 880 units of Manhattan Park and about 130 in Eastwood). Thus, while there is room for about 1,200 more free market units in Southtown, there is none in Northtown if RIOC adheres to the current GDP limit of 25%.

While UDC/RIOC are under the obligation to develop the Island in accordance with the percentage limits outlined above, may the GDP be changed to allow for more free market units? Certainly if the City and State (DHCR or RIOC) want to change the Island’s original character and make it more free market they can amend the GDP percentages. They did it for Southtown. But, whether either the Mayor or new Governor will want to make such a change for Northtown is doubtful to this observer, as it would significantly transform the Island from a mixed, diverse community to an upper income one, not exactly a politically correct or popular decision. Indeed, last year the City Council in an attempt to prevent buildings from leaving the Mitchell Lama system and becoming free market housing extended current tax exemptions for an additional 50 years if a building remained in the system.

An alternative to amending the GDP to permit more free-market housing in the WIRE buildings is for RIOC to condition its lease-term extension on the resale of apartments to buyers who fit within the existing percentages, that is, essentially limiting buyers of the WIRE units to "middle, moderate and low income" persons. That would likely increase the amount of free-market "middle income" housing as Mitchell Lama rental and coop units were replaced over time with free-market, essentially middle-income ones, but limiting the available buyers in this manner would likely depress market prices. However, it would adhere to the GDP’s 35% middle income housing parameters without amendment to the GDP and not radically change the Island’s character. It would, however, limit the profits of sellers, the revenue of buildings who will want to apply a transfer fee on all sales, and revenues that would flow to RIOC if it too applied a transfer fee.

Another issue RIOC’s Board is deliberating is whether the ground leases can be extended by RIOC (which is a "public authority") for less than fair market value. This is important to the finances of each building: To leave the Mitchell Lama system of tax breaks and become free market is all the more desirable if the ground rent and taxes to be paid under the extended ground lease are less than fair market value. In essence, many of the original WIRE buildings’ tenants or potential owners cannot afford to pay free-market rent on the leased land or real-estate taxes at the same level as any comparable private building. They need to continue to have "subsidies" in the form of low ground rents and taxes even if they leave the Mitchell-Lama system.

The recently enacted law permits RIOC to extend the ground leases for less than fair market value if that is "intended to further the public health, safety or welfare or an economic development interest of the State." Thus, the RIOC Board must approve the action as one furthering such purpose or interest and provide an explanatory statement of its action.

As to real-estate taxes, under the Master Lease assigned by UDC to RIOC when the latter was created, UDC retained the power to collect such taxes or their equivalents. Thus, it may be up to UDC and the City of New York, to agree to lower the tax burden on the original WIRE buildings if they become privately owned. Such tax concessions and breaks will be the envy of other coops throughout the City as they pay regular levels of taxes that are from time to time increased to meet budget needs.

Robert Chira,
a longtime Island resident, practices law in Manhattan.

 

 

To the Editor:

My heartfelt thanks to The WIRE and all the people who worked tirelessly to make the Al Lewis memorial celebration a beautiful evening. The WIRE made possible communications about the event to the entire population of the Island. Thank you so much for the great coverage, with photos and reporting. Thanks must also be given to RIOC, which provided the space; and to Brad Harlan, who spoke at the Grampa Al Lewis Playground as a prelude to the celebration and much, much more. And wasn’t it great to have the refreshments afterward! Trellis honored Al with a huge, delicious spread and Starbucks provided the coffee. I am so grateful to you all, each and every one of you, who made the evening perfect. Yet, I must individually thank my neighbor Debbie Drucker, who did the lion’s share, quietly working behind the scenes, making certain that everything came together.

Al hated the sadness of funerals, so I know he would have been happy with the smiles and laughter of his community as we celebrated his life. Thank you all so very much. It takes a village...

Karen Ingenthron Lewis