West Side Rag
  • TOP NEWS
  • OPEN/CLOSED
  • FOOD
  • SCHOOLS
  • OUTDOORS
  • REAL ESTATE
  • ART & CULTURE
  • POLITICS
  • COLUMNS
  • CRIME
  • HISTORY
  • ABSURDITY
  • CONTACT
West Side Rag
No Result
View All Result
Get WSR FREE in your inbox

Search the site

No Result
View All Result

Get WSR FREE in your inbox

AVAILABLE NOW!


HERE

PETITION LAUNCHED TO STOP LUXURY DEVELOPMENTS AT HOUSING PROJECT

March 18, 2013 | 2:17 PM - Updated on June 5, 2022 | 11:17 PM
in NEWS, POLITICS, REAL ESTATE
21

A movement to stop the New York City Housing Authority from unilaterally adding new market-rate housing developments on public housing land on the Upper West Side is picking up steam, as a new petition has been launched asking the city to slow the process down and allow more input. As it stands, requests for proposals from developers are set to be sent out last month.

The petition was launched by a group called “Save Douglass Houses,” which is made up of “residents of Douglass Houses and neighbors and supporters from throughout the Upper West Side.” The Frederick Douglass Houses project stretches from 100th to 104th street and consists of 18 buildings housing nearly 5,000 residents. Read our most recent article on the plan here — the piece has details about another meeting scheduled for Thursday.

Update: Mark Levine, who is running for City Council in District 7 (which currently includes parts of the West side above 96th street) tells us he’s behind the petition.

You can sign the petition, which is looking to attract at least 100 signatures, here. This is what it says:

“The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has announced plans to building luxury apartment towers at eight public housing developments in Manhattan, including Douglass Houses. Such a plan would deprive Douglass residents of open space, greenery, light, and air. It would add further congestion to already overcrowded streets, bus lines, and subways in the neighborhood.

Income earned from the leasing of this open space would not be re-invested back into Douglass Houses, but rather would be used to cover general NYCHA expenses. Only 20% of the units in the proposed towers would be set aside as affordable, and even these would mostly be out of reach of families with the lowest incomes.

The money earned from this plan could easily be recouped by less damaging means. The City could simply stop charging NYCHA for policing (an expense it does not put on private buildings), and for “payments in lieu of taxes” (which non-profit housing developers are not required to pay).

We demand the following from Mayor Bloomberg:
* Halt the rush to push through irrevocable contracts for this development plan before the next mayor takes office in 2014;
* Immediately make public the RFPs which will be sent to developers, and
* Make the residents of Douglass Houses full partners in any planning for future use of land in their development, with ample opportunity for them to provide input and have their opinions heard and respected by NYCHA.”

Share this article:
Get WSR FREE in your inbox
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve
Steve
10 years ago

“Make the residents of Douglass Houses full partners in any planning for future use of land in their development” …

THEIR development? it’s almost like they think it’s their land! Unbelievable sense of entitlement on display. If they want a “voice” they should feel free to move and start paying market rates.

0
Reply
nycissues
nycissues
10 years ago
Reply to  Steve

The entire surrounding community should also have a voice. Whatever is decided will affect all members of the UWS. This petition will be used to show community solidarity to foster a single point of view which may not be the prevailing opinion. Opposing views will likely remain silent while the loud voices of the few will succeed . Douglass residents have nothing to fear, they will not be evicted but they may have to pay higher rents as an alternative to development.

0
Reply
Drew
Drew
10 years ago

Ha. My favorite is “Make the residents of Douglass Houses full partners in any planning for future use of land in THEIR development.”

Last time I check it is not THEIR development. It is PUBLIC housing.

0
Reply
JC
JC
10 years ago

Can’t agree with Drew more. It’s public land and is eligible to be developed in the best interests of the public, and that includes market rate housing. Remember, these housing projects have huge parking lots with $50 a year permits. There has to be a better use of that land.

0
Reply
Madelyn
Madelyn
10 years ago
Reply to  JC

Fyi I don’t have a car but I know that people pay month than $50 a year. Get your fact right before you make any false statements. This is all about Bloomberg wanting to do this as quick as possible so this could be Bloomberg City and his cronies. People don’t even have all the facts about this, but yet they give there opinions. Do some fact checking before you make judgements. NYCHA has lied about so many things and most of all mismanage money for decades, but yet the residents of Douglass Houses is being put in a bad light. All those people who are passing judgement against Douglass Residents, and before you do that come talk to me.

0
Reply
Martha
Martha
10 years ago

These comments are outrageous. We owe our fellow citizens homes that are welcoming. We do. Who are you to define what “public housing” means? I live near The Frederick Douglass Houses, and I bet these other folks don’t. This is modest housing; the playgrounds are sort of depressing. The so-called parking lots that might hold fancier buildings? Are you kidding? Those lots are tiny. Fancy buildings (that rest on the edges of the project) are shockingly inappropriate and just plain disrespectful. Make these areas more welcoming by improving playgrounds, by landscaping, and by supplying security that keeps people and property safe.

Take out your tape measures, would you? Huge parking lots? Not the ones I see on the way to the public library.

At some point, those of you who are claiming that “public” means all of us might think again about who “all of us” really are. Do you really think our society would be more welcoming to “all of us” if fortresses for the wealthy would do more to hide the everyday lives of those who run our subway trains and clean our schools and make life possible for the rest of us?

I’m finding it hard to understand these arguments in favor of luxury housing enclosing current public housing. Shaded of Michael Harrington’s The Other America, when poverty or just plain struggle was the big secret.

0
Reply
K8
K8
10 years ago
Reply to  Martha

Martha–the problem is that NYCHA does not have enough money to put into repairing & maintaining what is already there, let alone to improve the playgrounds, security, etc, as you suggest. The purpose of the market rate housing is (supposedly) to raise funds to close the monetary gap in order to be able to properly repair/maintain the existing property.

It very well may be that there are other ways for NYCHA to generate revenue to pay for their existing properties if, for example, the mayor were a willing partner and could waive some fees as suggested. However, there is a real financial problem that NYCHA is facing, and it seems they do not have the time to wait around in a game of chicken with the city to see who gives first. The only people hurt by that method, it seems to me, are the tenants living in the Douglass Houses, whose living conditions are sub-par, according to NYCHA.

Public housing should absolutely be clean, safe, and at a minimum adhere to the light and air standards required throughout the city. However, to say that the green space is their right is fairly ridiculous. Last I checked, the majority of Manhattanites do not have their own private green space, and they take their dogs, children, and themselves over to the many public parks (Riverside, Central Park, etc) when they want to enjoy green space in NYC.

0
Reply
NikFromNYC
NikFromNYC
10 years ago

From the petition page: “Additional buildings would crowd out the sunlight, killing the trees, it would take away the children’s playgrounds and the dogs’ exercise areas….”

Puppy chow for Rotweilers is your tax dollars at work. Yet a hundred freeloader signatures on a petition should trump the right of those who work in Manhattan, at jobs, productively, to live in Manhattan too? Where do we sign the anti-petition?

0
Reply
westSider
westSider
10 years ago
Reply to  NikFromNYC

absolutely! Where is the petition for the rest of us? who pay huge taxes, tickets , can’t afford to keep a car in NYC, subsidize the self entitled who think we owe them everything, work are butts off, take the subway, and don’t ask others to pay our way…..?

0
Reply
gobot
gobot
10 years ago

Hi Mark.

You just lost my vote.

Good luck on your run.

UWS resident

0
Reply
Bonnie
Bonnie
10 years ago

Who is moving into these new buildings in the middle of the projects?

0
Reply
Anne
Anne
10 years ago

Build ’em!Finally some people to spend money in our restaurants and shops so we don’t become a graveyard of vacancies.The taxes paid by the developers and future residents pay to keep these freeloaders in their apts. Most of all, prop owners should be able to sell or build on their property. Mark Levine will NOT have my vote, neither will anyone else who backs this petition to keep the cars of freeloaders parked in their convenient parking lots. Wish I could have a car, and a free parking lot, but I am a market-rate paying loser and my extra money goes to taxes. My guess is the people behind this petition don’t pay taxes, they just get mine.

0
Reply
Mel Wymore
Mel Wymore
10 years ago

Selling off public land is a short-sited strategy for generating revenue. We need a cogent taxation that helps to level the playing field for all New Yorkers, not a fire-sale of public property that pulls the rug out from under working families.

0
Reply
josh
josh
10 years ago

I live on 104th, and the parking lots on 104th btwn Amsterdam-Columbus are definitely big enough for new development. And they would be on the perimeter and would not interfere with space, light or habitability, other than the influx of wealthier folks into a direct area long low income. I personally would not want to spend $3200 for a small 1-bedroom in a luxury building in that location — but some people might, particularly if such development invites commercial development in the area (restaurants, shops etc). I just think the building would stick out strangely. The new development on columbus is part of a larger commercial development project, and simply extends the earlier development on 95th and 96th (Key West and Westmont buildings) all the way to 100th. A random luxury building on 104th would just be out of place.

I also agree that nobody is entitled to city-subsidized parking. I am fully supportive of subsidized housing (so long as there is no abuse). Ans trust me, 95% of the folks in city NYCHA housing would much rather have an additional $40,000 in income and live in market housing. But the parking lots are a waste and a vestige of a time when the area was terrible and land was relatively cheap.

0
Reply
wendy Dannett, CSW
wendy Dannett, CSW
10 years ago

No luxury housing should be developed in housing projects, especially Douglass houses. Any plans for future use of land in the Douglass Houses must have the residents as full partners.

0
Reply
gobot
gobot
10 years ago
Reply to  wendy Dannett, CSW

Agreed, Wendy you give no reasons why not.

I have seen the plan and it is to build on small parking lots on the outskirts of each of the projects.

This is a mix of market rate AND subsidized rentals (the land will be leased from the City) – hardly luxury condos.

There is no more federal funds to make much needed repairs, the rents for NYCHA apts and parking spots are shockingly low, the tenants resist rent increases and want repairs.
Who should pay? Without this there is two options: the New York taxpayer (you and I, already over taxed) will pay OR the buildings will continue to deteriorate to the point on not being condemned.

I would welcome to hear another solution.

0
Reply
Wha?
Wha?
10 years ago

Not a very compelling argument Wendy…

0
Reply
ppar
ppar
10 years ago
Reply to  Wha?

Living in NYC is not a right. Plenty of middle lcass people live in the outer bouroughs. Public housing should not be occuping prime real estate. NYC is become a city for the wealthy and poor. Use that land to build affordable housing for middle class (teachers, public servants, etc) and get the entitled free loaders out.

0
Reply
gp
gp
10 years ago

What a joke. We all pay so much money and subject to crimes and drug dealings along these housing projects. Perhaps the city is trying to improve the neighborhood. What a nerve to to refer to these housing as “their development” I thought these belong to the public and we all pay taxes to support it. It is clear that Mr Levine is driven by his political ambition alone.

0
Reply
Jon
Jon
10 years ago
Reply to  gp

Most housing is subsidized in one way or another. People who buy homes get the mortgage tax deduction. Unfortunately, many of the developers of market rate housing have been subsidized as well. Why do you think that poor people should have fewer rights and less say about their community than other people?

0
Reply
Carol Blanchard
Carol Blanchard
9 years ago

stop

0
Reply

YOU MIGHT LIKE...

Alive at Clive’s: See Inside the Record Mogul’s UWS Condo on the Market for $6.3 Million
NEWS

Alive at Clive’s: See Inside the Record Mogul’s UWS Condo on the Market for $6.3 Million

September 27, 2023 | 10:40 AM
NYPD Seizes Mopeds, Bikes Illegally Chained Near Stratford Arms Hotel; Woman Arrested
CRIME

Another Elderly UWS Person Scammed Out of $9.5K by Bail Money Con: Police

September 27, 2023 | 9:01 AM
Previous Post

WEEKLY NEWS BULLETIN: DOG-FIGHT BECOMES HUMAN FIGHT, BIG BET ON RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENTS, & MORE

Next Post

FOOD EMPORIUM ON BROADWAY TO CLOSE IN MAY

this week's events image

Explore Your Favorite Subject

20th precinct 24th precinct american museum of natural history animals art bicycling bulletin central park closings columns community board 7 coronavirus crash crime dogs events fdny fire food gale brewer helen rosenthal history homelessness jcc lincoln center monday bulletin morning bulletin nypd openings openings and closings pedestrian safety photography photos politics public schools pupper west side real estate restaurants riverside park silver stars fitness snow sponsored subway upper west side uws

CITY NEWS

The City
Brick Underground
City Limits
Eater
Gothamist
NY Daily News
NY Post
NY Times

LOCAL RESOURCES

Bloomingdale Neighborhood History Group
Central Park Conservancy
CB7
Community Education Council 3
Assembly District 67
The New York Historical Society
Riverside Park
West End Preservation

UWS Blogs

Bloomingdale History Central Park Blogger
North River Notes
Next Post
FOOD EMPORIUM ON BROADWAY TO CLOSE IN MAY

FOOD EMPORIUM ON BROADWAY TO CLOSE IN MAY

RETAIL OPENINGS, RENOVATIONS, AND RELOCATIONS: BIKES, CLOTHES AND SHADES

RETAIL OPENINGS, RENOVATIONS, AND RELOCATIONS: BIKES, CLOTHES AND SHADES

LANDLORD HANGS ‘FOR RENT’ SIGN AT RITE AID ON 70TH

LANDLORD HANGS 'FOR RENT' SIGN AT RITE AID ON 70TH

  • ABOUT US
  • CONTACT US
  • NEWSLETTER
  • WSR MERCH!
  • ADVERTISE
  • EVENTS
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • TERMS OF USE
  • SITE MAP
Site design by RLDGROUP

© 2023 West Side Rag | All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • TOP NEWS
  • THIS WEEK’S EVENTS
  • OPEN/CLOSED
  • FOOD
  • SCHOOLS
  • OUTDOORS
  • REAL ESTATE
  • ART & CULTURE
  • POLITICS
  • COLUMNS
  • CRIME
  • HISTORY
  • ABSURDITY
  • CONTACT US
  • WSR SHOP

© 2023 West Side Rag | All rights reserved.