A Brief Overview of the Issue

Overcrowding has been an issue in NYC since the dumbbell tenements were marketed to working-class immigrants. Sunset Park’s brand is not much different. The neighborhood on the west end of Brooklyn contains 126,000 people and 38,000 available housing units. 34,000 children live in Sunset Park, but the neighborhood only has about seven schools (District 15 has more, but they lie outside the neighborhood boundaries). [1] The student-teacher ratio for the district is 14:1, higher than the NYC Metro area ratio of 13:1; the district also has only 27,000 students attending schools, meaning many Sunset Park children must be leaving the neighborhood to attend school. [2] According to the Furman Center, it’s the second most overcrowded neighborhood in the city, and the issue does not show any signs of halting.

1. Niche’s map reports seven schools in Sunset Park; NYC DoE reports five.
2. https://k12.niche.com/d/new-york-city-geographic-district-no-15-ny/

Continue reading →

Following our research on Gentrification, we found it to be a historic-socioeconomic force that displaced lower-income residents as the line of gentrification pushed through an area—which, eventually, through rent prices rising exponentially, even the pioneer gentrifiers could no longer afford to stay. With this in mind, we’ve crafted a proposal comprised of five points that seeks to stop or at least abate the displacement caused by gentrification moving into the Crown Heights area. Working off of the types of plans and proposals being offered by tenant organizations, we’ve crafted our plan with the aims of these organizations in mind, namely: keeping people in their homes.

Continue reading →

By East Harlem Group-Fatema Arafa, Sara Brown, Julia Buczynski, & Christian Budhi

Currently in New York City, the types of policing being enforced are stop-and-frisk as well as “broken windows.” In the past, there were two other forms of policing called “zero tolerance” and “quality of life.” During the 1990s, “zero tolerance” and “quality of life” were adopted by New York City.  “Zero tolerance” involves police officers focusing on areas with high crime rates, and arresting those committing any minor crimes.  These arrests can also be made when the officer is suspicious of any criminal activity occurring, and there are no warnings given to those committing the crime.  The problem with this form of policing is that many people who have been arrested were falsely accused of the crimes.  Also, the city does state that the cases are usually dropped but there have been many instances where the minor crime is still on a person’s record and can adversely affect their careers.  The Legal Action Center revealed that of the 2500 cases of criminal records, half have been incorrectly filed in the computer, meaning that half of those cases do not show that they were dismissed (Staples, 2012).

“Quality of life” policing is closely related to “zero tolerance” and it involves arresting those who have committed both non-criminal and minor offenses (INCITE, n.d.).  “Quality of life” is also a form of community policing.  Police officers focus on the crimes that show “social disorder” (What-When-How, n.d.). Some of these include loitering, sleeping in public areas, and littering.

“Broken windows” policing was adopted by Mayor Bill De Blasio, and it also stems from “quality of life” policing.  This form of policing focuses on arresting for misdemeanors in order to prevent larger crimes from occurring.  The problem with this form of policing is that it targets minority communities.  It also led to the death of Eric Garner, a man who was selling untaxed cigarettes on the street, and who was arrested and put into a chokehold by a police officer.  He was unable to breathe from the chokehold, and this resulted in his death (Sneed, 2014).

Currently, stop-and-frisk is a major form of policing in New York City.  Stop-and-frisk policing allows an officer to stop anyone on the street if they are showing any suspicious activity.  The officer is then allowed to search the person in order to see if they are in possession of anything illegal and arrest them if they are.  Stop-and-frisk targets minority neighborhoods in NYC.  Racial profiling is also occurring when the officers are out on the streets looking for any suspicious activity.  According to the New York State Attorney General, only three percent of the stop-and-frisks carried out end with the person being convicted of the crime.

The policy of stop-and-frisk has been a controversial form of policing in recent years in New York City.  It has also led to the distrust between the communities and the police.  This form of policing was constituted in 1968, during which the Supreme Court case Terry vs. Ohio introduced the idea of justifiable pedestrian searches.  This case involved a NYC police officer who observed two men by a convenience store because he believed that they were going to perform a robbery based on their suspicious activity.  When the officer approached the men and searched them, he found a weapon that was concealed by one of the men, John W. Terry.  After this occurred, the Supreme Court agreed to allow police officers to perform a search when there is a justifiable reason for the officer to stop and frisk that individual.

The issue with these policies is the heavy reliance on racial profiling as well as targeting of minorities like LGBT, immigrants…etc. In fact, In 2011, an estimated 686,000 people were stopped, the majority of them being African American and Latino.  The New York Civil Liberties Union compiled a stop and frisk data based on the NYPD’s periodic public report of its stop and frisk activity. From the 685,724 people stopped, 53 % were African American, 32% were Latinos, 9% were white, and 51% were aged from 14 years old to 24 years old. Out of the 686,000 people halted, 89% were free from crime, and, according to NYPD’s reports, 9 out of the 10 who were stopped and frisked were innocent. In other words, this shows the stop and frisk programs are based on racial profiling, and how the stop and frisk program may not be as fruitful as many seem to think (Sneed, 2014).

Stop and Frisk is not an issue that is confined to New York City, or to New York State, it is a national problem. In order to redress the issues of Stop and Frisk on the state, city and locally in East Harlem, we must address it nationally. What is the national solution to Stop and Frisk? A solution that requires “anti-racial profiling and police accountability measures (NAACP, 2014)”

In a study conducted by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), they found that only 30 states out of 50 clearly outlaw racial profiling, 30 states have laws that condone racial profiling, and only 17 states prohibit traffic stops that are unfounded. They also found that only 17 states prohibit breaking their anti-racial profiling laws, only 3 states “allow individuals to seek injunctive relief to stop officers or police departments from racial profiling”, 17 states mandate the gathering of information on all stops and searches and only 15 require the study and disclosure of such data and finally only 17 states investigate racial profiling complaints by mandating the formation of commissions for such a task. These findings show that many states in the United States have inadequate laws against racial profiling and some even condone racial profiling in their laws.

Why do so many states condone the use of racial profiling? Mayor Bloomberg justified Stop and Frisk’s reliance on racial profiling by claiming that, of those stopped by police, 90 percent of crimes documented were committed by black and Hispanic men. Yet, racial profiling does not lead to a deterrence in crime. For instance, a 1998 lawsuit against Maryland police showed that 73% of those stopped and frisked on the highway were African American even though they only made up 20% of the population. In addition, they found that of the African Americans stopped, none were more likely to be carrying drugs or weapons than other races.  This case like many others shows that racial profiling is an ineffective tool against crime and a national solution is needed.

“Despite the gravity of abuses and the sad history of racial profiling in America, the country has yet to pass meaningful federal legislation to deal with the problem effectively[ii].” The fourth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution protect against racial profiling. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the fourteenth amendment prohibits denial of rights to any individual or group. Unfortunately, many cases have resulted in the weakening of these amendments. The solution is to pass a federal law that ends racially-based profiling in Stop and Frisk as well as other law enforcement policies. This was the goal of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which was brought up in both houses of Congress. Despite numerous attempts, this bill still has not been passed. In order for police policies like Stop and Frisk to be effective, they cannot be biased against any one race, gender, or other minority. Such racially profiled policies have resulted in a disconnect between police and communities around the nation. Through the passage of ERPA, racial profiling would have been prohibited at all levels of government, a plan for the gathering and monitoring of racial profiling data as well as sanctions against transgression of the law would have been put into place.

Undoubtedly, a federal solution to racial profiling is only one step in addressing the issue in NYC, and specifically in East Harlem. In order for Stop and Frisk to be an effective tool against crime, there also need to be state, city and local solutions to the issues underlying stop and frisk. These solutions coupled with a federal law like ERPA, which will ensure police accountability and criminalize racial profiling will have a profound impact on police and citizens alike, reducing crime as police and citizens begin to trust one another.

In fact, since the mayoral election in 2013, we’ve watched a significant decrease in the rate of Stop-and-Frisks in New York City from 191,558 reported stops to only 46,235 in the entire city; that is just over a 75% drop. Considering that the crime rate didn’t see such a significant change as that, it’s easy to say that the Stop-and-Frisk policy was considerably ineffective. Even looking at past data, throughout the years we’ve seen the rate of Stop-and-Frisks change drastically —  from year to year from over 600,000 in 2011 to the 46,000 we saw in 2014 — while the crime rate has remained the same throughout those years. The Bloomberg Administration has also claimed that there has been a decrease in crime rate since the introduction of Stop-and-Frisk, but that ignores the fact that there was already a significant steady decline in the crime rate since the 1980s in New York.

The main issue surrounding Stop-and-Frisk is the idea of racial profiling and police aggression through a policy that has proven to be ineffective. One proposed plan involves retraining officers to prevent the targeting of young black and latino men. Along with that, there should also be an increase in accountability for the officers in cases that are conducive of  profiling. This would allow for officers to be more aware of how they are evaluating people and might possibly decrease the cases of racial profiling.

One disadvantage of the Stop-and-Frisk policy is the police quota that officers have to abide by. By presenting officers with a quota it forces them to look for trouble and sometimes not necessarily in the right places. Abolishing this quota, or at least reforming it would do a great deal of positive change in the eyes of racially profiled individuals. There wouldn’t be a need to find people to stop and there would be more focus on other things for officers. Reforming the quota to not only looking at the number of stops but also the constitutionality of the stops would also provide a positive change; giving specific reasons to the stops along with the number of stops would be really helpful. We already have a system for recording the reasons for Stop-and-Frisks, but the system is very generalized and needs to be more specific.  

Stop-and-Frisk particularly affects East Harlem, where the majority of residents are black and Hispanic. Out of every neighborhood throughout the city, East Harlem has the greatest number of stops, with over 17,000 stops total in 2011. Almost half of those stops were cited as suspicion of illegal weapon possession, though many of them found no evidence of such firearms.

The NYPD’s focus on East Harlem is no surprise. East Harlem has higher proportions of black and Hispanic residents than in NYC overall, with 55% of the population being Hispanic, and 33% black. Furthermore, East Harlem residents are younger than the New York City population overall, with over 30% of the citizens of ages between 25 and 44. For a policy that historically targets young males of color, East Harlem presents ample opportunity for racially charged policing.

It’s clear that stop-and-frisk policy is based upon racial profiling. The result in East Harlem is a population of local residents who feel attacked by the very people charged with protecting them. Salaam Ellis, an East Harlem local and protestor in the “Stand Up, East Harlem” protest summed up the feeling of many residents, “I feel like the police are not here to protect me, if anything they are here to harass me, humiliate me, and make my life more difficult.”

Stop-and-frisk has become such a problem in the community in part because of a lack of accountability of the NYPD, who often abuse their power to search any “suspicious” characters. To prevent this major problem from continuing in East Harlem, the requirement of body camera on all NYPD officers should be instilled across the department. When police officer abuse of power holds consequences and can be seen by the public, cases of unlawful stop and frisk and police brutality will occur in far fewer numbers. This is an ideal solution because the cameras will not prevent the officers from responding quickly in emergency situations, unlike many proposed solutions, which require officers to check with a superior before taking any extreme actions. With a body-camera, officers are free to respond in any way they deem appropriate while being held accountable for the actions they take. However, this cannot be the only solution as proven by the Eric Garner case where an explicit video had been presented but was overlooked during the hearing. Other cases show the benefit of using body cameras. In South Carolina, a white police officer is being charged with murder for shooting a fleeing and unarmed 50 year old male named Walter Scott 8 times in the back, which was caught on camera.

In addition to ensuring that the police do not abuse their power through racial profiling, we need to ensure that the distribution of police throughout the neighborhoods of New York City do not place disproportionate amount of cops in East Harlem. East Harlem has historically had a bad reputation for a high rate of crime, but the reputation unfounded. In fact, the crime rate in East Harlem is 31 percent lower than the national average. There is no justifiable reason for the rate of stop-and-frisk to be so prevalent in the area, especially compared to other Manhattan boroughs. Decreasing the amount of police patrol in the area will drastically decrease tensions between the NYPD and East Harlem residents.

Not only will these new procedures prevent the unnecessary frisking of hundreds of innocent East Harlem residents, but will dramatically decrease tensions between the police force and the residents who feel under siege as well.

[i] Ana, Joanes, “Does the New York City Police Department Deserve Credit for the Decline in New Yorks City’s Homicide Rates-A Cross-City Comparison of Policing Strategies and Homicide Rates.” Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. 33 (1999): 265.

[ii]Staples, Brent. “The Human Cost of ‘Zero Tolerance.’” 28 April. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[iii]INCITE! “”Quality of Life” Policing.” (n.d.) Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[iv]What-When-How. “Quality-of-Life Policing.” (n.d.) Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

[v]New York State Office of the Attorney General. “A Report on Arrests Arising From the New York City Police Department’s Stop-And-Frisk Practices.” Web. November 2013. http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/OAG_REPORT_ON_SQF_PRACTICES_NOV_2013.pdf

[vi]Sneed, Tierney. “From Ferguson to Staten Island, Questions About Broken Window Policing.” Web. August 14, 2014.

[vii]“Born Suspect.”NAACP. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. http://naacp.3cdn.net/9312d4a4f8ed7681ff_fnm6b22xw.pdf

[viii]“Soapbox Derby, Stick Ball and Double-Dutch Coming to Thomas Jefferson Park.” DNAinfo New York. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150424/east-harlem/soapbox-derby-stick-ball-double-dutch-coming-thomas-jefferson-park>.

[ix]“Residents of East Harlem – Manhattan’s Most Stopped-and-Frisked Neighborhood.” The Bronx Defenders. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. <http://www.bronxdefenders.org/residents-of-east-harlem-manhattans-most-stopped-and-frisked-neighborhood/>.

[x]Harris, David. “Ten Steps Bill de Blasio and Bill Bratton Should Take to Fix Stop-and-Frisk”. The Nation. 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.thenation.com/article/177683/ten-steps-bill-de-blasio-and-bill-bratton-should-take-fix-stop-and-frisk>.

[xi]Bostock, Mike. Fessenden, Ford. “‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Is All but Gone From New York”. The New York Times. 19 Sep. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/19/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-is-all-but-gone-from-new-york.html?_r=0>.

[xii]“Stop-and-Frisk Data”. New York Civil Liberties Union. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data>.

[xiii]Bump, Philip. “New York Has Essentially Eliminated Stop-and-Frisk — and Crime Is Still Down”. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/03/new-york-has-essentially-eliminated-stop-and-frisk-and-crime-is-still-down/>.

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.