Meeting About the Lincoln Road Tower

PLGNA and a new group called "Concerned Residents of Greater Prospect-Lefferts Gardens" are holding an open meeting to discuss the proposed Lincoln Road Tower and its potential collateral effects.

Tuesday, May 20th at 7:30PM
Grace Reformed Church
1800 Bedford Avenue between Lefferts and Lincoln

Hawthorne Street's bloggers have previously stated that we are generally in favor of the Tower, though we know that the feeling isn't universal. The tone of the flyer for the meeting implies to this reader that the hosting groups oppose the Tower. Notwithstanding Hawthorne Street's opinion, the issues raised in the flier—housing displacement, environmental impact and community preservation—are issues that need to be considered in any new development.

Comments

[Brooklyn Boy]

Having read the flyer, it's obvious that the purpose of this meeting will be to trash the entire idea of the tower. Looks as though the groups sponsoring this meeting have their agenda all laid out, so I don't see why I should attend.

[carrie]

I'm not all that interested in attending myself -- not because I generally support the building (I do), but because the meeting doesn't seem to have any serious purpose or goal. Sounds like it's going to be one of those gatherings where people sit around and bitch but don't have any specific action plans, and aren't any better informed (about the tower) than anyone who has read the local newspaper articles.

[Sara]

If only the naysayers attend, it's only going to embolden anyone looking to pick a fight with the developer.

I'm mostly in favor of the tower and am planning to go because the PLGNA is the one local group that has the potential to speak for the entire neighborhood, for better or worse. (The LMA only covers Manor residents. The now defunct(?) PLUS is another small slice.) Even if the meeting is unproductive, the PLGNA board should be made aware that there are residents who support the project or are neutral on it.

[jessica]

I agree that it doesn't seem that organized. It's not clear from the flyer whether there will be any guest speakers, or if there is a proposed plan of action, or who the "on the spot" tenant helpers will be. That said, I'm glad to see that PLGNA does in fact exist (I had doubted there for a while).

And I completely agree with Sara - those of us who are in support of the building should definitely make our voices heard. Even if the plan of action is a little fuzzy from the looks of the flyer, at the very least it can be made known at the meeting that there are some of us in the neighborhood who like the idea of the new building.

[Jan Clausen]

I am one of the organizers of the May 20th meeting on displacement concerns and development issues. I’m a writer and teacher and I’ve lived on Maple Street for the past 15 years. I thought readers of this blog might like to know that confirmed participants for the meeting on the 20th include a speaker from Metropolitan Council on Housing (the city’s premier tenants’ rights organization) and a speaker from Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (a group working in downtown Brooklyn to counter displacement and marginalization of low-income residents). Individuals will be able to consult the Met Council representative about tenant issues after the formal portion of the meeting, and there will be someone on hand from the Pratt Area Community Council offering resources for foreclosure prevention.

I appreciated Charles Star’s comment about the importance of addressing displacement issues, even if one is generally in favor of the tower planned for Lincoln Road. As I go around distributing fliers, I’ve heard comments like, “If my rent goes up anymore, I’ll be homeless!” An acquaintance who recently moved to a large apartment building on Midwood reports that his neighbors in the building routinely talk of being dragged to housing court with false accusations of being behind in rent payments. I encourage skeptics to read a hard-hitting article from the May 9 New York Times that details similar problems in rent stabilized buildings across the city. The print version of the article, by Gretchen Morgenson, is entitled “As Investment Firms Buy Up Buildings, Tenants See Bullies.” The article may be read on line at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/business/09rent.html?ref=opinion

The members of Concerned Residents, the planning group for the meeting on the 20th, believe that adding a big dose of luxury housing to a community like ours is very likely to aggravate the displacement of low- and moderate-income renters that we’re already seeing.

[Charles Star]

Thanks for the details, Jan.

I'm not exactly sure what can be done to keep rents from going up, though. A lot of the new residents in PLG have themselves been priced out of their own neighborhoods. Rent control isn't coming back - in fact government interest is in getting rid of what few restrictions are left.

As demand goes up, prices go up. It isn't a question of fairness, because whether you do or don't control rents is a matter of choosing who you want to be "fair" to.

[dt]

I don't think the developer for the tower can, or should, be held accountable for what landlords in the area are already doing- or do in the future. I don't see any tenants being displaced by this project, unless your speaking for the rats that have lived in the rotting building that is coming down.

If you use the argument that this tower will push up rents in the area, then I think you are unfairly putting the burden of keeping housing afforable in the area on one property owner. I don't see anybody saying "I'll sell my house for much less than it is worth so that I can keep housing afforable around here!

[babs]

Rent control isn't coming back, Charles, but rent stabilization is here (to stay, at least for the foreseaable future) and it is important that its requirements be respected -- by both landlords and tenants. Unfortunately, many landlords, in PLG and beyond, are attempting to pervert rent stabilization guidelines in order to force long-term (and not-so-long term) tenants to leave so that they can turn the apartments over and increase the rent (the current vacany rent increase is 17.25% for a one-year lease and slightly higher for a two-year lease). Just as unfortunately, perhaps, many tenants do not understand that they have obligations, too, and it is important that they be made aware of them as well, so that this program can work for everyone.

As a member of Concerned Residents of Greater Prospect Lefferts Gardens, I can assure everyone that the purpose of this meeting is not to trash this proposed building, but to express our concern that whatever is built on that spot fit in with the character of the neighborhood, respect Olmstead and Vaux's original design for Prospect Park (one should not see buildings from inside the park), provide a portion of affordable units (and by that I mean affordable to Brooklyn-area median incomes, not NY Metropolitan ranges a la Bruce Ratner), respect our environement and the migrating birds who use this as a major flyway, and be something that results from a collaborative, not an isolationist, effort.

I don't think anyone is against responsible development and I am as thrilled as anyone at the possibility of new services and housing in the neighborhood (I think it would be great to offer more people the opportunity to buy an apartment in PLG -- there simply aren't that many viable co-op/condo buildings in the area. As a real estate broker, I can tell you that I have many clients who specifically want to live in this neighborhood, for all the reasons most of us who live here love it, but I have very little to offer them -- if it's not the occasional 1 bedroom or studio co-op or a house in Lefferts Manor, there is not much else out there -- two bedroom apartments, be they co-ops or condos, are especially scare).

We'd just like the developer to be a bit more forthcoming with his plans and to reach out to the community for our input. Saying that anything is better than what was there before simply isn't enough and may even turn out not to be true, depending on what we as a community allow to happen.

This is the first public meeting of our group and this is a very broad agenda to cover, but the idea is for as many of our neighbors as possible to come out, share ideas (of all stripes), and then to create various sub-groups to deal separately and more intensively with the various issues at hand.

So I would encourage everyone to come out and meet your neighbors and talk about the one thing I think everyone agrees on -- that our neighborhood is wonderful and special and deserves to be protected as it improves so that we can all enjoy it even more.

[kendall]

point of information: the 80+ units of market-rate (doubt they'd be luxury) housing would increase local units by what %?

[babs]

I currently know of 12 available apartments for sale in PLG proper (above Clarkson), including 6 at 80 Winthrop St -- these are all sponsor units, meaning that they were occupied until very recently by rental tenants -- why have so many apartments in this building suddenly come on the market? Why did six renters, in apartments ranging from studios to three bedrooms, suddenly all decide to leave at the same time? I really wonder what's up with that.

So 80+ units of housing would increase the available supply enormously for people looking to buy an apartment in the area. Importantly, several of the co-op buildings here have such a low percentage of owned apartments that banks won't make mortgages to buy them without very high down playments.

This is why I say responsible development should be encouraged -- I'm just concerned that the current proposal doesn't seem to be responsible in light of the factors discussed in my earlier post.

[Brooklyn Boy]

As one of the organizers of the meeting, Jessica's comments only confirm my orginal impression based on the language in the flyer.

Note that Jessica's message makes no mention of inviting anyone who might be in favor of this building. It is also interesting that we have heard nothing from this group regarding the development of affordable housing in the neighborhood before this project was proposed. For example, where were Jessica and her "concerned citizens" when the building on that site sat empty and decaying for years? This meeting is going to be nothing more than a histrionic one-sided scream fest against this project desgined to scare people and whip them up into a frenzy.

Why are the organizers afraid of a more balanced approach?

[jessica]

Brooklyn Boy,
I am a little confused. The very point of my message was to encourage people who are in favor of the building (including myself) to attend the meeting. I am not one of the meeting organizers. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

Jan,
Thanks for your comment and clarification, though I do wish the flyer had had more information other than an implication that the new building is absolutely going to mean displacement of residents and store owners.

The flyer makes me feel like I would definitely NOT be welcome to voice my opinion at this meeting unless I want some rotten tomatoes thrown at me. I could always bring my raincoat I guess.

[Brookly Boy]

Sorry, Jessica - my mistake! My remarks were directed to Jan.

In any case, I stand by my objections to the unbalanced nature of this meeting.

[babs]

No tomatoes flying -- and we would all love to meet with the developer at any time to discuss his plans in more detail and to express the community's interest in these things, but Henry Herbst has been less than forthcoming in responding to any inquiries -- although I am told he did meet with Lefferts Manor residents, but I've heard nothing about the outcome of that meeting.

And how can anyone be completely and utterly in favor of anything about which not very much is known? Or have you got some inside information, Brooklyn Boy?

If I thought this meeting was going to be as you describe, a scream-fest, I wouldn't be associated with it. My goal, and that of all our members, is to provide a starting point for organization and community input on all of these issues -- and if it took the possibility of this new building in our neighborhood to cause a bunch of privately concerned individuals to coalesce into a working group, all I can say is mea culpa -- but it was a wake up call for many of us.

Additionally, PLGNA, our co-hosting organization, has been working on affordable housing issues for years, so whereas our group is new, the concerns are not.

[jessica]

Of course, on the flip side, the organizers of this meeting have every right to be opinionated. They've organized the meeting, made the flier, and gotten together the guest speakers, etc. They have an agenda which, while it may not coincide with some of our personal opinions, is valid nonetheless.

The real shame here is the fact that the DEVELOPER has been so completely unapproachable, even to those of us who are WELCOMING the new building. I have tried a number of times (both on my own and as a writer for Hawthorne Street) to enter a dialog with the architect and developer, with absolutely no response.

I would love to see a neighborhood meeting where a united group of people in our area, both for and against the project, could actually speak to the people who are putting the building up. Perhaps the "concerned citizens" group will at least get the developer's attention in a way that I could not.

[Kitty Skrobela]

The first post here says "Wednesday May 20th". Is the meeting *Tuesday* the 20th, or Wednesday the *21st*??

[Charles Star]

Corrected. Thanks, Kitty.

[babs]

From your lips to Henry Herbst's ears Jessica! Hope this does get his attention -- again, our group is not necessarily against the idea of a building, we are just concerned (as the name indicates) that it's done with repsect for our community and the wonderful natural oasis that is Prospect Park.