Author Archives: heba

Rodney King

Posted on by
Reply

“Our nation is moving towards two societies: one white, one black-separate and unequal,” this statement comes from the Kerner Commission during 1967 race riots. Formal equality is supposed to give equality through neutral and objective rule. Some may say formal equality in a sense could have prevented the Rodney King, however it is just an inciting idea. Instead, today we see many cases like that of Rodney King. Rodney King was beaten with what many would have agreed was excessive the Los Angeles Police, but those same police officers were later acquitted on the premises that they were using reasonable force. This bears a strong resemblance to the recent death of Eric Garner, which like in Rodney King’s case was recorded with the police officer not being indictment. It is clear that social injustices are linked to race and power. Why hasn’t the government used the findings of the Kerner Report?

Reading Response 5/5/15

Posted on by
Reply

The “Second Civil War” is a social warfare between the interests of the middle class against the welfare of the urban poor. Malls and complexes of many buildings have replaced public space; police inside these complexes places people under surveillance. These malls and office centers have access to electronics, whereas in the ghetto it electronics are not as accessible. This unequal distribution is the start of Los Angeles heading into one direction favoring the elite. Public services are diminishing and public spaces are becoming more privatized. This clashes with the view of Frederick Law Olmsted, the mastermind behind Central Park. He saw parks and other public spaces as a way to bring the different social classes together through similar leisurely activities. Olmsted wrote, “No one who has closely observed the conduct of the people who visit [Central] Park can doubt that it exercises a distinctly harmonizing and refining influence upon the most unfortunate and most lawless classes of the city-an influence favorable to courtesy, self-control, and temperance.” Why has the distinction between classes been reinforced by public spaces?

On the Underutilization of Land in NYC

Posted on by
Reply

Michelle Cherian, Katherine Chiu, Allegra DePasquale, Heba Fakir

Macaulay Seminar 4

Toews

4/28/15

 

On the Underutilization of Land in NYC

 

New York City is an area that is home to over 8 million people. For many of these people, homelessness is a very real and very relatable issue. Homelessness is a problem that has its roots in the underutilization of land in New York City. Although there are many areas that are occupied by buildings, there are also issues surrounding the empty lots that are adjacent to these buildings. Underutilization of land is an issue defined by the lack of usability in areas like empty lots and buildings that are being put aside and not being occupied by human beings. This is a problem because a lot of this land could go towards resolving issues like the homelessness issue in New York City. Instead of being used for affordable or public housing, these empty lots and vacant building spaces are collecting dust while people are being forced to sleep outdoors.

Underutilization of land as defined by Josh Thompson, Community Board 6 fellow and Hunter College affiliate, is statistically defined as the inefficient use of already-constructed buildings under the FAR or floor-area ratio. This is a metric used to see if a building is being used to its most efficient capacity in terms of how much land is available for human use in square feet in a building per square feet per lot. This is an issue that was brought up at the Community 6 Board meeting that includes towns in Brooklyn like Red Hook. Although this is an issue that is specifically addressed for these towns, underutilization of land is certainly an issue that spreads to other towns in New York City, not just Red Hook. The underutilization of land not only has implications on homelessness, but also in the consequences of gentrification and ecological damage. People will have to find a place to live regardless of whether or not they can live in already-made buildings. Because of this, homeless people will have to construct their own makeshift housing despite there already being concrete buildings that can house all the people who are currently homeless. This puts a strain on the amount of resources being devoted to creating shelter and makes waste where there should not be. In regards to gentrification, underutilization of land is an issue because it causes the speeding of displacement of individuals from their homes. Gentrification raises the price of living in a solid building and those people who cannot afford to pay the rent are vacated, leaving an excess of empty building spaces where they could have lived. This then allows the value of land to increase and it is at the expense of these now homeless people that the local economy increases in the real estate sector. l

Homelessness has intensified in New York City. The many empty lots that are available, but have not been put to use, in Red Hook have aggravated the issue of homelessness, including  the lack of affordable housing in the area. This issue has affected low-income families, minorities, the disabled, the elderly, and the homeless. Many communities have faced the same dilemma, and have formed several tactics to resolve it. Through squatting, communities have brought attention to the housing crisis by emphasizing the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. Squatting on vacant properties, is to occupy the property without title, right, or payment of rent.

By bringing the housing crisis that is related to homelessness, to light, organizations such as the Homes Not Jails have sprung in San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C. These organizations rely on acts of civil disobedience, where vacant buildings are occupied in order to display the availability of the land for affordable housing. The Homes Not Jails organization is also a proponent for city and state administrators to use eminent domain to claim unutilized and uninhabited buildings for public housing and affordable housing.

Public housing and affordable housing will help to diminish the housing crisis and the issue of homelessness. In Red Hook, the Carroll Gardens Association, Inc. is an organization that has developed affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Carroll Gardens Association Inc. has developed over 500 affordable housing in Red Hook, Columbia St. Waterfront District, Carroll Gardens, and the Gowanus. One of their housing achievements was on 722 Henry Street, Red Hook. The building on Henry Street has 16 apartments, 30% for community residents and 30% for homeless families and individuals. Another example of an organization that has developed affordable housing units in Red Hook, is the Red Hook Gardens LP. Red Hook Gardens LP has developed Rac Gardens, a low income housing project that has 60 units of low income apartments.

Some may say the government lacks enough capital for public housing and affordable housing, but through sweat equity, capital can be saved on making public housing and affordable housing. Sweat equity allows tenants to use their labor as rent, instead of their income, which for many low-income families is insufficient to pay rent The main idea behind sweat equity is to use the labor of residents and volunteers to build affordable housing; the use of sweat equity decreases the amount of government funding required to make the affordable housing units. With tactics like squatting, sweat equity, as well as organizations that fight for affordable housing, the community can alleviate homelessness and the housing crisis in Red Hook.

One of the major issues contributing to the excess of empty lots and the lack of affordable housing is the profit that comes along with keeping lots empty instead of converting them into apartments.  David Harvey, professor of anthropology and geography at the Graduate Center at CUNY continues by stating that when apartments in a building aren’t being used as living spaces, you know that they’re being used as warehousing for their speculative funds, which they’ve invested in purchasing the house.  These landlords or real estate investors keep these properties vacant so they don’t have to pay any money for maintenance, and eventually sell the property when the market price goes up in order to make a profit (“Uneven Growth”).

While this is a detriment to those individuals who need affordable housing, the government gives a lot of support to the real estate industry since it is the largest single donor to election campaigns.  This gives the real estate industry a lot of power in the policy that shapes housing developments and how they are run, allowing them to create an environment that leads to the greatest profit.   Tom Angotti, professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College and The Graduate Center, adds, “Sometimes speculators can buy land and they can sit on it [property] for one, five, ten, twenty, thirty years or even longer” (“Uneven Growth”).  There is no policy that truly limits the amount of time that speculators can sit on land, which basically allows them to put that land in their bank accounts and treat is as a commodity.

One simple policy that can be implemented that would widely affect the ability to turn empty lots into affordable housing is putting a limit on how long these speculators can sit on land without putting any use to it.  This takes away the power of keeping land as a commodity and forces it to at least be put to use for housing.  This policy would be implemented in areas that are zoned as residential areas, which restricts the speculators who buy the land, to only use it for real estate purposes.

The policy would also put a time limit on simply sitting on land to around one year and after that year is over, if the landlord does not comply with starting to rent out these apartments, they will be fined a certain amount of money each month.  This takes out the profit that comes along with sitting on land.  If speculators continue to sit on land in hopes of making a profit, they will have to factor in the fine that they will have to pay in order to keep their lots vacant.  This puts a price on the keeping lots vacant, which defeats the purpose of speculators and landlords keeping them empty in the first place.  At least, if they rent out these apartments, they will at least have the opportunity to make a profit instead of definitely facing a net loss from not doing anything with their purchased land.

This policy will also increase the amount of affordable housing.  Kendall Jackson, housing campaign leader for the NYC Community Land Initiative and “Picture the Homeless”, explains that in a survey done over 20 of the 59 community boards in New York City, 6,040 vacant buildings and lots were found with the potential to house 199,981 people.  Jackman explains all these empty buildings and lots were forced to be put to use, landlords could no longer charge, say $3000 for a studio apartment, because there would be more supply to meet the demand of housing, which will cause a decrease in the price of rent because it is not justified as it is now with a little supply of apartments, trying to be distributed to a large demand (“Uneven Growth”).

Now, how will this affect the community as a whole? Red Hook is an area that is filled with empty lots and multiple buildings that have vacant signs all over them.  Josh Thompson, a planning fellow from Hunter College, 86 percent of lots are already zoned as residential area, but 77 percent of those lots are not being used to their maximum floor area ratio.  This policy will be able to force individuals who own those vacant properties and turn these properties into housing.   By turning these lots and buildings into housing, this forces these buildings to be cleaned up in order to create humane and sustainable living environments.  Overall, this will create a more “aesthetically pleasing” living environment for everyone who lives in Red Hook along with the major contribution to the community, which is creating more affordable housing for the community.

The problem of vacant and underutilized land is far from being an issue unique to Red Hook, or to New York City. As the nation’s population continues to grow, we need to ensure every inch of land is used to its fullest potential, so that we can minimize homelessness and maximize both efficiency and sustainability. This is a complicated issue that requires tweaking based on the specific area, so that subsequent solutions are effective. We propose a bill, dubbed the Land Underutilization Act. This bill, for one, will establish a national council in which delegates from all fifty states gather to discuss vacancy, land underutilization, and land use decisions  in their state. After thoroughly researching the issues specific to their state, they will customize the council’s solutions to underutilization to their needs. This council will compile statistics on land use in the United States, and will complete an assessment of land use efficiency for the broader context of the United States, as has been done in the Community Board 6 vicinity of Brooklyn, New York. The council will then make broad suggestions on how to best address these problems, based on the research for the entirety of the United States. It will be up to the delegates to formulate a plan specific to their state.          The bill will mandate that the state governments must begin enactment of their delegates’ plans within five years of their proposal. This will help ensure that far from being empty rhetoric, the plans deriving from the council will be executed, thus ensuring land use efficiency and sustainability.  Failure to comply with this bill will result in a $750,000 fine, the proceeds of which will go towards the implementation of the other states’ plans.

It is our sincere hope that this proposal will lead to less vacant lots and greater land use efficiency, which as we’ve explained, are two major issues facing Red Hook. The goal of this is twofold: 1) to promote sustainability, and 2) to alleviate social ills, such as homelessness and unsavory landlord practices. With our multi pronged approach, targeting each level of government and community, we hope to solve these issues from root to stem. Our proposal will address the causes and effects of vacancy and land underutilization, thus eliminating it as an object of concern. With this, we can be assured that as our populations swell, we will have every possible bit of land available to meet demand. This will benefit the economy, as efficiency equates to economic gain, and society, as people will have the most space available to them and vacant lots will no longer plague the neighborhood as eyesores. All in all, our plan is a positive one, and one that we believe can truly solve the problems of vacant land and land underutilization in Red Hook, New York, and where possible, the broader United States.

Sources:

 

Living Lots NYC. Map, 2015. Online. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml

Uneven Growth NYC. Cohabitation Strategies, 2014. Online.

Reading Response 4/21/15

Posted on by
Reply

Order maintaining policing, is a combination of zero tolerance and quality of life policing. This combined policing method drives police brutality, targeting of people of color, and an increase criminalization. It was introduced and implemented by Mayor Giuliani, and spread to other major cities. The quality of life allows officers to criminalize anyone whose conduct seems disorderly or unlawful. This allows officers to act on their biased, and criminalizing people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, and class.

Through order maintaining policies, the trust between the community and police department has turned into wariness. Instead of improving the quality of life in the community, the order maintaining policing has caused a division between the community and the police. Minorities that have been often targeting by the police have shown if a crime were to occur, they would not report it to the police even if they were the victims. Ironically, that the quality of life policing does not improve the quality of life, especially minorities.

Question: How did the vague laws that underlie the quality of life, even get approved?

Reading Response 4/14/15

Posted on by
Reply

Economic rewards are far more lopsided in the US than in European countries, this inequality drives American poverty rates. In sociology the champagne glass distribution theory of inequality, is used to explain the unequal global distribution of income. 925 million people are hungry in the world, 1 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and 2.3 million children die from preventable diseases. It really says something if 1% of the population control half of global wealth. It only adds to the issue if the 1% of the population only uses their money for leisure and entertainment. There should be a limit to how much a person could own; imagine owning $1.9 trillion, at some point all your needs and desires would have been met and the rest of the money would have been redundant. The rest of that money could be allocated for better services, towards the needy, homeless, and the poor. Instead billionaires are spending their money on leisure activities like building a billionaire park that will only have use for tourists, instead of using them on the community. Is there a way to solve the global inequality problem?

The Housing Crisis in NYC

Posted on by
Reply

Michelle Cherian, Katherine Chiu, Allegra DePasquale, Heba Fakir

Group: Red Hook

Proposal for NYC

 

According to the statistics collection site Living Lots New York City one hundred seventy-one public sites totalling one hundred forty-eight acres of land in the city of New York are vacant. If we expand the data samples to include private land opportunities and non-public areas that are also underutilized, an added one hundred ninety-five sites totalling an extra one hundred fifty-nine acres of land are underused. This brings us to a grand total of three hundred forty-three underutilized acres of land. According to the presentation given by planning fellow John Douglass (from Hunter College of the City University of New York) at the February 2015 Community Board Six meeting, seventy-seven percent of the land in the Brooklyn Community Board Six zone is underutilized. This phenomenon was also observed by the members of the Red Hook team on our trips to Red Hook. The problem of under used land is one that is evidenced not only in specific towns like Red Hook, but also throughout the city, as evidenced by these statistics. The problem with having these empty lots is that they can contribute to ecological problems, social problems and political strife.

The lots take up space, but are not used to any significant public gain, and so they put to waste a lot of potential good. Instead of being used for public functions like affordable housing, public parks, business improvement districts, or other neighborhood improvements, these lots stay empty only to gather dust and litter.

Despite containing some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the U.S like Manhattan’s Upper East Side, New York City is facing a housing shortage, specifically an affordable housing shortage. More and more people of low-income status are being pushed into homelessness due to unreasonably high costs of living. In fact, 45% of the working class in New York pay more than one third of their income in rents. Yet, there are many apartment complexes, and even whole buildings, that are abandoned or awaiting repairs. The issue is that many of these affordable housing units can only be afforded by the wealthy. Often times, landlords who do offer their tenants low rents are encouraged by private corporations, interested in renovating the often dilapidated housing complexes, to increase rents driving out the current low-income occupants and selling those complexes to private corporations. Private corporations can then renovate those complexes and rent them out to higher income residents, thereby profiting while the low-income tenants are left to relocate. This often results in the gentrification of an area, as more buildings are purchased and renovated, the cost of living in the area also increases as a result of the influx of higher income families. Not only does a shortage in affordable housing begin, but gentrification also helps to drive out the low-income residents of the neighborhood. There are many bright sides to gentrification like lower crime rates and better housing, but this comes at a cost that is often too much for the poor. As the neighborhood improves, wealthier people move into the area, often driving out low-income residents. With the unequal global distribution of income, gentrification adds to the disparity in the income gap. In the United States, economic rewards are far more lopsided than in European countries. This inequality drives American poverty rates. At the same time, some low-income residents are able to remain due to rent control. The income gap is also widened due to mixed-income housing. Mixed-income housing developers often set aside about 80% of the apartments as market-rate and the other 20% for low & middle-income residents who pay below-market rates. Developers provide these affordable housing complexes for incentives like property tax reduction. Mayor Bill de Blasio intends on constructing and/or preserving 200,000 affordable housing complexes within the next 10 years through mandatory rather than voluntary inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning involves developers creating a certain number (usually 20%) of affordable housing units for low-income residents and the rest are offered at market-rate prices in return developers are allowed to build bigger. There are many critics of inclusionary zoning. Many argue that “inclusionary zoning, a celebrated policy solution that requires developers to set aside units for working and low-income families, has created a measly 2,800 affordable apartments in New York since 2005.[1]” Supporters of inclusionary zoning, on the other hand, argue that this is because inclusionary zoning at the time of Mayor Bloomberg was voluntary and many developers chose not to participate. Only time can tell if mandatory inclusionary zoning will come into effect and if it will have the effect that Mayor Bill de Blasio hopes for.

There are major groups that are focused on keeping the majority of these lots and buildings vacant, including landlords and the corporations that own these buildings.  This is all just a game of profit.  In the documentary, Uneven Growth NYC, Rachel Laforest, a social activist and executive director of Right to the City Alliance, states, “I live in the belly of the beast, New York City, where people are throwaways, but buildings and architecture and profits are prized possessions [2]”.  This is essentially the problem with landlords that creates empty lots in the first place.

How do landlords rake up the biggest profit in this way?  Well, when individuals aren’t living in a building, there is no need to upkeep the property and the money that landlords would use for that is kept in their pockets.  When living spaces in a building aren’t being used, it is a high possibility that these spaces are being used as warehousing for the landlords speculative funds, which they have invested in purchasing the building.  Then they will just sit on these spaces until the market price goes up and sell them for a profit [2].  Essentially, instead of using housing for its intended use value, it is just used as a commodity [3].

Landowners instead of trying to fill all the rooms in their building will also try to pack as many individuals into a single room as they can in order to increase their profit.  So instead of spreading individuals out in say a twelve apartment complex, they will stuff four to eight men inside one room and make a larger profit than if they were only renting out to a single family.

In fact, sometimes after landlords buy out apartment buildings, they try to force the tenants that are lower than market value rent in order to try and replace them with tenants that can pay higher than market value rent.  They will keep these rooms vacant until they can find the person or the time that they can make the largest profit.   Landlords do this by trying to buy tenants out or harassing them into leaving by performing construction on the building, bringing up fraudulent or eviction cases and hoping that eventually these tenants will just give up and leave.

Essentially, landlords and real estate speculators use any method possible to empty out their land while gathering the most profit.  And since the real estate industry is the largest single donor to election campaigns, they have a lot of say about who sits in office and makes policies surrounding this issue [2].

As landlords, real estate speculators and corporations rake in their profits, there are individuals who are constantly suffering from this system, specifically the homeless and lower income individuals. When assessing twenty of the fifty-nine community boards, 6040 vacant buildings and lots were counted.  This has the estimated potential to house 199, 981 people.  Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and a housing activist, claims that there is three times more vacant space in New York City than there are homeless people in the city.  Then why is it that individuals in real estate claim that there isn’t enough supply for the demand?   It is because the people in control of buildings and policies surrounding the housing crisis are looking for the biggest profit available.Rob Robinson, a housing activist and a member of Take Back the Land National Movement, states that along society has to change their views about the homeless in order to take action against the main cause of homelessness in New York City: not mental illness, not alcoholism, not chemical addiction, not a lack of education, but a lack of affordable housing available [2].

A lot of this vacant space could be used to build up affordable housing or assisted living, instead of creating policies that establish affordable housing that will end in a number of years.  These vacant spaces could be developed into permanent affordable housing that would allow the homeless in New York City. Frank Morales brings up the solution of taking the money spent on shelters and move it into funds for renovating these vacant spaces on behalf of the homeless [2].  The report, “Banking on Vacancy: Homelessness and Real Estate Speculation” states, “Picture the homeless members decry the amount of money spent on shelter, especially as compared to the absence of money spent on housing development or rental assistance for the very poor [3]”.  The report goes on further to say that in 2010, the city’s budget for Housing Preservation and Development, about $489 million, was only 63% of what they city spent on providing shelters to homeless individuals, $773 million.  Yet the only true way to abolish homelessness, is to provide individuals who are homeless with the proper housing, which the vacant spaces so easily provide if renovated.  These vacant lots could also be used to create manufacturing businesses which creates availability in the job market which will also help the homeless and lower income populations.

Essentially, society needs to hang up its enormous capitalist mentality that allows landowners and real estate speculators to develop huge profits by letting vacant spaces remain vacant and renovate these spaces to allow for individuals who are homeless or living doubled or tripled up in single apartment buildings, to live comfortably.

This issue affects Red Hook directly, because, as seen in the town, there were many unused lots. At the CB6 meeting, a BID and IBZ were proposed to solve this issue; however, there is the problem of deciding whether the lots would be better used as manufacturing plants, or housing complexes. Furthermore, the community is concerned about the coexistence of industrial and residential space. In 1996, Red Hook and Community Board 6 adopted a 197a plan, which is basically a plan for community-based growth and regeneration. The goal of this plan, among other things, was to create opportunities for improved housing, to avoid conflict between the industrial and the residential, and to expand the residential sector [5]. This plan has been slowly but surely implemented. As an example of a success due to this plan, the Sullivan Street Hotel was converted to public housing and reopened in 2000. Though, much more needs to be done housing-wise. Most of Red Hook’s population is poorly oriented socio-economically, so affordable housing is a must.The current largest affordable housing complex in New York, the Red Hook Houses, is not enough to sustain all of those that need it.  Given this fact, why is land so underutilized in Red Hook, especially when the Community Board would like to expand the residential and when so many people need affordable housing? The original 197a plan, which to reiterate, is the basis for current neighborhood regeneration efforts, asserts that it stems from historical factors, such as the “actual and perceived isolation of Red Hook, the decline of the maritime industry, and the general lack of  economic opportunities and services for low income residents [5]” Though this report was written almost 20 years ago, much remains the same in Red Hook; this is obvious from our neighborhood observations. Clearly, much must be done in terms of public policy in order to continue the pursuit of affordable housing and the efficient usage of land.  However, it is not only in terms of housing that vacant land is a problem in Red Hook. Vacant lots in Red Hook are magnets for unsanitary garbage dumping, which not only detracts from the neighborhood aesthetic, but also negatively impacts the environment. Most of the garbage is not biodegradable, and thus the litter is dangerous for wildlife, plantlife, and the overall ecology of the neighborhood. Though dumping is illegal, enforcement of these environmental regulations is inadequate [5]. Something must be done with the vacant lots; having them sit there as virtual garbage dumps does nothing to promote economic and social growth in the neighborhood, which it desperately needs. Local government must continue the implementation of the 197a plan, which has had some success in attracting investment to Red Hook and combatting the perception of its isolation [6]. This is evident by the recent growth of small businesses in the area. This must continue, with the commercial, industrial, and residential working in harmony to encourage Red Hook’s growth. Through the channel of public policy this is certainly obtainable, as the neighborhood progresses and improves since the original 197a plan was passed in 1996.

 

Sources

[1] http://marketurbanism.com/2014/05/29/how-affordable-housing-policies-backfire/

[2]  Uneven Growth NYC. Cohabitation Strategies, 2014. Online.

[3]   Picture the Homeless. 2012. Banking on Vacancy: Homelessness and Real Estate Speculation.

[4] http://livinglotsnyc.org/#11/40.7300/-73.9900

[5] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/community_planning/bk6_red_hook_197a.pdf

[6] http://www.brooklyncb6.org/

Reading Response 7

Posted on by
Reply

The Gowanus and Red Hook has been noted for its low-income public housing complex for around three thousand residents; when hurricane Sandy struck a lot of buildings were damaged from the inside and out. It took a while before the water was drained, damaged was assessed, and power was restored. This delay had a severe consequence on the residents in the Gowanus. Some of the residents were unable to use their medical equipments without the electricity. The elder residents were trapped on the tops floors surviving off of what remained in their homes. There were some volunteers who helped pass medical supplies, food, and flashlights. However, some buildings still remained powerless even weeks after Sandy hit. Most of the residents did not know when power would come on. Inquires on when the power would return proved fruitless. Most officials of NYCHA didn’t know anything.

Question: Has the city made any improvement in contingency plans for power outages in public housing areas?

Reading Response 6

Posted on by
Reply
Many New Yorkers thought that Hurricane Sandy would be like Hurricane Irene, imperceptible and not nearly as destructive as it actually was. Hurricane Sandy is proof of the major climate changes we are experiencing today. As stated in PlaNYC, annual temperatures may increase by as high as 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020. This increase will also be accompanied by an increase in rainfall and sea levels, slowly drowning NYC.  PlaNYC intends to help prevent these devastating effects from damaging many of NYC’s amenities like transportation. Hurricane Sandy ruined many of the train lines, delaying hundreds of thousands of people that rely exclusively on the train as their means of transportation. PlaNYC intends to employ many strategies to improve our means of transportation. For instance they have created pedestrian islands, which decrease crashes by 34%.
Question: How will Mayor Bill DeBlasio improve NYC’s methods of dealing with destructive natural disasters after they occur?

Red Hook Public Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

 

Red Hook is a fused neighborhood of mainly light density residential zones with heavy manufacturing zones. The Red Hook committee covers the on going daily struggles the community faces; from macro problems such as the unemployment rate, to micro problems like the relations between residents and business owners. The Red Hook committee tackles major issues of unemployment, educational achievement, and poverty levels. The community board also handles urban planning, urban design, and historic preservations. In 1994, the Community Board Six proposed a plan to regenerate the community after issues like unemployment and the low average level of academic achievements. The plan proposed was titled “Red Hook: A Plan for Community Regeneration,” it included the housing needs of the community along with a call for improvements in transportation, education, and employment.

During the community meetings, last February, the Red Hook Central School District part of the Board of Education held a regular meeting organized by President Mosher. The meetings main goal was to plan recreation and educational programming needs.

Some of the board members that attended were D. Morrison, R. McCann, J. Moore, along with K. Mosher. There was a sum of five visitors, including myself, who were allowed to question and make statements during the meeting. Some of their concerns addressed the school’s budget and where the school stands. President Mosher included a student member in the meeting who claimed the school raised over a thousand dollars, and that the student council would work towards bigger projects including a blood drive.

The meeting at Mill Road Elementary School, the school’s budget was mainly covered, together with the funds being spent on sport programs. For instance the pay roll of various coaches in the baseball, softball, track, lacrosse, and tennis team.

Also another community meeting occurred, this time at the Cobble Hill Community Meeting Room. The main topic of discussion covered the improvement at the industrial district and the housing issue. There were four people on the committee from the Red Hook district, however only Andrea Devening attended this meeting. Andrea Devening is part of the economic, waterfront, and housing sect. The discussion started with housing, what spaces and lots were available for housing. Then it shifted to “job creation at the Gowanus.”

John Douglas from Pratt Institute showed a presentation that explored the idea of an industrial bid. He went into details about the manufacturing policies around the Bid. The Bid would act like a bridge between the residential and manufacturing districts. The Bid would encourage the growth of the area, boosting the manufacturing causing an economic multiplier, more than retail and other economic engines. Ten percent of jobs come from manufacturing, this is important for job security.

However the push for the Bid is not so straightforward, as there is intense real estate pressure to change the area from manufacturing to residential and housing. Plus the district is a flood prone area; especially after Hurricane Sandy a lot of machinery and expensive equipment were damaged. Overall the meeting ended with a plan to survey if there was interest within the community to form a Bid.

Gentrification

Posted on by
Reply

Gentrification is an economic, cultural, political, social, and institutional circumstance. The main parties are the state that implicated the process as a disinvestor and investor, the private institutions, and the pioneer gentrifiers. Gentrification displaces the working class; it is termed as the replacement of an existing population by the gentry. To change the connotation of gentrification, alternative terms became popular for example brown stoning, homesteading, and revitalization.

Gentrification began in the U.S. and Britain during the postwar urban renewal when old neighborhoods were bulldozed and replaced by modern housing and highways. This eradication led to protests, from historians, architecture buffs, and young middle class families. During my second seminar class and honors English class, we covered gentrification and housing development in NYC, specifically during Robert Moses’ reign. One of the most criticized and heinous crimes done against one of the largest and finest landmarks is the demolition of Penn Station. Protestors quoted “Don’t amputate-renovate.” How would mixed-income housing mollify gentrification?