Columbia Manhattanville (Rendering RPBW/SOM)
Over the last decade, Columbia University acquired over 168 residential buildings between 110th and 125th Streets. This makes up 6,000 housing units of which very few (est. 10%) are rent-regulated. Deregulation continues rapidly. The Environmental Impact Statement for the campus expansion estimates 5,000 low- and moderate-income residents will be displaced within a ten-block radius, critics add thousands more from 135th Street northward, suggesting that many buildings already have pro formas with their advisors busily working out financing for condos, coops and luxury rentals. The poster boy is 3333 Broadway, immediately north of the expansion zone that left the Mitchell Lama subsidized housing program leading to 1,000 vacated apartments.
The footprint of the Columbia University expansion into Manhattanville is greater than that of the World Trade Center. And like this development, millions of have been spent on public processes, yet very little is understood about the ultimate fate of current residents that may or may not be able to withstand the economic pressure of these changes. Even less is known on whether the lives of vulnerable families and businesses swept up in the process could be decisively altered in any meaningful way, except tragically. The capital involved could offer every resident child a guaranteed shot at higher education or equivalent training. Is it impossible to see a positive future for residents among the proceeds of these capital investments? If not why not?
Regulatory Taking, Columbia University
Background on the Battleground
In June 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote upheld the use of eminent domain by the city of New London, CT. (Kelo vs. City of New London) by saying economic development was a public purpose thereby giving government the authority to acquire property, affirming decades of previous litigation on this issue. By the end of 2006 thirty-five states enacted eminent domain restrictions and related reform of â€œregulatory takingsâ€. Also, related initiatives dubbed Kelo-plus and Kelo 3rd Round seek compensation for lost value due to land-use regulation. To date only one effort in Arizona stimulated by Howard Rich, a New York real estate investor and â€œlibertarian crusaderâ€ has succeeded.
Would pursuing the â€œtenantâ€ protection component yield valuable community economic development objectives? Hard to say, but both sides might be more recognizable to the average research effort by viewing: www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi. This site helps to define hairline legal differences between â€œregulatory taking and “eminent domainâ€ in the proposed reforms of Oregon’s Measure 37. In this particular case, government becomes liable for attorney fees if court award is greater than initial government offer. Ouch!
Headline: “Citizens call for reform of the reform.” Timothy Sandefur, Author of â€œCornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century Americaâ€ http://www.instituteforjustice.org/ This site has links to www.cato.org, Howard Rich is a board member (Cato). He likes how the term “property rights” strikes a cord among voters. They also have a hot selling t-shirt that reads, â€œblight meâ€. It all seems exquisitely hypocritical, but why?
Given the historically poor performance of government, the public’s opinion can easily be brought to define Kelo as a decision that betrays the small businessperson and working class residents, as well as, weaken efforts to erase racially imposed economic disparities. But, the dissent of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is probably best overall.
“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner. . . . Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . . The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”
So how is the policy outlined in this “big picture” fit in a neighborhood like Manhattanville? What does it do to the design of a place?
How about seeing INTERNATIONAL HOUSE as an example? Located at 500 Riverside Drive, 122nd Street) New York, NY 10027 http://www.ihouse-nyc.org/ This is a stretch, nuy Columbia offers a very nice “extra-large” apartment with private bathroom at $12,090/month and other less luxurious accommodations to full-time graduate students. They are available only during the academic year; undergraduates are welcome in the summer. Applications are required if stays of 30 days or more are intended.
Not here is some solid eeconomic development developed by extending housing privledges in order to acquire social capital. This is good business.
So, here is the thing, Barbara and Howard Rich are among many large real estate holders who are supporters of university sponsored Fulbright Scholarships and the programmed-education housing market in New York City.
Almost every university in New York City is a sponsor of this program as it brings in paying clients (students of all ages) to the fold. Via: http://www.ihouse-nyc.org/. Suprise this is a max hit zone is for housing such as the above. see:www.metrointl.org/support/documents/2006FulbrightAwardsDinnerSupporters.pdf
Is there anyother way to look at the this? There must be a way…
APA Metro Prepare Testimony on Manhattanville zoning
or go straight to the CPC DEIS for some real fun reading…