Letters to the editor

Volume One, Issue 17, January 19 - 25, 2007

Letters to the editor

Weiss let us down on toll

To The Editor:
Re “Time to Back Up: Fix Verrazano Toll” (editorial, Jan. 6):

While you recounted the history of the establishment of the one-way Verrazano Bridge toll in 1986, you omitted mention of our then five-term representative in Congress, Ted Weiss. The two people who steered it through Congress were Republicans, Rep. Molinari and Sen. D’Amato. Although he had a Democratic Congress in office, Weiss was impotent in his efforts to stop this bill, this despite his district being the only one negatively affected by the change. Weiss was so far left of even the most liberal Democrats that he was powerless to effect any legislation.

Harry Malakoff

Close inclusionary loopholes

To The Editor:
Re “Movin’ on up? Not so likely if developers get their way” (news article, Jan. 12):

Lawrence Lerner’s article aptly illustrates some of the pitfalls of the city’s policy of relying upon private developers to produce much-needed affordable housing.

The city’s Inclusionary Housing Program conditions the creation of much of our affordable housing upon the building of much larger amounts of luxury, market-rate housing by private developers. This system is therefore open to manipulation by developers whose primary (and in some cases only) concern is to maximize profits, making shenanigans such as those described in the article — where affordable units are segregated, in violation of the intention of the program — unsurprising. But the program itself is also flawed, as it actually creates incentives for pushing the affordable housing off-site by allowing developers to build 25 percent more luxury housing if they don’t include the required affordable housing on site.

A program such as this will require constant vigilance by the public to ensure that it is carried out appropriately and equitably.

Andrew Berman
Berman is a public member of Community Board 4’s Affordable Housing Task Force.

Seminary deserves a break

To The Editor:
Re “Does new seminary housing plan have a prayer?” (news article, Jan. 5):

The issue regarding the seminary’s proposed building on Ninth Ave. is straightforward. It’s all about height: 75 feet or die. The devotion of Tom Duane, Christine Quinn and some of the residents living around the seminary to the 75-foot zoning is understandable. They fought hard to get it, and the Chelsea Historic District is better for it.

When the C.H.D. was created in 1970, no height restriction was placed on new buildings. At that time, the exclusive concern was the threat of inappropriate architecture replacing historic buildings, which would have created a boxy urban cityscape similar to that of midtown. Believing its 800,000 square feet of development rights were safe, the seminary cautiously agreed to join the C.H.D. with one condition: that a special consideration be given solely to the seminary should it need future development.

Over the next 30 thirty years, the seminary sat quietly while new zoning laws stripped it of its main asset: its development rights. No other property owner was as deeply affected. Rezoning took nearly 75 percent of the seminary’s asset, leaving it with 250,000 square feet of development rights. In the interest of the community, the seminary never tried to block the neighbors and elected officials during their march to rezoning Chelsea, although the seminary had every right to protect its primary endowment.

Today, G.T.S. is trying to survive by selling its remaining development rights and making good on the special consideration it got from the city. After much thought, the best survival course was charted, premised on that deal. For those who doubt the seminary’s dire financial situation, I suggest reading the volumes of financial reports that were made public last year. Anyone who thinks they won’t be forced to sell the campus to a developer should the building plan be denied are only fooling themselves. If the seminary were to close, it will be the result of a zoning law that pointedly reduced the seminary’s net worth and limited its property rights at the same time.

The privileged opposition to this project promotes a sort of tyranny that intentionally prevents the survival of a progressive religious institution by limiting the sale of its property and breaking G.T.S.’s covenant with the city. The seminary merely wants to build a modest building by selling what it owns and by exercising that earlier agreement.

Tatiana Carayannis