City Offers Goldwater Campus As Possible Site for Science / Engineering College

The prospect of the Goldwater Campus being put to use as other than a hospital campus has popped up once again. This time as a possible site for a future science or engineering college with a 99 year lease to the institution that comes to it with an option to renew it.

Links: WSJ article; NYT Article

The idea of a top university space at the site would seem more appealing to Island residents than simply selling the site to residential developers but even this idea would drive rents and housing costs further up, due to increased demand for student housing, on the Island making it increasingly difficult for current residents to remain.

Fordham U. Students Examine R.I. Housing Issues

YouTube Video Posted by drtoulouse

At first when I watched the above video it seemed like the Fordham University students were under the impression that Roosevelt Island was dominated by public housing. But as the video progresses and focuses on Roosevelt Island (4:04 minute mark) it becomes clear that the students are aware that private development is one of the island’s biggest issues. Look for their interview of Geoffrey Fishman, Manager of Roosevelt Landings, formerly known as Eastwood. Mr. Fishman discusses the effect of the open market on the island.

It will be interesting to see Hunter College’s Access RI’s take on the same issue as their larger study progresses throughout the coming months. FYI, Access RI is not only about physical access to Roosevelt Island but also to services, housing and various other issues.

City Comptroller Responds Regarding Kellner's Concerns at Eastwood

NYC Comptroller William Thompson has issued a letter to Assembly Member Micah Keller regarding concerns regarding Urban America’s management practices and issues concerning the tenants of the Eastwood apartment complex. Assembly Member Kellner had written the Comptroller as NYC pension funds had been invested in the City Investment Fund, Urban America’s partner in the purchase of the Putnam Portfolio which included Eastwood.



The New York Observer in September, 2007 reported on the City’s interest in CIF and possible concerns regarding affordable housing issues.

The full letter response can be read by double clicking the below image file.

Housing Forum on 2/7 at Good Shepherd Sponsored by State Sen. Jose M. Serano

One week from today State Senator Jose M. Serrano is sponsoring a Housing Forum to be held at the Church of the Good Shephered starting at 6:30 pm. The Church is located at 543 Main Street and is handicapped accessible. DHCR has confirmed that they will have representatives at the event as will Urban American, the Center for Independence of the Disabled. the Citywide Task Force on Housing Court as well as Legal Director Paul Kushner at EIS.

The event is co-sponsored by the Eastwood Residents Association and Eviction Intervention Services.

ESDC / DHCR: No FMV Tax Bills if Continuation of Mitchell-Lama Status

According to RIOC President Steve Shane, the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the Empire State Development Corporation have jointly indicated that the Fair Market Value Tax Equivalency Bills issued earlier this Winter (to Westview, Island House, and Rivercross) will be rescinded so long as each building that received them stays within the Mitchell-Lama affordable housing program. Mr. Shane made this announcement informally following his attendance at the Community Board 8 Roosevelt Island Committee meeting held yesterday evening, January 22nd, at the Church of the Good Shepherd.

Once a building exits the Mitchell-Lama program the FMV bills will again be issued. Until that point each building would continue to be responsible for the subsidized tax equivalency bills they have been enjoying all these years. No word when each building is to be formally informed of this development, by either the DHCR or the ESDC, or if they already have been.

It is assumed that the Privatization Committee at Rivercross will continue to push for privatization as they had been prior to the ESDC FMV tax bill debacle claiming that knowing what the FMV tax bills will be gives them one more number for their exit calculations.

Could the City Reclaim or Threaten to Reclaim Roosevelt Island to Force the ESDC to Withdraw FMV Tax Bills?

This afternoon it was announced that New York City has reclaimed South Brother Island and that it will probably be left untouched as a sanctuary for birds and other wildlife that live there. Could New York City reclaim its title to another island in the East River and remove the fears of its residents that Empire State Developement Corporation FMV tax equivalency bills will destroy their homes?

With the issuance of full value bills for tax equivalency payments issued to three of Roosevelt Island’s four Mitchell-Lama properties could New York City reclaim Roosevelt Island citing the destruction of affordable housing as a reason to break its lease of the Island to New York State?

Certainly there are too many other factors involved which would prevent this from happening including the transition of services currently provided by RIOC to the equivalent City agencies.

But if the Island was no longer under State control than perhaps the 2005 City Council Resolution (#388) extending Mitchell-Lama tax benefits 50 years would apply as then the buildings would owe actual taxes and not “payments in lieu of taxes” which seems to be part of the current controversy whether the state intended to give the City Council the ability to affect taxes other than payments intended to go to City coffers.

Eventually when the current State-City lease runs out the fact is the Island will revert to City control and by that time it is expected each Mitchell-Lama property will have successfully exited the program. In the mean time can the City put a little pressure on Albany and remind them that the landlord does not like it when its tenant, NYS, is scarring its subtenants. Can NYC as landlord remind NYS that ultimately it holds jurisdiction over the Island and that to impose the FMV ESDC tax bills in some form violates that jurisdiction when their issuance is contrary to the well being of those residents?

Roosevelt Island Residents: Spitzer Administration Screws Mitchell Lama Residents

Updated to remove photograph.

Printed in time for the Rivercross Tenants Association 30th Anniversary Party the Main Street WIRE published a one page special previewing this coming week’s issue (Saturday November 17, 2007) regarding the issuance of full value real estate tax equivalency bills to three of the four original Roosevelt Island Mitchell-Lama buildings. The poster was not an official editorial as the situation is fluid and the WIRE's official editorial will not be set until it is is formally published. See my previous two posts for more background.

The below image is of the poster taken late Sunday night as it dominates the internal Rivercross message board.



Most residents expect the politicians to work this out as the issuance of these bills does seem to run counter to the stated goals of ensuring affordable housing but it certainly does seem that the Spitzer administration does not have control of the state agencies charged with ensuring this goal is kept by sending out FMV tax bills. Not exactly a friendly way to gather support for buildings to stay in the Mitchell-Lama program. Expect this issue to dominate island news for a few weeks at a minimum.

WIRE: 2005 City Council Resolution Extending Exemption DOES NOT Apply to Roosevelt Island Mitchell-Lama Buildings

A review of back issues of the Main Street Wire from 2005 yielded the following articles and texts. Ultimatelty it appears that the WIRE concluded that the City Council resolution extending the tax exemptions did not apply to Roosevelt Island.

If this is true the issuance this week of the tax equivalency bills by the Empire State Development Corporation to Westview, Island House and Rivercross could prove disastrous for the residents who expected that the 50 year additional exemption applied to their buildings.

What I don't understand is why then if the WIRE reported the conclusions reached by the State and City officials back in 2005 was the issuance of the bill to Rivercross something so unexpected as indicated in the flyer posted in Rivercross and distributed to their residents.

As reported in the Main Street Wire on February 19, 2004:

“At press time, attorneys for the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the State's Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had still reached no conclusion about exactly what the action could mean on Roosevelt Island, which is unique in the State's constellation of Mitchell-Lama developments because the Island,while owned by the City, is leased to the State for development (to 2068),and the PILOT payments - which substitute for "real" taxes - go to the State, not the City. A key question: Did the State Legislature, in amending the PHFL, intend to give the City Council the authority to forgive payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to the State? That issue was raised when a WIRE question was relayed by Lappin to HPD and DHCR. Lappin said HPD and DHCR would have to be consulted. On Thursday, however, a DHCR spokesman said, "That's really a question for the City Council."

While the Island's PILOT payments would normally be passed through to the City, they are not. That's because the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) has substantial "credits" with the City by virtue of its original development of the Island. The PILOT income stops in the State's coffers.”

After several issues of the Main Street Wire offering nothing substantive other than resident commentaries, Dick Lutz in the May 14, 2005 Main Street Wire states that the Resolution has no applicability to the Roosevelt Island Mitchell-Lama buildings:

"It may be a technicality of sorts, but Roosevelt Island buildings will not get the 50-year extension of tax abatements the State Legislature authorized the New York City Council to grant to Mitchell-Lama apartment buildings.

"The [Legislature's] bill itself refers to taxes," said Jessica Lappin, an aide to Council Speaker Gifford Miller, "and the buildings on Roosevelt Island don't technically pay taxes. They look and smell and feel like taxes, but they're not technically taxes."

When the City Council granted the tax-abatement extensions earlier this year, materials accompanying the Council resolution specifically listed Westview, Island House, Rivercross, and Eastwood. It held out the possibility of a Mitchell-Lama future with tax costs remaining low. But that was a mistake.

What "look and smell and feel like taxes" for Roosevelt Island are PILOTs - "payments in lieu of taxes" - made to the State. For those who pay them, they are the functional equivalent of taxes, and for the Island's Mitchell-Lama buildings, they are scheduled to rise significantly over the next couple of years - a provision of the ground leases under which the buildings were placed on land owned by the City, but leased from the City by the State.

The WIRE raised questions about the Island's eligibility for the abatement extensions in February in a report on the City Council's action, and again in April in a commentary written by Tim Johns, an Island House resident who has kept close tabs on the laws, leases, and regulations that apply to the Island's Mitchell-Lama buildings. As a result, State and City lawyers looked into the matter and realized that earlier statements affirming applicability to the Roosevelt Island buildings were incorrect."

Roosevelt Island Mitchell-Lama Buildings Receive FMV Tax Equivalency Bills from State Despite City Resolution Extending Exemptions

This week just prior to its 30th anniversary the Rivercross Building on Roosevelt Island received a tax equivalency bill from the Empire State Development Corporation which could potentially increase monthly costs to each tenant by 45%. In addition to the Rivercross building both the Island House and the Westview buildings received similar tax equivalency bills. Such increases would destroy the affordability of these buildings to many of their tenants especially those on fixed incomes.

According to a flyer posted in its lobby, the Rivercross Board of Directors announced that if the tax bill stands it could force maintenance charges to increase by approximately 45% to cover this added cost to their building. Of the four original Mitchell-Lama buildings Rivercross is the only co-op building.

The ground lease issued to the Rivercross building provided that payments in lieu of real estate taxes would extend through 2007 the thirtieth anniversary of the issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy. The ESDC is the successor in interest to the NYS Urban Development Corporation.

The tax bill received by Rivercross this week stated that the 30 year period had ended and that effective September 15, 2007, the buildings tax equivalency payments were increased to approximately $3.6 million per year.

The New York City Council in 2005 had passed Resolution 388-A granting real property tax exemptions for an additional 50 year period to private housing companies, including Mitchell-Lama buildings. According to the Rivercross flyer the list of applicable housing companies attached to the resolution included Rivercross. The resolution linked to here does not include that list. There had been some concern whether the City resolution applied to the Roosevelt Island buildings but in each building’s case local politician assured the buildings that as long as they stayed in the Mitchell-Lama program the resolution would be applicable to them and protect their tax status.

As reported in the most recent issue of the Main Street Wire, the Rivercross building announced its intent to formally notify the DHCR that it intended to leave the Mitchell-Lama program but no such filings have been made to date. As of today Rivercross still exists as a Mitchell-Lama property.