The Repurposing of the Armory at Bedford and UNION

Interesting article about one of the many demands holding up the project: request that the developer be a local MWBE

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/diversify-real-estate-new-york-emerging-developer-loan-fund

  

Most developers that are large enough to take on a project of this scale do not have identities that are tied to race or gender.

https://commercialobserver.com/2016/06/ten-at-work-the-top-construction-firms-of-new-york-city/

EDC (and BFC) is not going to be forced into awarding the contract to an entity without a track record of accomplishing such a project.   

Bedford Courts has now published a newsletter, stating the dates of past community listening sessions....

http://files.constantcontact.com/3d484e69501/9acba002-bbef-4b43-adcc-d517e1ab3736.pdf

Meanwhile the affordable housing activists are looking for someone (anyone!?) with money to change the existing economic realities.

yesbrooklyn said:

There's a meeting tmrw about this at Jesse Hamilton's office 6pm.  Last one I went to with him he literally said that the reason Crown Heights was gentrifying so rapidly was because black landlords needed to exclusively rent to black people and this wasn't happening... 

1669 Bedford Ave. 6pm

wow, what the fuck. that's totally illegal and he would obviously know it

isn't the simpler argument that black native crown heighsters need to stop cashing out on their houses and selling to developers/investors/etc? ...but it's a free country and you can sell to whoever you want for whatever you want. undoubtedly the people who have sold for a huge profit wouldn't spare this cause a backwards glance

Spofford is being re-developed by developers from outside of "it's community" as well.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20161028/hunts-point/spofford-mwbe-de-blasio-major-carter

It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 

I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 

If I believed that activism and obstruction had a chance of raising some cash from an outside source to subsidize this project, I would support them.

However, I do not.

...I believe that now is the best time to build, and that this project has to be self sustaining.

It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 

I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 

Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them.

I understand the discomfort in not being able to stay where you currently live or not being able to move back to where you grew up, but why can't that just part of life?

We lived in Park Slope for a several years (I'm from Brooklyn originally as well). We could not afford to buy a home there. We were "pushed out" further by the ripple effect that has beset New York (and esp Brooklyn) real estate for the last 10 years. Should we be complaining, marching, protesting, etc. because we didn't get to stay in the neighborhood we liked most? 

If you would like do, you certainly can.

However, others do not have to come to your aid.

Preach @Jong very similar scenario here!  Very tired of the local moaning and entitlement

Should we guess how long it will be before Scott Stringer makes an appearance in front of the armory, stating it is a lost opportunity to hire a MWBE contractor?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/nyregion/stringer-faults-mayor-de-blasio-again-as-2017-race-nears.html

http://www.bkreader.com/2016/09/town-hall-forum-takes-funding-discrimination-minority-women-owned-small-business-nyc/

I place my bet on whatever you say, @whynot_31

There is a lot to unpack here. I will be back.

Cumbo is trying to keep some version of the present deal alive:  http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/cumbo-calls-meeting-minds-bedford-union-armory/

While Richardson is calling for it to be killed:

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Bedford-Union-Armory----Affordability-That-Is--Too-Big-To-Lose-.html?soid=1120353893479&aid=HxVvZUsHY9o

However, readers may recall that this site is under control of the city, not the state.

So, while Richardson may be vocally opposed her voice does not carry a lot of weight because she is a state rep, whereas Cumbo is a city one...

 

Note:  I include this screen shot to show the she seems to actually like and support this article, as opposed to it being something that does not represent her views.

Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

uglyfloorlamp said:

It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 

I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 

While race and class tend to get conflated, it can get tricky to detangle them from one another and look at them separately, especially when a generation ago, the aspect of race was emphasized regardless of social class (e.g. redlining). 

I proposed to city officials that the space be turned into a rec center mangaged and operated by YMCA, or a city fitness company. We need to fight adult and childhood obesity. There is plenty of space in other parts of the city to provide housing of all kinds for people.

iamahmadrabah said:

I proposed to city officials that the space be turned into a rec center mangaged and operated by YMCA, or a city fitness company. We need to fight adult and childhood obesity. There is plenty of space in other parts of the city to provide housing of all kinds for people.

The nearest NYC Parks rec center is at 1251 Prospect Place, Brooklyn, NY 11213. That's all the way on the other side of the neighborhood. 

Having a stand alone rec center isn't an option unless you can find an entity to subsidize it. The Parks Department, Police Athletic League, and YMCA don't seem to have a budget line that says "open new rec center and operate at a loss". The prices would have to be on par with (or more than) a for profit gym. (Labor, not rent, are the primary costs of such facilities)

I called Councilwoman Cumbos office and had a nice chat.  We must tell her that 100% affordable does not make sense, will kill the deal, and the plus the argument that it'll be for the neighborhood and needs to match the neighborhood's AMI (40k per year) is null and void when the lottery will pull (50% anyway) from OUTSIDE this area.  

The pro 100% affordable people are killing the deal and are a small but LOUD minority.  

Please join me in calling her office to rep the other side: 718-260-9191

mugofmead111 said:

Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

I do believe that unions are the enemy once they evolve into lobbying groups with selfish causes. See: Alternate side parking.

Marco555 said:

mugofmead111 said:

Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

I do believe that unions are the enemy once they evolve into lobbying groups with selfish causes. See: Alternate side parking.

What's the problem with alternate side parking? 

It's natural to come together to lobby for a cause that is in someone's self-interest.

crownedheightsma said:

I called Councilwoman Cumbos office and had a nice chat.  We must tell her that 100% affordable does not make sense, will kill the deal, and the plus the argument that it'll be for the neighborhood and needs to match the neighborhood's AMI (40k per year) is null and void when the lottery will pull (50% anyway) from OUTSIDE this area.  

The pro 100% affordable people are killing the deal and are a small but LOUD minority.  

How small of a minority is "small"?

@mugofmead111 hard to say but when you're angry and feel entitled you tend to get louder and seem bigger than you are...

For the sake of argument, I am willing to state that a majority of local residents would like to get more benefit from the armory than the plan will provide.

However, this is not a democratic process and merely having lots of people in favor won't get anything built.

It will be built according to a plan that has money attached, and EDC approval.

At present, the "make it all affordable" plan has neither.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/assemblywoman-who-allegedly-hit-son-with-broomstick-arrested/

She's a big kill the deal proponent

crownedheightsma said:

@mugofmead111 hard to say but when you're angry and feel entitled you tend to get louder and seem bigger than you are...

Do you mean like MTOPP? 

As a result of thinking of the revitalized armory as being "neighborhood infrastructure", I think this article fits here.

http://www.brickunderground.com/live/why-infrastructure-cant-keep-up-with-gentrification