(TLDR; On October 16, 2017, dozens of NYC politicians sent a letter of support to Amazon that was attached to a larger proposal, partly drafted by New York City Economic Development Corporation, which clearly stated that it is possible to go around local zoning restrictions.)
On October 16, 2017, dozens of New York City politicians, including 30 City Council members, signed a letter asking Amazon to set up shop in NYC. Now, one year later, they claim to be leading the fight against it. City Council representatives like Jimmy Van Bramer and State Senator Michael Gianaris, in an effort to set the narrative, argue that they got “duped” by Amazon when they allegedly got cut of the negotiation process. If it were up to them, they say, Amazon would not have gotten such a big tax subsidy, nor would they have been permitted to evade city zoning law. This posturing has allowed them to create the appearance of opposition by criticizing the process through which AmazonHQ2 is coming to NYC, while, at the same time, refraining from rejecting the deal in its entirety – a demand many grassroots groups have been making.
Given that those who occupy City Council are notoriously untrustworthy, however, can we really believe that they didn’t know about the proposed tax subsidies and the desire to circumvent the city’s zoning process, known as ULURP? Most likely not. As we shall see, members of City Council were almost certainly informed, directly or indirectly, of what de Blasio and Cuomo were going to offer Amazon.
Fact Check: City Council Knew Amazon Would Try To Circumvent ULURP
The letter by City Council and other elected officials, referenced above, was dated the same day (October 16, 2017) that Governor Cuomo sent a lengthy response to Jeff Bezos regarding Amazon’s HQ2 proposal. Cuomo’s response included a section, prepared by NYCEDC, that had a letter from de Blasio, a list of various benefits (economic and social) of locating in NYC, and a description of 4 sites that could accommodate Amazon’s new proposed headquarters. On page 25, the document refers to an appendix including “letters of support”. Although the released document did not include any of the appendix items, it is reasonable to assume that a letter of support, dated the same day, and signed by 77 NYC politicians, would have been among the items sent to Jeff Bezos that day, since it would have shown that the Cuomo/NYCEDC response had strong political backing.
The Cuomo/NYCEDC response document was not drafted in a vacuum and clearly went to great lengths in engaging various parties during it’s preparation. One such party must have been Jimmy Van Bramer, council member of the district where the HQ is now slated to be built. Indeed, one month prior to the support letter and Cuomo/NYCEDC response document, Van Bramer sent de Blasio a support letter of his own, indicating the degree to which he supported the proposal.
Therefore, it is clear, that during the months of September and October of 2017, a concentrated effort was being made by city and state politicians, and entities like NYCEDC and the state version Empire State Development (ESD), to convince Amazon to come to NYC. The final result of this effort was the Cuomo/NYCEDC response document mentioned above. An excerpt from this document CLEARLY states that ESD “can also override local zoning, offer tax subsidies while holding title to a property, and provide lower cost financing or grants to economic development projects.”
One would think that politicians would read or, at least be briefed, on a proposal for which they are indicating their support, but maybe that’s asking too much from elected officials. (Even if they did not read the Cuomo/NYCEDC document, however, the process of circumventing city zoning for large projects has been used as recently as the Atlantic Yards project, so City Council cannot claim ignorance – they are literally paid to know these laws). In any case, perhaps at the next sham City Council hearing on Amazon, Van Bramer and others can clarify the degree to which they were aware of what was being offered. We aren’t holding our breath waiting for these politicians to come clean though.
We will leave you with an excerpt taken from a Queens Chronicle article, which we quoted in a recent post “Liars Don’t Represent Us – Van Bramer: Say NO to Amazon or Resign“:
“I am excited to see the New York City Economic Development Corporation recognize in their proposal what thousands of New Yorkers have been recognizing for years now: that Long Island City and Western Queens as a whole are among New York City’s most dynamic and innovative neighborhoods,” Van Bramer said in an emailed statement. “I am an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal, and of any plan to bring good paying jobs to my district. I think it is clear that Amazon HQ2 would be an ideal fit for Long Island City and for the entire borough of Queens. I look forward to working with the Economic Development Corporation in the months to come to support Long Island City’s proposal.
If you want to join the fight against AmazonHQ2, please click here to see a list of upcoming events supported by Fuck Off Amazon.
This is a reponse to Mitch Waxman’s critique of our recent op-ed at City Limits: We Have to Talk About Gentrification in Long Island City. Mitch’s response is located below the original article.
Queens Anti-Gentrification Project is well aware of the infrastructure issues plaguing our neighborhoods. We are concerned with infrastructure. However, the op-ed we wrote for City Limits does not mention infrastructure. What the op-ed deals with, very specifically, is the financial influence of the real estate industry on city politics, income inequality, and most importantly – the displacement of human beings from their homes and livelihoods.
Why, then, is Mitch Waxman’s response attempting to reframe the discussion in terms of infrastructure? Why does the response ignore our main points and accuse us of “painting” Jimmy Van Bramer as a villain? We quoted Jimmy Van Bramer verbatim from a real estate conference appearance, and we invite all readers to watch the video themselves. We aren’t “painting” anything. We’re merely stating facts:
Jimmy Van Bramer took over $100k in campaign donations from real estate, he frequently speaks at real estate conferences, he has consistently spoken publicly in favor of luxury development in his district, and he refuses to take concrete action to prevent mass displacement. None of these facts are being contested, so if these are the attributes of a villain, then perhaps Mitch Waxman is asking the wrong question.
As for the mentality that more luxury development is inevitable – the result of a “population explosion” – this is precisely the type of myth we were trying to debunk in the first place. It is not inevitable, it’s a result of public policy and city planning, and we will do everything we can to stop it.
According to newly released documentary, Gentrification Express, it’s time to put the brakes once and for all on the BQX trolley plan.
In 2016, Mayor de Blasio announced a proposal for an above-ground streetcar that would link Brooklyn and Queens, following the trend to use trolleys to promote tourism and real estate development from Portland to Washington D.C. The Brooklyn Queens Connector (known as the BQX) would link 10 neighborhoods along a 15 mile route stretching from Astoria, Queens to Sunset Park, Brooklyn. De Blasio and private real estate developers, represented by the “Friends of the BQX,” extoll the trolley as a model public-private partnership that would create jobs and bridge two boroughs as they are experiencing a development boom along the waterfront.
Local elected officials, including City Council Majority Leader Jimmy Van Bramer have lined up behind the Mayor: “Mayor de Blasio’s forward thinking proposal promises to provide more Queens and Brooklyn residents with a new reliable transit option,” said Jimmy Van Bramer in 2016 press release. The Mayor has also recruited NYCHA tenant leaders, and most recently, the Transit Workers Union to support the plan (read our open letter to the TWC here).
But not everyone is enamored with the Mayor’s shiny new project. Still in its planning phase, the BQX is facing significant opposition from planning and transit experts, as well as grassroots organizations and residents who fear that the BQX will cause more harm than good in communities that are already facing significant displacement pressures. The Gentrification Express documentary captures these concerns through interviews and analysis, highlighting three key reasons New Yorkers shouldn’t be so quick to jump aboard the BQX:
1. The BQX is too damn expensive.
Though privately operated, the BQX would not come free to the city. The Friends of the BQX project that the trolley will cost about $2.5 billion in tax payer dollars to build. This in itself is no small sum, but according to Hunter Professor Samuel Stein, the actual construction price could be even higher. He explains that a common strategy for developers is to low-ball project costs because once construction is underway with tax-payer dollars, no one will oppose putting in the extra dollars to see it through the finish line.
The costs don’t end with construction. The Friends of the BQX claim that the project will pay for itself through a strategy called “value-capture.” This financing strategy relies on the assumption that development will spur property tax increases along the route, and that these increases can be redirected into the operations costs. However, even a leaked city memo to Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen points out that value capture won’t come close to covering the high costs. In other words, tax payers would end up covering most of the operations costs—and it will be expensive, particularly since the BQX route passes through FEMA-designated flood zones. “If a disaster like [Hurricane Sandy] happens again and the BQX flops the city is going to pay for that… and that’s coming out of our tax money,” said Sunset Park resident Antoinette Martinez.
2. The BQX’s primary purpose is to spur luxury real estate development.
In a recent report, the MTA identified 9 densely populated neighborhoods that are one half mile or further from public transportation. Strangely, the BQX doesn’t run through any of these neighborhoods. According to Sam Stein, that’s because the BQX’s main purpose isn’t to fix transit deserts—it is part of a larger strategy to catalyze luxury real estate development along the waterfront. According to the documentary, there are at least 10 developers with heavy real estate interests along the route. The NY Post has found that BQX-backing developers have contributed significantly to the de Blasio campaign.
“A lot of developers see the Brooklyn Queens waterfront as the gold coast, and it is for them. They come out and say it. The Jamestown Properties owners say, ‘We want another Williamsburg waterfront in Sunset Park… they’re not hiding what they want,” said Jenny Dubnau, a Long Island City-based artist.
3. The BQX will lead to displacement of renters and manufacturing businesses.
The greatest concern expressed by advocates in the documentary is the fear that the BQX will push up property taxes, which in turn, will raise rents and displace low income New Yorkers.
“We are really being pushed out of this community… And that’s not fair. Why should we have to move out of the community we was raised in to go to someplace new when we’ve been here all our lives?” said Sylvia White, a NYCHA resident and leader of the Justice for All Coalition which opposes the BQX.
Renters are not the only ones concerned. According to Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director of UPROSE, the BQX also threatens the displacement of manufacturing jobs in communities like Sunset Park that is one of the largest live-work communities in NYC. Once the BQX is built, it will become much more lucrative for developers to choose residential over manufacturing developments.
What is an alternative to the BQX?
There’s one thing that BQX advocates and its opponents agree on: Queens and Brooklyn can benefit from improved transportation options. But according to Sam Stein, you don’t need a streetcar to have a fast moving mode of public transportation. The solution is an improved bus system that extends bus routes, and gives buses priority on streets so that they aren’t gridlocked in car traffic. While not as sexy as a new streetcar, express buses would provide the same commuting benefits, for only a fraction of the price—and no gentrification would be caused.
Watch the full documentary, Gentrification Express, for free here. This documentary is produced by NYC-based filmmakers Samantha Farinella and Amanda Katz.
- Sign this petition and demand that Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer say no to the luxury trolley that would run through his district
- Contact your local City Council Member to share your concerns and demand their opposition to the BQX Trolley. View this map to see if your district is along the BQX route.
- Organize against the BQX. If Queens-based, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org to find out how to get involved. If you are based in Brooklyn, connect with a local organization such as UPROSE (click here to view their transportation justice page).
- Join us for a Walking Tour of Long Island City where we will where we will discuss the BQX and connection between money and politics in Long Island City.
- Sam Stein’s article, “The Streetcar Hustle” (Jacobin Magazine)
- Queens Anti-Gentrification Project’s open letter to the Transit Workers Union Local 100
- Developers along planned streetcar route donate to de Blasio (NY Daily News)
Last week, dozens of grassroots organizations and passionate citizens came together to demand the Municipal Arts Society to reevaluate their Jane’s Walk criteria, and halt the controversial developer-led Friends of the BQX Jane’s walk which was scheduled for Friday, May 5th.
The Queens Anti-Gentrification Project instigated a letter campaign, which was joined by Queens Neighborhood United, Queens Not 4 Sale, Brooklyn Anti-Gentrification Network, the authors of Zoned Out, Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus, UPROSE!(who also led a protest) and many others who called and sent their own letters to the Municipal Arts Society which hosts the annual Jane’s Walk celebration in NYC in honor of legendary community activist Jane Jacobs.
The Friends of the BQX canceled their walk, and the Municipal Art Society released a public statement in which they wrote: “we welcome your feedback that perhaps Jane’s Walk should be a more selective event. We are happy to discuss that suggestion with our international partners in planning next year’s festival.” This is a victory for all who believe that Jane’s Walk should be led by community organizations that live true to Jane’s philosophy of equity and social justice.
In order to get MAS to follow through on their word, we must collectively hold MAS accountable in creating a selective event that prevents luxury developers from appropriating Jane’s name. Let MAS know that if they are going to truly live up to their mission to uphold “community-based citizen planning” they MUST develop criteria to vet Jane’s walk leaders, even if it means a smaller event in 2018.
What is a Jane’s Walk?
Jane’s Walks are “Citizen-led walking tours towards community-based citizen planning” according to the official website. They are held each year in memory of community activist and writer Jane Jacobs who devoted her life to fighting community-killing urban renewal plans. Famously, when she learned that urban renewal czar Robert Moses was planning an expressway to cut through her beloved Washington Square Park, Jane did not stand by quietly: she organized alongside her neighbors, and was even arrested in a public hearing for her vocal opposition. If she were alive today, there is no doubt about what she would’ve done—she would protest the Friends of the BQX and repudiate MAS for allowing them to promote their luxury trolley in her name.
Why do we oppose the BQX?
The Brooklyn Queens Connector (BQX) is a luxury streetcar that would line the waterfront from Astoria to Sunset Park. According to its supporters, the system’s cost would be offset by tax revenue siphoned from an expected rise in property values along the route—in other words, through gentrification. This not only endangers working class renters, but also some of the few remaining manufacturing zones along the planned trolley route. A trolley would create significant pressure for rezonings that favor residential development which is far more lucrative than industrial companies. Express bus lanes would result in comparable improvements in commute time for a fraction of the price, according to Columbia University’s lead transportation David King—without causing gentrification.
If the BQX hurts working class people and manufacturing companies, who benefits?
A private real estate developer, Two Trees Management, conceived the BQX proposal and formed a nonprofit, Friends of the BQX, to support its realization. Its board of directors includes developers like Tishman Speyer, The Durst Organization and Rudin Management. Developers with existing or planned developments along the trolley route, like Park Tower Group, Alma Realty, Toll Brothers and Brookfield Properties, have donated a combined $245,000 to Mayor de Blasio’s now-defunct nonprofit, Campaign for One New York.
What can you do?
- Send MAS a message demanding that they never again allow developers to appropriate Jane’s Walks for their profit-motivated schemes. MAS must develop criteria for selecting Jane’s Walks leaders, and that criteria should be informed by members of the community. Contact MAS President Elizabeth Goldstein directly at egoldstein[at]mas.org. For additional staff contacts and phone numbers, see the MAS directory.
- Sign this petition and demand that Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer say no to the luxury trolley that would run through his district. Although Jimmy has expressed concern over the developments, he has yet to express his unconditional opposition, insinuating that it is too early in the planning phases. As vigilant community members we know that this is false. The time to fight community-killing plans is now—not when the City rams a fully baked plan through the community review process.
For Further Reading:
If we want to win, we need to be informed. Currently there’s imbalance in information between those fighting against unjust conditions and those that are in power. There are many projects that aim to level the playing field – this is one such project, albeit a small contribution.
Below are resources for doing property, building and owner research. If you have any questions regarding these resources or need help researching a particular property or policy, please contact us at: email@example.com
To begin, find the block and lot of the property you’re researching by entering the address in the first link below and clicking on the “location report” tab in the right-hand column.
GENERAL INFO AND DATASETS
- Basic Property Information (OASIS): http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx
- NYC Open Data. Datasets for analysis and GIS: https://nycopendata.socrata.com/
DEEDS AND MORTGAGE INFORMATION
- ACRIS: Database that provides information on deeds and mortgages for properties in NYC: http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/CP/
- Tax & Property Information: http://nycprop.nyc.gov/nycproperty/nynav/jsp/stmtassesslst.jsp
- Property Tax Benefits (J-51 and 421-A tax abatement): https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/
- DOB Search (lots of information, including building violations): http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/bispi00.jsp
- LUCATS. DCP Rezoning Applications: http://a030-lucats.nyc.gov/lucats/ULURP_Search.aspx
SALES AND LAND VALUE
- Co-op Information: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/taxes/property-cooperative-and-condominium-comparables.page
- Property Sale Information: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/taxes/property-rolling-sales-data.page
- Property Shark: http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/
- Lobbyist/Lobbying Search: http://prtl-drprd-web.nyc.gov/lobbyistsearch/
- Researching LLCs: http://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2013/09/18/look-beyond-the-llc-unmask-the-real-owners-of-a-property-2/
- LLC/Business New York State Search: http://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus_entity_search.html
Very soon two new zoning laws are going to be voted on by the City Council – Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA). These laws were ostensibly developed by the DeBlasio administration to increase the amount of affordable housing in NYC. The proposed laws, however, are, quite literally, a trojan horse for gentrification. If MIH and ZQA were to pass, and they are likely to do so, the potential land value across the city will increase immediately. The passage of these laws will prompt land developers to start buying up parcels of land that were previously deemed not profitable. In fact, in anticipation of MIH and ZQA, this process has already begun and, unfortunately, East New York is Ground Zero.
Developers have the primary goal of squeezing as much money out of their land as possible. Because of various regulations, the amount of money a developer can make off of a particular parcel of land is limited. Therefore, the developer is forced to mobilize political will in order to change the regulations and laws limiting their profits. There are a number of ways to do this – one of the main tactics is through rezoning. With rezoning, a developer gains the ability to build bigger and more upscale buildings on the parcels they own. In turn, this allows them to pack more people into a limited amount of space (e.g. by building taller) and charge higher rents (e.g. by creating luxury condos and selling them to rich people). The golden equation for developers is more people + higher rents = higher profits. As rezoning takes place, old buildings owned by individuals and occupied by working class folks are demolished and new buildings owned by developers are put in their place; in the rezoned neighborhoods, land values begin to increase, leading to gentrification and ultimately, displacement
More precisely: MIH and ZQA will allow for more rapid “up-zoning” (i.e. the ability to build larger and more profitable kinds of developments) across the entire city. As part of the deal, developers will be forced to make a certain portion of their developments “affordable” (which in reality aren’t actually affordable to most working class people). Politicians only like to talk about this “affordable” component, when in fact MIH and ZQA have very little to do with affordable housing and are really aimed at generating profits. To garner public support for this plan, the DeBlasio administration has devised a very savvy and insincere media campaign: he aims to create 200,000 affordable housing units over the next decade. What DeBlasio doesn’t tell us, however, is how many housing units will become unaffordable as a result of the gentrification brought on by MIH and ZQA. Undoubtedly, the gentrification caused by MIH and ZQA will lead to rapid rent increases in neighborhoods across the city – the 182,000 residents living in East New York, for example, are guaranteed to see their rent increase across the board if rezoning passes in their neighborhood. For what? A few hundred supposedly affordable units? Units which will likely be marketed to out of town folks, anyway?
In the end, the DeBlasio administration would like us to believe that trading our neighborhoods for a meager amount of affordable housing is worth it, but history has shown us that the words of politicians should not be trusted blindly. Every single politician in New York, from DeBlasio to Ruban Diaz, knows that MIH and ZQA are intended to increase land value and profits for developers and, in turn, produce higher tax revenues and capital investment for Borough Presidents. As an added bonus, DeBlasio gets to pretend that he’s the Mayor who saved affordable housing. It’s our contention that history will tell a different story, and we hope that this story is told sooner, rather than later.
A NOTE ON ZONING: The way city zoning law works is as follows: there is large zoning document, which has very detailed descriptions and regulations for what types of buildings can be built in various areas called “zones”. Each neighborhood in New York City is designated as a specific zone. For example, the R5 zone allows buildings that are 30 feet tall and the R6 zone allows for buildings that are up to 60 feet tall. If a developer wants to change the law, they can either change what is allowed in the R5 and R6 zones (higher allowed building heights), in general (zoning text amendment) or they can change what zone a neighborhood is designated as (map amendment). MIH and ZQA are zoning text amendments, whereas the rezoning in East New York is a map amendment (which will be one of the first zoning map amendments that will use regulations from the zoning text post-MIH and ZQA