S T O P   V I T O   ! ! !

A Grassroots Community Coalition

to Improve Brooklyn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release:  June 28, 2007

VETO VITO:

A Joint Statement from

former Congressman Major Owens

and

New Brooklyn Leadership Chair Chris Owens

• We call on the State Legislature to amend the election laws of New York State to prohibit those who hold public office from also serving as members of the State Committee or County Leaders for a political party.  The unholy alliance of money and political power can no longer be supported.  There must be a separation of the public sector from the partisan political sector and there must be a greater system of checks and balances within each political party. 

• We call on the Kings County Democratic Committee to immediately implement rules that prohibit the selection of a public elected official to Chair the Executive Committee of the Party, and to endorse legislation prohibiting public officials at all levels of government from also holding elected Party positions. 

• And we call upon New York State Assemblymember Vito Lopez to lead the way by immediately resigning either his office or his position as Chairman of the Kings County Democratic Committee and member of the State Committee of the New York State Democratic Party. 

• Furthermore, we call on Judge Shawndya Simpson to voluntarily end her candidacy, supported by Assemblymember Vito Lopez, for a seat on the Kings County Surrogate Court bench.

• Finally, we call on the Black elected officials in Kings County to step up and protect the real interests of their communities.

---------------------------------

It is time to confront the culture that undermines public policy in New York State.  While middle class and poor New Yorkers are in need of sensible initiatives to protect their families and empower them economically, the corporate power brokers have escalated their war on the people.  It is sadly ironic to hear the speeches about fighting poverty and to watch city bureaucracies shuffled when the cost of housing for a working family has skyrocketed with no end in sight – supported by City decisions.  Simultaneously, despite the clamor for reforms within our political institutions, change is dependent upon individuals who prefer comfort within an oppressive status quo than the freedom of true representation for the people of New York.

Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than within the Democratic Party itself – New York City’s dominant political party and now the State’s as well.  Party leaders decry the lack of affordable housing, yet they enable, continue and support economic projects and policies that will only reduce the affordability of housing within New York City over the next few decades.  Rather than meeting the demand for housing by checking the marketplace, today’s Democrats embrace the crush of capitalism and throw up their hands in surrender when confronted with the inevitable harm to their own constituents.  The creation of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project is a massive consequence of this disastrous behavior.  The housing legislation recently passed in Albany now compounds the damage by providing the developer with an additional windfall of potentially $100 million at the expense of all New Yorkers. 

Assemblyman Lopez, who has built a taxpayer-supported empire through housing and senior citizen programs, allowed this outrage to take place.  And, without the consultation of supposed allies and colleagues, he made additional modifications to important housing legislation.  The combination of his seniority in the Assembly with his position as County Leader in America’s most Democratic County put him in a position to ensure support for his work from compliant colleagues within the Assembly.  Where were the voices of reason?  Eager to end the legislative session, we assume, and eager to have a sexy housing program on their political resumes.  So it is now up to Governor Spitzer to do the right thing and veto Vito’s legislation as it currently stands.

Democratic and Republican Party leaders defend their political roles in selecting judges -- judges who influence the lives of millions of New York State residents.  The Party leaders dismiss concerns regarding corruption as cyclical and inherent to any judicial selection system.  This should not surprise us when these same leaders cannot create a sensible and safe system for casting votes in elections.  Directly or indirectly, corruption maximizes the influence of the powerful …so corruption is tolerated.  Yet, here in New York, even the judges themselves have spoken out against these corrupting influences and have demanded a better selection system than that which exists in Kings County today, for example.

Throughout the last 50 years of Brooklyn’s political history, on matters of economic equity and political empowerment, the most reactionary forces have been rooted in the southernmost portion of our borough.  The Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club, a well-organized and well-funded political organization, has been an integral part of the political oppression of non-whites within Kings County and worse.  Unfortunately, Assemblymember Lopez, in his role as leader of the Kings County Democratic Party, has chosen to combine the weight of his taxpayer-supported empire with the political prowess of the Jefferson Club at a time when there are fewer checks and balances than ever before.  For some years, the Coalition for Community Empowerment  – an association of African American public and party elected officials as well as community leaders organized around certain guiding principles -- provided a counterweight on the excesses of the Democratic Party.  The CCE has evaporated and the new generation of African American political leaders has built nothing in its place.

In 2005, the incumbent judge of the Surrogate Court was removed from office.  A replacement was needed and a campaign commenced to fill this seat.  Three quality judges competed for this seat – one was white, one was African American, one was Hispanic.  Any of these judges would serve well.  Brooklyn was politically split.  Judge Margarita Lopez Torres (no relation to Vito Lopez), was clearly the “poster child” for the movement to reform our judiciary system and her election to the seat was perceived as an important step forward for the system.  She won a very close election.  By becoming involved with the contest, however, Assemblymember Lopez only enhanced the greater community’s concerns regarding judicial integrity in Brooklyn and, unfortunately, his “support” tainted the 2005 candidacy of one of the other Surrogate candidates, Judge Diana Johnson, who finished second in the race. 

Hoping to ensure that the judicial election would not upset the traditional male, white and politically-beholden presence on this Court, Assemblymember Lopez and his concurring accomplices created a new, second judgeship within the Kings County Surrogate Court before the Surrogate primary election even took place, circumventing the voters of Brooklyn.  It was an unabashed effort to keep control of a position that had been a patronage mill and a source of revenue for powerful allies of Lopez and the Jefferson Club.  They succeeded by installing a political hack and Assembly colleague, Frank Seddio  – who happened to be white -- into this position.  The hack got into trouble almost before he was inaugurated and resigned from the seat earlier this year.

As an eminently qualified and experienced jurist and a candidate who received only a hundred or so votes fewer than Judge Lopez Torres, Judge Diana Johnson decided this year to again seek a Surrogate Court judicial seat after Seddio’s resignation.  Johnson went through the process of speaking with elected officials, party officials and community leaders.  She made herself available at meetings to discuss her candidacy long before the nominating petition process was to commence.  And, like us, many people who supported Judge Lopez Torres in 2005 felt that Judge Johnson deserved the opportunity to serve on the court and chose to support her candidacy – except, inexplicably, for Assemblymember Lopez.  There were other candidates – all white -- whose names were circulated for the seat and rumoured to be Lopez’s choices.  One of these candidates also attended meetings but had not earned any endorsements – or at least none of significance.

When it became clear that Judge Johnson was in a strong position to win the upcoming Democratic Primary election without depending upon the Party structure as she had in 2005, Assemblymember Lopez and the Jefferson Club concocted or agreed to participate in a scheme to ensure, again, that at least one Surrogate was extra friendly to them or could be chalked up as political capital on their side.  This unholy alliance is made possible by the fact that there is an ambitious Civil Court Judge whose family has access to an immense amount of money to spend on a campaign.  Supposedly rejecting the unspoken and unwritten incentive of elevation to the Supreme Court – a process currently controlled by Assemblymember Lopez as the Democratic County Leader – Civil Court Judge Shawndya Simpson has now decided at the last minute to work with Lopez and campaign for Surrogate against Judge Diana Johnson. 

Most importantly, Judge Simpson is also African American.  Simpson’s concern may be that an opportunity to move to Supreme Court – a personal goal -- may never exist since there are few anticipated vacancies and much competition, particularly from other African American sitting Civil Court judges.  This concern would be rooted in the fact that the County Leader currently controls the Supreme Court nomination process and would utilize his own preferences in orchestrating elevations – preferences that might not include her.  Whether Assemblymember Lopez said so or not, Judge Simpson and her husband obviously perceive assisting Lopez as being in her best interest in the long run.  And, if Simpson happens to win the Surrogate Court position, she believes that she has not hurt herself in the short run either.

If the Coalition for Community Empowerment existed today, no County Leader would dare to make such a move as Lopez has made.  And no Black candidate – particularly a less-inexperienced Judge with a bright future -- would dare to simply toss aside the past and potential future support of Black elected officials and community leaders for a higher office.  Judge Simpson is an intelligent, articulate and attractive individual who earned our support during her first candidacy.  But she has been on the bench all of two years.  Judge Johnson, an equally compelling personality unfairly maligned in the past, has served on the bench for 16 years -- including Supreme Court, Civil Court and Housing Court.  There is a qualitative difference between the candidates here.  In the past, the Black leadership would respect that difference and an effective County Leader would respect the Black leadership.  Judge Johnson now has the support of approximately 90 percent of Brooklyn’s African-American elected officials.  The import of this support is such that Assemblymember Lopez has refused to hold a vote of the Democratic Party’s Executive Committee -- all of the District Leaders -- because he knows that Judge Johnson’s candidacy would be supported by the majority. 

By ostensibly “removing” the race factor from the Surrogate Contest, Assemblymember Lopez is thoroughly disrespecting the community and playing the ultimate race card.  Lopez is simply exploiting the political weakness of the African American community in Brooklyn to further an agenda of domination – an agenda which does not bode well for either for his owns constituents or any Brooklynites in the long run as evidenced by recent housing legislation and a his own long history of taxpayer-funded empire building.  Whether his strategy is effective or not depends upon the voters.

Some have accused Lopez and Simpson of effectively “splitting” the potential Black vote in the Surrogate election, possibly allowing a third candidate who happens to be white to emerge triumphant.  This may or may not be true; only time will tell.  Whether it is true or not, however, the actions of the County Leader are cynical, oppressive and unworthy of a political party whose most loyal members are African American women.

Assemblymember Lopez is not the only County Leader to be in this power position, though the Lopez choices are particularly onerous.  Every borough in New York City has had or currently has a County Leader who also holds public office and State Committeemembers who also hold public office.  This must change if New York City is going to survive as a diverse center of innovation.  If we change the institutional dynamics by separating public and party influences, we can change the politics of our county and City – and it needs to happen now.

Governor Spitzer should veto Vito’s mischief, Judge Simpson should withdraw from the Surrogate Court race, Vito should resign one of his positions and Brooklyn’s communities must, once again, empower themselves and find real leadership to protect their interests.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The bill looked like a shoo-in to pass.

After nearly a year of painstaking analysis and tough negotiations, the Bloomberg administration, the City Council, housing advocates, lenders and real estate developers had hashed out a measure intended to revamp a popular tax-break program so it would generate more relatively affordable housing while restricting subsidies to luxury high-rises like Trump World Tower. It was all done with a minimum of grousing.

Then the bill governing what is known as the 421-a program went to Albany. And suddenly, on the Legislature’s last day in session last week, an amended version passed both houses, extending special tax breaks to the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn and scuttling the city’s efforts to build middle-class housing at Queens West on the East River and other areas. Critics say it could also undermine efforts to build apartments for residents of the city’s most impoverished neighborhoods.

Now the city is asking Gov. Eliot Spitzer to veto the bill if the Bloomberg administration cannot persuade legislators to make substantive changes. What went wrong?

Nearly everything, city officials, Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn and others involved in the negotiations say.

Many supporters of the city’s version are blaming Assemblyman Vito Lopez of Brooklyn, the chairman of the Housing Committee, who introduced the amended bill on June 18 in the frantic four days before the Assembly adjourned.

Mr. Lopez, who did not consult many of the advocates and builders who had worked on the city’s proposal, defended his legislation, saying it aimed at housing for poor and working-class New Yorkers. Middle-class families were just “not as high a priority,” he said.

But many advocates, city officials and even some Senate Republicans are saying that Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, betrayed the city’s effort. By all accounts, Mr. Spinola, the leading industry lobbyist, played a major role in negotiating the compromises and the tax deals for Atlantic Yards and other developments that led to Senate approval.

“This was a backroom deal,” said Liz Krueger, one of only two state senators who voted against the bill.

Some critics also suggested that the Bloomberg administration underestimated the importance of forming alliances with powerful members of the Assembly, in this case Mr. Lopez. Those critics say the city has made that mistake before: In 2005, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver killed the mayor’s plan to build a $2.2 billion football stadium and convention center on the Far West Side of Manhattan.

“We thought we had the makings of a good deal, and we thought it would get modestly better in Albany,” said Brad Lander, director of the Pratt Center for Community Development. “Instead it emerged with a bunch of loopholes.”

City officials contend that Mr. Lopez rebuffed their efforts to engage in meaningful discussions, although the city’s housing commissioner, Shaun Donovan, and Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff testified before his committee. The bill, they say, is seriously flawed.

“We are concerned that the 421-a bill passed by the State Legislature will discourage the construction of affordable housing in some of the city neighborhoods where it is most needed,” Mr. Donovan said. “At the same time it provides hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary tax breaks to a few select developers.”

Mr. Donovan said that Mr. Lopez’s bill would take away the city’s discretion in granting tax benefits for 10,000 middle-income apartments now in the pipeline, including Queens West in Long Island City, and prohibit the city from spending money from a housing fund on 2,000 apartments planned for poor neighborhoods.

The Assembly has not yet sent the Lopez bill to the governor for his signature.

The 421-a housing program was created during a bleak period in the 1970s. It was designed to spur housing development throughout the city by providing developers with an exemption for 10 to 15 years on any increase in real estate taxes after their projects were built. During the real estate boom in the 1980s, the program was revised to require developers in central Manhattan to reserve 20 percent of the units in a building for lower-income people in order to qualify for the tax breaks.

The program generated tens of thousands of apartments for poor and moderate-income families. But it cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues and came under criticism, in the latest boom, as a giveaway for luxury developers in fashionable neighborhoods.

With housing prices soaring across the city, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed a task force early last year to look into additional changes. In December, the City Council passed a plan that significantly extended the areas in which developers had to set aside affordable units in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods like Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, much of Harlem, Williamsburg and Greenpoint.

The city’s plan also established a $400 million fund for developing low- and moderately priced housing in 15 of the city’s poorest neighborhoods and authorized the city to grant tax breaks for certain middle-income projects, like Queens West.

Because the 421-a program, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year, is part of the state’s property tax code, the Bloomberg administration sent the proposed bill to Albany. What emerged from the Assembly was quite different.

At Mr. Lopez’s urging, the Assembly passed a bill that added Riverdale, Red Hook, Upper Manhattan and many struggling neighborhoods like West Farms in the Bronx and Crown Heights in Brooklyn to the zones in which developers must build affordable housing to qualify for tax breaks. Mr. Lopez’s version also reserved subsidized apartments for people making a lower income than currently specified in the law.

Mr. Lopez said in an interview that many of these working-class and minority neighborhoods were experiencing gentrification. “Somebody needs to find housing for working-class public servants,” he said. “My bill has targeted that group.”

But the bill would also provide what the city estimates are an additional $300 million in tax breaks for the vast Atlantic Yards complex being developed by Forest City Ratner Companies, the development partner with The New York Times Company in the Times’ new Midtown headquarters, without getting any additional affordable units in return. Mr. Lopez said it was a concession sought during negotiations with Mr. Spinola and the Senate over his bill.

State Senator Martin J. Golden, a Republican from Brooklyn, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, acknowledged yesterday that Mr. Spinola “may have had a little bit more of a role than most,” in negotiating the bill. But, he added, “Everybody was checked with.”

Yet, State Senator Frank Padavan, a fellow Republican, contends that the Senate bill was rushed through with little discussion of the special deals for developers like Forest City. “It didn’t pass the smell test,” he said.

Real estate developers say that the real estate board, whose leading members are active in Manhattan, was principally concerned with extending the 421-a program beyond Dec. 31, and had little interest in the impact of the bill on development in the other boroughs. Mr. Spinola was on vacation this week and unavailable for comment.

Sunday, June 24th 2007

Editorial
While grinding to gridlock on so much else, the state Legislature enacted a major overhaul of a New York City tax abatement program critical to housing construction. This is nothing to cheer about.

At the eleventh hour, with virtually no public discussion, the Assembly and Senate agreed on a bill that will stop production of middle-class housing in neighborhoods across all five boroughs. Gov. Spitzer must veto the destructive, ill-conceived measure.

If the law takes effect, it is all but certain the first casualty will be Queens West, a 5,000-unit middle-class development planned for 24 acres along the East River in Long Island City.

Responsibility for this disaster belongs to Vito Lopez (photo), chairman of the Assembly Housing Committee who also serves as Brooklyn Democratic boss, with an assist from the Real Estate Board of New York.

The city faces a shortage of some 100,000 housing units for the middle class and the poor. While there is huge demand, building costs are so high that developers must charge unaffordable rents. To bring things within reach, the city has long granted real estate tax abatements on new housing.

These have been no-strings-attached, except in the heart of Manhattan, where luxury buildings were the rule. To be eligible for a tax break in this exclusion zone, developers had to build or pay for affordable housing in other neighborhoods. The problem was that, as the city's economy picked up, builders in hot neighborhoods outside the zone began to get unjustified tax reductions on luxury construction.

The Bloomberg administration and the City Council spent a year carefully analyzing the program to eliminate breaks in booming communities while preserving them where needed. After many hearings, witnesses, discussion and debate, they expanded the exclusion zone to areas like Tribeca and the waterfront in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

Then the revisions went to Albany for approval. Lopez, who represents Bushwick, one of the city's poorest communities, added portions of his own district, the South Bronx, Washington Heights, Red Hook, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Corona and eight other low- and middle-income areas to the exclusion zone. He also decreed that developers could get property tax abatements to build in those communities as long as they put up additional housing at rents the poor could afford.

It's a wonderful idea, but it's economically impossible. Nonetheless, Lopez muscled the bill through the Democratic-controlled Assembly, and the Republican-dominated state Senate went along as a favor to the Real Estate Board, whose Manhattan-centric members wanted to delay when the law takes effect.

Bottom line: Housing construction that's vital to New York's future will come to a halt across large swaths of the city. Among those who recognize the travesty is Council Speaker Christine Quinn. She called Lopez's legislative whim "an outrage," adding, "I think the bill should be vetoed." And she's right.

Friday, June 22nd 2007

Bruce Ratner, developer of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards Nets arena and mega-housing project in Brooklyn, is about to get another special, secret, sweetheart deal from our state politicians.

How special is it?

Over the weekend, Vito Lopez, the powerful Brooklyn Democrat who heads the state Assembly's Housing Committee, quietly inserted wording tailored for the Ratner project into a new state property tax exemption bill.

How sweet is the deal?

It's worth at least $100 million in real estate tax exemptions and possibly as much as $170 million for the market-rate condos Ratner plans to build on the site, one housing expert estimates. It also allows Atlantic Yards to charge hundreds of dollars more in rent per month for "affordable" units than any other other developer of similar housing.

How secret was the deal?

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn) says he did not learn of the provision until the eve of the vote, even though Atlantic Yards is located in his district. Bertha Lewis, the head of NY ACORN, says the same thing. ACORN has been a huge backer and partner of Ratner because of his promise to build 2,200 affordable units out of the proposed total of 6,400. But yesterday even Lewis branded this "special carve-out" for Atlantic Yards "bad public policy."

The new tax exemptions are on top of the $300 million in direct subsidies that city and state officials have already showered on Atlantic Yards.

There's more coming. Ratner has applied for $1.4 billion in stateauthorized tax-exempt bonds to finance his 16 high-rise towers.

"It's unfortunate that this developer seems to have an addiction to the government's cookie jar," Jeffries said. Still, Jeffries voted for the overall tax exemption bill. He did so, he said, because it will expand a decades-old incentive program for developers, known as 421-A, to some minority neighborhoods and create more affordable housing.

Housing developers who want to receive a 25-year exemption in certain designated neighborhoods must agree to build at least 20% of their new units as affordable housing. The program was previously limited to core central districts of Manhattan. Last December, the City Council passed legislation that expanded the designated areas as far north as 135th St. and over to the waterfront areas of Brooklyn.

The bill Lopez pushed through yesterday dramatically expands the designated areas to include Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Bushwick, Fort Greene and Crown Heights; parts of Corona and Astoria in Queens; the South Bronx; the Staten Island waterfront and all of northern Manhattan.

"The real estate lobby fought me tooth and nail on this," Lopez told me. His bill, he claims, is a significant improvement over the City Council's version.

And in part, he's right.

Under the Council bill, a family of four could make up to 80% of the city's annual median income of nearly $71,000 to qualify for "an affordable unit." That means you could earn as much $56,800 and still qualify for "affordable housing" units under the Council's program. But most families in Brooklyn and Queens make far less than that, so Lopez did a good thing by lowering the income threshold in his bill to 60% of city median income.

But at the same time, he wrote a provision into his own bill that lifts the threshold for Atlantic Yards to 70%. Lopez didn't actually name Atlantic Yards. He simply referred to: "A multi-phase project that includes at least 2,500 dwelling units and is being implemented pursuant to a General Project Plan adopted by the New York State Urban Development Corporation and approved by Public Authorities Control Board."

Quite conveniently, only Ratner's project fits that description.

The special provision, says Brad Lander, director for the Pratt Center for Community Development, will let Ratner charge an average of more than $350 per month in additional rent for the "affordable units" in Atlantic Yards.

Even more importantly, the Council's version does not grant any tax exemptions to buildings that contain only luxury units. The Lopez bill specifies that as long as 20% of the entire project contains affordable housing, all buildings in the project will be tax-exempt.

Since Ratner plans to build as many as four all-luxury condo buildings, all units in those buildings would be exempted from real estate taxes for 25 years.

Depending on the number of units, it could mean from $100 million to $170 million in lost real estate taxes to the city, Lander says.

Officials at Forest City Ratner Cos. refused to talk about the special legislation Lopez crafted specifically for their project.

Since the Senate is expected to quickly pass the Lopez bill, only Gov. Spitzer can stop this special tax deal.

The question is: Will he?