Civic Center Residents Coalition NYC

Who's dumping on Chinatown? Apotheke, that's who.

2012-02-02T21:53:00.003-05:00

The area in front of the U.S. Post office on Doyers street in Chinatown has become a dumping ground for trash bags and detritus. Tipsters in the neighborhood, successfully snapped off a few shots of the determined dumper last fall. Apotheke, a bar catering to tourists and the bridge and tunnel crowd apparently doesn't agree with the city's health code which mandates that all commercial businesses put their trash curbside in front of their own business for private carting pickup.

Skirting the law seems to be a favorite business "practice" of this newly arrived darling of blogosphere. Its owner Albert Trummer was arrested for setting the bar on fire as a Vegas-style publicity stunt. Historic Doyers street, unbeknownst to Trummer, was the site of one of the most horrific fires in lower Manhattan , a good reason why the FDNY came down hard on Trummer for his pyrotechnic stunt designed for the deep-pocketed-but-feeble-minded. We gripe at times over City agencies numerous fines and undercover stings, but this was definitely a life saving arrest that sends a message to other would-be juveniles with matches and alcohol.
As the saying goes, "with friends like these who needs enemies?" , Apotheke is not a friend to Chinatown.
Either Trummer or his employees don't give a sh*t about Chinatown. They don't even have a sign.
Neighbors don't dump their garbage in the street, and they certainly don't violate fire codes that endanger residential buildings. Trummer boldly said after his arrest that " he would like to "teach the Fire Department about the flammability of different alcohols". - Really?

As a service to New Yorkers we remind you that the Department of Sanitation takes illegal dumping seriously. There are rewards offered to citizens who report illegal dumping in their neighborhood - I'm just sayin'............

The Department of Sanitation has two programs through which the public can collect monetary awards for reporting observations of illegal dumping. Under the first - The Illegal Dumping Award Program - you must be willing to sign an affidavit and appear at the Environmental Control Board (ECB) hearing. Under the second - The Illegal Dumping Tip Program - information about your identity remains confidential.

The Illegal Dumping Award Program:
Under this program, a person who observes illegal dumping and completes an affidavit leading to the conviction of those responsible is eligible for rewards of 50% of the fine collected. The individual must appear at the ECB hearing if the respondent appears at ECB to challenge the summons issued pursuant to the affidavit.

The Illegal Dumping Tip Program:
Under this new program, a person who provides information leading the DSNY to catch the dumper in the act, would be eligible for a reward of up to 50% of any fine collected. Information on the individual's identity would remain confidential and complainants would not have to appear at an ECB hearing. However, Sanitation Enforcement personnel would have to subsequently "catch the dumper in the act" based on the tip.

Here comes the velvet rope - Le Baron - finishing touches on Mulberry St.

2011-11-17T16:44:00.002-05:00

Paris bar LeBaron looks like its finally going to open as workers paint the doors to the place

that was formerly Yello Karaoke bar.

From the NY POST :

And Parisian transplant Le Baron club is hoping to open in the former Yello Karaoke Lounge on the southernmost edge of Mulberry Street by year’s end.

“It’s definitely the next Lower East Side,” says West Village resident Patrick Ashby, a lawyer for the Royal Bank of Scotland.Read more: Looks like their permits came through - oh joy.

There is no true neighborhood in Manhattan that wants to be known as "the next Lower East Side" , thanks to the proliferation of bars in that formerly quiet part of the City. Given Chinatown's proximity to three bridges and two tunnels we can only imagine what the future will be like with this new addition to the neighborhood. Everyone put "311" and the 5th precinct phone numbers on their speed dial. No, seriously, do it, you'll see why as soon as this place opens.

Councilmember Recchia vows to create a "mechanism" to allow BID opponents to be on the Chinatown BID Board

2011-09-29T00:01:00.001-04:00

Councilmember Robert Jackson of district 7, challenges the phrase "not legitimately" used by BID opponent and representative of the Coalition Against the Chinatown BID, and Vice President of the Property Tax Payers Copr., in reference to the Chinatown BID creation

Video of Jan Lee Testimony at City Council Finance hearing on Chinatown BID, Sept. 7 '11

2011-09-28T15:01:00.000-04:00

Video of City Council Finance committee voting on Chinatown BID - 14 min.'s

2011-09-27T19:09:00.001-04:00

Please click the button below to watch the City Council Finance Committee voting on the Chinatown B.I.D., Sept. 21 2011.

Speaker Christine Quinn backed Margaret Chin's Chinatown BID on Sept. 21 2011

2011-09-23T19:52:00.001-04:00

Not a Solution, and not permanent - the BID is an aberration

2011-09-23T00:38:00.001-04:00

Opponents of the BID battled the plan every step of the way, charging the district with placing a burdensome tax on owners and being too politically tied.

Obviously we are disappointed, but we’re not surprised,” said Chinatown business owner Jan Lee, who has led the charge against the BID’s formation.

He alleged that the district plan was expedited due to political will, noting that a series of inquiries will eventually reveal that figures used to show widespread support for the BID are inaccurate.

“We do want to get the point across that the BID is a temporary aberration in Chinatown that will be eventually dismantled,” Lee said. “It should not be looked at as a permanent solution because it’s not a solution, and it’s not permanent.” -www.dnainfo.com

In response to the City Council's 50:0 vote in favor of a Chinatown B.I.D.......

2011-09-23T00:30:00.000-04:00

A ludicrous mockery of truth and fairness has been perpetrated upon the Chinese-speaking property owners of Chinatown!

So unbelievable to realize that the City Council is so ably in lock-step and synchronized to be marching to the financial Pied Piper's tunes - what a travesty that will live in Chinatown infamy!

Herbert Din

September 23, 2011

An Open Letter To City Council and Mayor Bloomberg about the Chinatown B.I.D.

2011-09-21T02:32:00.002-04:00

An Open Letter to the New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg,

We at The Coalition Against the Chinatown BID, as well as many of the business owners, constituents, and voters of greater Chinatown oppose the BID for the following reasons:

Chinatown property owners submitted a record number of official BID objection forms during the month of June causing Patrick Synmoie, the City Clerk’s counsel who has overseen the birth of almost two dozen B.I.D.s in the last decade to exclaim “We’ve never had anything like this.” According to the Daily News the City Clerk’s office said that the number of objections to the Chinatown BID filed was “impressive”. With well over five hundred verified properties in objection to the Chinatown BID we ask that you do not support the BID and vote “no”.

Implications in the proposal that could lead to abuse of low income people's civil and human rights:

We fear the Chinatown BID will likely impose its will against those individuals it deems as "unfavorable" to the business environment. Who is to say what is favorable or unfavorable in the interest of business? As one example, Chinatown is blessed to have numerous street musicians that come and go at will, however with a BID in place the Board can replace or evict those free spirits in favor of performers it deems as more talented, more presentable or an even more caricatured version if its directors want to promote an even more “Chinese” experience for its much-touted tourist populous that it aims to please so desperately. As one Chinatown BID Steering Committee leader said over coffee one day “ Let’s dress them in Chinese costume, put them on a box at the corner of Mott and Bayard and let the tourists take photos with them like they do in Times Square with that guy who dresses as the Statue of Liberty”. We simply cannot allow a Chinatown-for-the-tourist mentality to prevail. Business can and often does confuse promotion and exploitation, especially in ethnic neighborhoods in America.

Under a BID, with property owners heavily outweighing anyone else on the Board, there is an unnatural influence guided by a select group which can stifle anyone or anything it deems contrary to the interests of the business it seeks to promote, which ultimately will end up being its largest and wealthiest patrons. With nearly all of the Board of Directors of The Chinatown Partnership LDC (the progenitor of the Chinatown BID) already contributing to Councilmember Chin’s campaign fund we reject this intimate relationship between multimillion dollar business interests and politics in Chinatown.

Conversely without a BID there is no such entity to dictate who controls the street and sidewalk in favor of business over residential experiences. Academics and planners who will operate this BID are more often than not relying on biased studies to justify street closures as “good for business” rather than constantly updating field study to gauge the popularity of the actions they prescribe and intend to enact. Case in point are the night markets and street fairs prescribed as good for business by The Chinatown Partnership LDC, The Chinatown Working Group, and The Rebuild Chinatown Initiative (An AAFE handbook for the recovery of Chinatown post 9/11). Chinatown restaurants and merchants hate these ideas, yet they keep appearing in literature by people promoting a BID for Chinatown. This is a slap in the face to seasoned businesses in Chinatown who simply don’t want their streets taken over by night markets and street fairs.

The BID will privatize public space.

Public space plays a vital role in democracy, as a site of free speech, association, and protest. Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg writes that the downtown, with its bars, coffee shops and public spaces, constitutes an important "third place," different from the first and second places of home and work. Chinatown’s parks and open spaces are included in the Chinatown BID, yet each park has its own maintenance. In fact Kim Lau Square has recently embarked in project working with NYC’s Partnership For Parks to organize gardening and maintenance volunteers to brighten the neglected square.

When the policing of a district and its maintenance are based on profit-driven concerns rather than the need to create and maintain noncommercial space where people assemble, it's difficult to use public space the way it was intended. There's been substantial attention to the manner in which BIDs globally have often attempted to rid the spaces they control of the homeless, ethnic minorities, and political activists who might frighten off shoppers. Yet, public space is there to accommodate the right of the people to assemble, and the city's streets and sidewalks are not a country club. You should not have to be the "right" race or in the "right" income bracket in order to walk them. Union Square Park was embroiled in a bitter battle over its use of public space and ultimately lost the year round use of its jewel which was the stone pavilion because business took it over. With a strikingly similar stone pavilion in Columbus park, which was defiantly left inside the BID district plan despite Community Board 3’s resolution declaring approval of the BID only if Columbus Park was removed**, we feel strongly that the Chinatown residents will also lose year round unfettered access to every square foot of park space which is so desperately needed in this compact community. Again, business interests have dictated that the Park is useful to them, and therefore refused to remove it from the BID, this is indicative of future undemocratic use of space and defiant abuse of BID power.

The power that the BID has over public space seems unlimited.

Most laws give BIDs the power to sue, incur indebtedness, enter into contracts, acquire real property, design, engineer, and construct urban streetscapes, manage parking, and "administer and manage central and neighborhood business districts." The last clause, in its vague, abstract language, is the most frightening, since it could encompass almost anything. Additionally anyone wishing to sue a BID is discouraged to do so because the law says that anyone who sues a BID and loses pays not only his own legal fees but the fees incurred by the BID as well. As a result very few law suits are brought against these powerful entities.

The danger lies not only in the individual BID over its domain, it lies in the combined power of several or all the BIDs in the City which can influence political votes, public policy*** over street and sidewalk use, and general quality of life issues that will permanently put business interests over that of the public good. Why should we let BIDs have precedent over any of these rights that we pay taxes for already? In the case of resident business owners, they pay twice for the use of these public spaces and services, with a BID tax being a third tax.

B.I.D. Executive Directors answer to no one.
B.I.D's are under no obligation to log or reveal any complaints against the BID.
The City's record for routine financial or satisfaction audits of BID's is abysmal.
the Fox is guarding the hen house in 65 neighborhoods in New York City

The BID is not subject to oversight and does not operate based on democratic principles.

The BID will be making the big decisions the law gives it authority over behind closed doors. The law does not require the private BID board of directors to have open meetings, or compel them to follow other public provisions that encourage citizen participation and institutional transparency. In fact BIDs have no obligation to record or reveal any complaint against the BID. The so called oversight of BIDs by politician’s representatives on BID boards is abysmal. A history of absenteeism, corruption and resignation is well documented and leaves no assurance that the City will police the BID to any degree of effectiveness with such a heavy presence of real estate interests on all the Boards.

In a time of economic depression, the BID proposes to heighten recessionary effects.

Property tax under the BID will go up eventually and thus business and residential rents will rise as well as evidenced in this article in Crain’s NY Business http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110619/REAL_ESTATE/306199981, this will drive business to Brooklyn Chinatown where there is no BID and thus more competitive pricing for everything from bok choy to eyeglasses. The BID will affect all of us, whether we are property owners or businesses who opt in or not, by making Chinatown more expensive in general. These effects will further gentrification in Chinatown, forcing low income people out. It will also destroy small independent businesses that make up part of Chinatown’s reputation for arts, culture and cuisine since these businesses don't have a big a profit margin and will not be able to afford the rise in property taxes and rent, leaving mostly only homogenizing corporate chain businesses behind. The Chinatown BID Steering committee (lawyers, real estate tycoons, chain store owners****) is made up of millionaires who cannot relate to the average small business in Chinatown. The BID is designed to be attractive to tourists (as CPLDC has made clear ad infinitum) so mainly only hotels, restaurants and tourist gift shops will benefit, while small local businesses that rely on a more local customer base will just see a spike in rent with no additional revenue . BIDs are only supposed to be formed in areas that which are at least 3/4 zoned for commercial, industrial, and mixed use because BIDs put a devastating financial burden on residential areas.

The hidden cost to the community, which is of no consequence to the people who are the BID’s Steering Committee, because they are literally millionaires, is the loss of affordable nutrition to a community whose population is largely living under the poverty line. The businesses who provide affordable groceries and cooked meals to the working poor will be the first to flee due to rising rent as a result of the BID. Gone will be the five-for-a-dollar dumplings replaced by more $6.00 coffees from chain stores. This has a domino effect of the working poor having to relocate near a source of affordable nutrition and housing, thus expediting the gentrification* of Chinatown. This loss of affordable nutrition is key to the gentrification process and in fact is a tool used to bring in high end supermarkets or gourmet grocery stores. Chinatown may still have Chinese businesses in it, but the patron demographic will change dramatically over night. The working poor of Chinatown stand no chance against a BID in their quest to have access to affordable food because ultimately a BID will seek to derive as much income to support itself as it can on every block it occupies and “maintains”. The budget in the largest BID in New York (Chinatown) will not remain stagnant and will seek to increase its revenue any way it can. To endorse a BID knowing this is the ultimate result is unconscionable and not in the spirit of what makes New York great.

The BID is undemocratic.

The entire process has been skewed in favor of BID supporters. For example New York City provides its department staff, time and information free of charge to BID supporters with unlimited access to property information and research. This can go on for years. Who knows how much tax payer money is spent supporting this endeavor?

The City does not validate any signatures of so called BID supporters who sign ballots produced and distributed by those supporters.

The Chinatown Partnership’s P.R. firm Rubenstein and its Executive Director claim 97% approval for the BID. Three community boards based their decisions on what appears to be overwhelming support and “diet” of pro-BID propoganda, yet not a single signature is validated nor connection to property ownership provided. In a clear example of what a double standard is, in contrast those wishing to oppose the BID have only 30 days to obtain an official form, get it notarized and show proof of property ownership via deed, and after that objections must account for 51% of all benefitted properties or 51% of assessed total value of the district to stop the BID from forming. We are confident that the over five hundred objection forms submitted to the City Clerk is the largest number ever to oppose any BID in the City. This represents more than the supposed 3% opposition claimed by Rubenstein and the CPLDC.

Once approved by the Council, we will not be easily rid of the BID.

The dissolution of the BID calls for the objection vote of 51% of the district's assessed value and 51% of the property in the district. Even if such a vote was made, a BID that still owes debt must remain intact. A BID can actually intentionally incur debt as a safeguard against being dissolved which would explain the cozy relationship between this Board and its banker. Those who are in the BID are locked into whatever contracts the BID enters into in perpetuity. All surrounding areas will be dramatically affected by the Chinatown BID without input into their process which is why SoHo and Little Italy vehemently opposed the Chinatown BID.

No actual objective quantitative evidence concerning Chinatown’s economy was created in support of this plan. In another words the people (real estate developers Chris Kui, Bill Lam and life- long political candidate Margaret Chin) who wanted the BID for the last decade are the ones who wrote the documents to justify its need to exist. All proponents have done is written the pamphlets themselves while failing to include the pitfalls a BID would have in Chinatown. Even if there is consent for a BID it was uninformed consent.

By attempting to gentrify the city and police classes of people out of the vibrant mix that is Chinatown, the BID proponents will eliminate the reasons why people come to Chinatown in the first place: because it is a town full of independent businesses, art, and culture with lively public spaces where a heterogeneous crowd of people can all ideally have a chance to thrive as they have for the last century.

Councilmember Margaret Chin won't listen to any alternatives to a B.I.D.

BID alternatives routinely ignored.

With 9/11 recovery money from the LMDC The Chinatown Partnership inexplicably they sent millions of tax payer dollars to a private cleaning contractor in Tennessee rather than employ non-profit local alternatives that have transparent and proven track records. During the years of the Chinatown Partnership’s existence they could have ushered many dozens of individuals through proven rehabilitation programs the employ street cleaning to help formerly homeless New Yorkers. Instead they quietly chose the private company in Tennessee Mydatt Services which has no disclosure of its hiring practices and in fact provides very little for the community other than a few stagnant jobs which largely have gone to only Chinese people. With non-BID neighborhood cleaning alternatives existing all over America Chinatown has been overwhelmed with only one solution by the Chinatown Partnership, Councilmember Chin and one of the most powerful public relations firms in the world (Rubenstein Inc.) who counts no less than two dozen multibillion dollar real estate developers as its clients.

We will not forget.

In closing, over five hundred properties with verified signatures representing blocks and lots existing within the proposed BID district currently stand in staunch opposition to the creation of a Chinatown BID and these numbers will only grow in coming months. Borough President Scott Stringer has “denied press reports that he has supported the Chinatown BID.” – NYDAILYNEWS, 6/27/11. By endorsing (voting yes) to this undemocratic, politically connected, inefficient, top heavy bureaucracy called the Chinatown BID you will seal the fate of those in Chinatown who can least afford its ill effects. We will organize again at election time against elected officials who support this exploitation of our community under the guise of “cleaning”. We encourage you to vote "NO" when the Chinatown BID comes before the City Council.

The Coalition against the Chinatown BID

Herbert Din said...

September 23, 2011 12:16 AM

City Council Finance Committee and Full City Council vote on The Chinatown B.I.D. Wed. Sept 21st 2011

2011-09-20T11:29:00.002-04:00

The City Council Finance Committee chaired by Dominic Recchia

will vote on the Chinatown Business Improvement District

Wednesday Sept 21st 2011

at 250 Broadway 16th floor.

Later in the afternoon,

The full City Council will vote (presuming the finance committee votes "yes" on the B.I.D.)

at 1:pm

at 49-51 Chambers Street (former Emigrant Savings Bank)

for more information on

what YOU can do if you oppose the

formation of the Chinatown B.I.D.

go to

www.nochinatownbid.org and follow the steps to contact the Finance Committe

BEFORE the vote.

spectators allowed but no testimony will be taken, seating limited

Chinatown Partnership B.I.D. Steering Committee motto: "Let Us Help Ourselves"

2011-09-19T00:05:00.001-04:00

"Stinky!" Reasons for a BID - Downtown Express

2011-08-31T23:32:00.001-04:00

The "stink campaign" explained.

In the same way a magician uses slight-of-hand to misdirect and misguide the casual viewer, the Chinatown BID proponents and pro-BID politicians have tried their mightiest to pull a rabbit out of their hat. Property owners and residents (you know the ones paying the real estate taxes) have their say on the subject:

To the editor:

Re, “Last Ditch Attempt to Stop Chinatown B.I.D” (news article, Aug. 17) and Supporting a Chinatown B.I.D. (editorial, Aug. 17)

Chinatown Partnership, LDC (CPLDC), after morphing from Rebuild Chinatown Initiative, has, for years, orchestrated “Chinatown Stinks” campaigns focusing on dirty streets to justify their agenda to institutionalize a Chinatown Business Improvement District in our community. Before 9/11, Chinatown’s businesses were booming in the historic core of Chinatown. Weekend lines trailed out most of Chinatown’s restaurants onto sidewalks, necessitating long waits as families and friends gathered for meals alongside tourists who came to eat, shop and sightsee — dirty streets or not.

After 9/11, the boom busted as a result of a confluence of factors. The barricading of Park Row (the main street connecting Chinatown to Lower Manhattan) and other roadways, the takeover of a local park for police parking, and the installation of multiple security booths/barricades created a hostile “under siege” environment. The confusing redirection of four to five bus routes that operated on Park Row, along with the permanent closure of the Park Row/Chinatown exit ramp from the Brooklyn Bridge, created massive traffic congestion on secondary roadways during rush hours. These conditions sparked lawsuits for the return of the park and an environmental impact study. The lack of new directional signage for the street changes, the pervasive government permit placard abuse in Chinatown and throughout Lower Manhattan, and the loss of the 400 car Municipal Garage shortly before 9/11 forced the closing and/or changing of hands of over 29 small businesses within two blocks of Park Row because of the confusion, limited access and lack of parking. Friends, family, shoppers, and visitors, who used to frequent Chinatown, experienced frustration. To this day, they continue to avoid Manhattan’s Chinatown post 9/11, expressing preference for Flushing or Brooklyn where access and parking are not a struggle.

During the recession of 2008, the city announced plans to dig up Chatham Square (which had just been completely reconstructed nine years earlier) in order to: install a water tunnel, redesign and narrow the Bowery, install a new pedestrian plaza, and take Park Row off the grid as a street, all of which would have further hampered traffic and hurt our businesses. Halting implementation of these plans was fought and won with the help of our elected officials and more than a hundred small businesses around Chatham Square, who hurriedly signed a petition objecting to the L.M.D.C. funding of this project. Also the Civic Center Residents Coalition was forced to go toe to toe with the DOT through several community boards.

None of these critical battles to reclaim our streets and neighborhood were on Chinatown Partnership’s agenda. CPLDC’s narrow focus and mantra was always “dirty streets” as the major cause of Chinatown’s ails, making it easier to justify the BID’s self-serving, street-cleaning existence. CPLDC used the faulty premise that cleaner streets would be how to rebuild Chinatown and obtained LMDC funds. It spent the bulk of $5.4 million on sanitation and its administration, still leaving store vacancies and a sluggish economy in the core of Chinatown in its wake. This is why we look with tremendous alarm at the prospect of this myopic group controlling the future of Chinatown’s small business and hence residential environment. Chinatown does not need a BID.
Sincerely,
Jeanie Chin

....and another thing....... (a property owner sets the record straight about the Chinatown BID)

2011-08-31T18:38:00.000-04:00

To the editor:
Re: Support the Chinatown B.I.D. (Downtown Express editorial, July 20)

We, the Chinatown B.I.D. opponents, do not believe the Chinatown B.I.D. steering committee’s claim that everyone will be paying a small amount for large benefits. Their own formation documents lay the keys to their power and their ability to increase their collection of much more money from the taxpayers if they so desired.

This fine print in the B.I.D. (Chinatown B.I.D. N110156BDM Source of Funding) places the property owners in the vulnerable position of potentially being liable for increases up to 20 percent. An additional 20 percent in taxes is a frightening prospect for anyone, let alone for small property owners who have had to pay steadily increasing property taxes, increased water bills, increased utility bills, increased fuel bills, increased maintenance costs, and comply with Local Law 11 (periodic inspections of building façades).

If the B.I.D. is mismanaged and fails, the B.I.D.’s proponents can smile with their hands in the till, while the property owners are stuck scrambling to pay the bill ad infinitum. If the property owner cannot pay for the levied taxes assessed by the B.I.D., they will lose their property!

Considering how the pro-B.I.D. organizers have prevented their opponents from legally voicing their opposition to the B.I.D., attempted to distort their own ballot results, and bashed us in the press when we have tried to educate the community about a B.I.D., how can we trust them? We cannot. Therefore it is likely they will use similar deceptive tactics in the future when attempting to persuade the City Council to increase their B.I.D. fees up to 20 percent, maximum, if they so desired. At that point, the property owners and businesses will be devastated!

Unlike other B.I.D.s, which have many large properties or a large number of commercial tenants that can help offset the costs, many of the Chinatown properties are small. There is a limit as to how much the owners and businesses can realistically afford the B.I.D. fees/taxes before pulling up stakes — thereby leaving fertile ground for developers who will, in essence, force the small businesses and Chinatown residents out. The B.I.D. is steering our Chinatown community not toward boom, but bust!
Eugene Leung, Mott St.

A Poem About a B.I.D.

2011-08-31T18:33:00.000-04:00

Roses are red and violets are blue.
You are a liar and that I know is true.

The BID is a tool you use to make Chinatown a fool.
With the BID you want to effectively rule the fool.

You want to pull the wool over Chinatown’s eyes.
So that it will be a fool to enrich and better YOUR lives.

Flushing is crying that they have been made a fool,
"flushing" their hard earn dollars down the pool.

Flushing is crying that they are paying more taxes,
Suffering BID lashes.

YOU use your force and voice to prey on “d, e, and f”.
YOU are about fooling the deaf.
d.. 35 percent of property owners pay just $200 per year –
e.. 74 percent of property owners pay less than $1,000 per year.
f.. Only a handful of property owners pay the maximum dues of $5,000 per year.

And as for CLEAN, who can define CLEAN?
Are you CLEAN?

As there are things and people that are clean on the outside, but are really dirty and filthy on the inside.

Roses are red and Violets are blue,
Lets be true and agree that the BID will put Chinatown in the BLUES.

We Don’t need the BID.

by Joyce Ree, on Wed, Jul 20, 2011

City Council Finance Committee tries for another Hearing on the Chinatown B.I.D. SEPT. 7th '11

2011-08-29T15:42:00.007-04:00

Councilmember Margaret Chin has sent out a notice to an undetermined number of property owners in Chinatown announcing another hearing by the Finance Committee of the City Council chaired by Councilmember Dominic Recchia, about the Chinatown Business Improvement District, on September 7th at 12:pm at Emigrant Savings Bank49-51 Chambers Street.

Councilmember Margaret Chin

This time Councilmember Chin, who is of Chinese descent and has a history in Chinatown in one form or another over the last forty years, decided to translate the notice into Chinese (on the back of the notice) and sent a notice directly from her office.

A previous one sheet notice was sent to some property owners and residential tenants in Chinatown by the Chinatown Partnership LDC (not by Chin's office) about the May 26th Finance Committee hearing on the BID. That notice was sent on May 13th, but had no Chinese translation, a point that was raised by Councilmember Reyna at the hearing. Although Wellington Chen claims" it cannot be bi-lingual because the law says it can only be one piece, double-sided, in English" and therefore didn't allow for additional pages for Chinese translation, we could not find anywhere in the BID law that notices of finance committee hearings mailed to property owners must be this way. We must find, therefore, that this omission was a deliberate attempt to ensure the least possible number of property owners attending the hearing of May 26th.

A Chinatown property owner reported that she spoke to Tanisha Edwards, Counsel for the City Council, regarding this hearing on September 7th and this is what she said: "Spoke briefly to Tanisha Edwards, counsel for Finance Committee of the City Council. She said that they will expect everyone who wanted to speak will have a chance to do so at this meeting. There will be 200 seats at the Emigrant Savings Bank auditorium. When I asked how early will we have to show up to get in to speak she said the speakers will start at 12:01pm sharp and there would be no problem. When I referred to that other meeting, she insisted it would not be a problem. "This is an oversight meeting so we want to hear from everyone." I plan to bother her one more time asking if we had to register ahead of time. "

The last hearing on the Chinatown BID by the Finance Committee was a total fiasco which included Chinatown property owners being shut out of the hearing at 250 Broadway. After building security told property owners who were waiting to be checked into the building that the hearing was "closed for the day," a spokesman for the City Council told the property owners that a special list existed for speakers to register in advance, and that speakers would have to be cleared with the Council attorneys. The Sargent at Arms for the City Council berated property owners for "messing up". This has yet to be determined, whether a special list of speakers indeed exists. Normally anyone wishing to testify at an open hearing does not have to pre-register or check in with the Councilmembers with an attendance list. A favorite tactic of the Chinatown Partnership, the entity pushing to form the BID, is to pack the room with paid CPLDC employees and non-testifying "supporters" from community boards and other BIDs so that there is no room for property owners. Likely this tactic will be futile this time around.

Perhaps realizing the implications of shutting out legitimate discourse and dialogue opposing the Chinatown BID, the City Council Finance Committee and Councilmember Margaret Chin have scheduled this additional "exploratory" hearing on the BID.

What: City Council Finance Committee Exploratory hearing on the Chinatown B.I.D.
Where: Emigrant Savings Bank 49-51 Chambers Street Manhattan
Time: 12:pm noon
When: September 7th
ATTENDEES MUST ARRIVE NO LATER THAN 11:AM, speakers must sign up immediately to fill out speaker cards.

Questions: Property Tax Payers Corp. / No Chinatown BID: 917-710-7503 Jan Lee
Margaret Chin's office: 212 788-7259

IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, you may FAX your statement about the Chinatown BID to Tanisha Edwards at:
212-788-7061

Communities agree that the process of B.I.D. formation is not fair to everyone.

2011-08-28T23:08:00.004-04:00

Activist Zella Jones speaks out against the process by which Business Improvement Districts are formed in New York City.

Chinatown no-BID activists, predominantly made up of small property owners, have also been crying foul over the last several years. This came to a head when the Chinatown community had to scramble to get official objection forms signed by property owners within the allotted 30 day period as prescribed by BID law. Regardless of the geographic size of a proposed BID service district the City, inexplicably, limits the amount of time for objection forms to be handed in to 30 days. This means that a one-block-BID and a seventy five block BID with thousands of tax lots has the same short period to object. This is ludicrous and speaks to the built-in-bias in favor of pro-BID developers and the Mayor's office which heavily supports BIDs. The way the system is currently designed, it behooves any group to draw in thousands of tax lots in order to ensure a limited amount of objections due to the short objection period and verification process.

Despite this overwhelming obstacle, the no-BID-Chinatown property owners have eclipsed the pro-BID supporters. The claims made by CPLDC, Margaret Chin, and the Small Business Service that 97% of Chinatown supports a BID, are bogus because there is no system to authenticate any ballot survey turned in to the SBS. There is also no way for SBS or Council Members to claim that every single pro-BID ballot is verified and authentic. The only vetted documents are the ones that are objections because they are accompanied by notarized signatures and copies of deeds (as required by law). These are legally binding documents, whereas unverified support ballots probably are not.

While property owners wishing to oppose the BID scramble to officially object, multi-million dollar public relations firmed who are buoyed by multi-billion dollar real estate developers are throwing out lies and playing with semantics to confuse the issue of BIDs popularity while slinging mud at legitimate opposition.

Zella Jones sent this letter to the editors of the Downtown Express Newspaper referring to the BID process in general, but in response to the proposed expansion of the NoHo BID, which she was able to stop, and the SoHo BID which is in the formation process right now.
She has spoken out in favor, however, of a Chinatown BID. With these built in flaws to the process, we're not clear why Jones sees fit to have a BID in Chinatown, but not one in her neighborhood.

August 24, 2011 | Filed under: Letters to the editor | Posted by: admin

To the editor:

Re: “B.I.D. group charges much opposition is from outside district” (news article by Aline Reynolds, Aug. 11)

These numbers are not adding up. There are 280 tax lots in the proposed district. Only 124 responded and only 99 approved the proposal. That’s only a 44 percent response rate and only 35 percent approval. This certainly does not constitute a majority.

Further, if approving owners represent only 30 percent of the assessed value of the area, there is not a majority by this factor either.

It is particularly unfortunate that the New York State law that enables the formation of business improvement districts does not suitably recognize the impact of a B.I.D. in areas that are predominantly residential.

The legislation reads: “Owners of real property within the district opposed to the plan have 30 days to file objections at the municipal clerk’s office. If either the owners of 51 percent of the assessed valuation of all benefited real property or at least 51 percent of the owners of real property within the district file objections, the district will not be established.”

This puts the onus on property owners who do not favor a B.I.D., and who may not be otherwise organized or funded, to launch a campaign equally as intense and expensive as the city-backed business proponents to actively solicit objections and affidavits and to lobby against its formation. Further, as opposed to the allowed 18 months for B.I.D. formation granted to the proponents, the opponents get 30 days!

This legislation needs change.

Zella Jones

Zella Jones responds to this posting:

Dear Jan:

I do feel that the legislation that provides for Business Improvement Districts should be revisited. As it is currently written, and currently applied, the legislation is flawed. It warrants the attention of our elected leaders in its revision.

I am not universally opposed to Business Improvement Districts. There are benefits to collective representation and distinction in many areas of our City and particularly in City Council District 1 where there are so many diverse communities with distinctive needs, highly dependent on International commercial viability and attractiveness…not only to business owners but employment, as well. Nor, am I opposed to a tax assessment structure that funds the mission, management, and operation of a district, though I would also favor reallocation of regular tax dollars to various City Services to allow for more “home rule” in their geographic allocation. Some of this could be made available to “Improvement Districts” to defray additional assessments. The current Community Board budget request system is too often ignored and, by its very nature not well focused on “hot spots.” Indeed, Community Boards could benefit by more organized and recognized constituencies to back up their district requests.

In my opinion, there should be an additional option provided by the City and State, that could more adequately represent area stakeholders. Other states and cities have adopted Community Benefit Districts. In fact I have shared several examples and some research with you on this topic in the past. A Community Benefit District is represented by resident, business, institution and nonprofit stakeholders. The assessments are smaller because they are spread among all property owners. These entities can also apply for and receive grants from third party foundations for specific initiatives. The disbursement of funds and the initiatives sponsored are more representational because the board and its interests are diverse. Such entities encourage collaboration and consensus. In areas like the SoHo and NoHo where the majority of stakeholders and square footage of property ownership is not for commercial investment alone, this model could be very constructive. There are neighborhoods in all five boroughs that could benefit by such recognized representation and oversight; but at present the State and City have no provision for incorporating it.

As regards the Chinatown BID, it is my observation, from my association with the Chinatown Working Group and intensive involvement with the Economic Development Working Team and involvement with BID structures in general, that the assessments are unusually fair for their distribution; that the budget for the area is in line with a modest community-wide improvement, that such improvements could affect better commerce, jobs and wages and that the outreach was particularly representational, in terms of stakeholders/property owners and square footage. I expressed that opinion as an interested citizen; there were many other opinions expressed. I respect your right to disagree and your more intimate connection to the area.

As regards NoHo, the stakeholders in the proposed expansion area are predominantly residential/institutional and have expressed their majority opinion that a strictly commercial frame of reference does not serve their interests. As it turns out the business owners in this area also agree. In fact NoHo stakeholders are so invested in having dialogue and a unified vision that they have initiated the formation of a private nonprofit Community Benefit District to represent their collective interests, until such time as the State and City adopt similar provisions. The funding is through voluntary membership; it is based on a percentage of gross square footage of property owned. The budget may not be as substantial as a BID would provide, but the commitment to having one voice among elected and appointed leaders is high. I am always proud to speak on their behalf.

Thank you for making available this opportunity to respond to your post.

Zella Jones
NoHoManhattan.org

http://twitter.com/NoHoManhattan

The Calm Before The Storm - Chinatown 7:30pm August 27th 2011

2011-08-27T20:17:00.000-04:00

Photos of Chinatown before hurricane Irene. These were taken at around 7:30pm.
An eery calm is pervasive throughout the neighborhood.

Downtown Express Editors get an earful from Chinatown Property Owners regarding the B.I.D.

2011-08-20T00:00:00.001-04:00

To the editor:

Re: “Last-ditch attempt to stop Chinatown B.I.D.” (news article by Aline Reynolds, July 20)
Chinatown B.I.D. proponents deliberately skewed their data when they touted that 97% of the ballots were in favor of it. However, they were referring only to the returned ballots. Of the 2300 surveys that were sent out, only 550 responded, so that means 1750 either did not respond or never received the survey. No one knows how many mailings were returned undelivered. The numbers strongly suggest that there was insufficient and unacceptable outreach.

Community Boards 1, 2, and 3 were persuaded to vote in favor of the Chinatown B.I.D. based on the 97% quote, when in fact only 23% (534 out of 2300) responded favorably. Even THOSE responses are highly questionable, because the respondents did not need to show proof of identity, nor their deeds for any property. In addition, the survey shows that the respondent could place a check mark to indicate whether they were a property owner, a business owner, or a resident. When more ballots were needed in June 2010, Chinatown B.I.D. targeted the non-profit organizations (exempt from any assessment fee), private residential owners (paying $1 fee), and doctor’s offices (paying $200 fee) because those groups would bear no or minimal financial burden for the B.I.D. Of course, it would be easy to vote yes when it will be someone else’s hard-earned money that will be spent. The survey results lumped all the 550 respondents into one group, and the breakdown regarding the category of any of the respondents continues to be muddled and changed, depending on what the Chinatown B.I.D. proponents wish the number to represent at any given moment.

They further reported that close to half of the property owners would only be paying $1, trying to downplay the cost that most property owners will have to bear. They were referring to the 784 residential owners in 47 residential condo buildings. However, the percentage for 784 out of 2,323 properties is not 50%, it is under 34%.

There are a number of non-profits which own sizable properties within the Chinatown B.I.D., as well as government-owned properties that will not have to pay any B.I.D. taxes or fees. Those groups will not only shift the costs onto the other property owners, but will be in positions to have a lot of control once the B.I.D. is formed.

Clearly, 550 is a low number of unverified and mixed respondents in such a densely populated community and cannot be deemed sufficient to claim the required strong community support for a Chinatown B.I.D. On the other hand, because only verified property owners with deeds were permitted to file objections to the B.I.D., the verified owners of 562 properties filed their objections with the City Clerk within the short 30-day limitation, the MOST verified objections ever against any NYC B.I.D.!

Having full knowledge of the inequities in standards as well as the high number of objections, Councilmember Margaret Chin should be ashamed that she is aggressively advocating for the Chinatown B.I.D. and trying to steamroll it through. Chinatown is still recovering from the 9/11 aftereffects, the closure of Park Row, and the removal of community-available parking. Now it is weathering the economy’s current downturn. Councilmember Chin has failed to grasp the potentially devastating impact of the B.I.D. assessments/fees upon the small property owners and businesses. Those “fees”, which are in fact permanent taxes, will in turn raise the costs for the visitors, workers, and residents in Chinatown. Chinatown cannot afford a B.I.D.!
Susan Parent

Comments from SoHo and Chinatown - Councilmember Chin in the Hot Seat

2011-07-28T16:41:00.000-04:00

Several people have commented following the publishing of a Letter To The Editor - responding to comments made by Councilmember Margaret Chin in an article published on July 20th 2011 - Last Ditch Effort To Stop Chinatown BID - by Aline Reynolds.

Here are some of the comments:

Downtown Express - commenter: "Lives Here" says:

When the NYS / NYC BID laws were enacted in NYS / NYC 30 years ago the world was different and a BID was offered as a way to bolster stagnant commercial areas. The way this BID law is now being used to divide NYC into fiefdoms is NOT what was intended.

Councilmember Chin has stooped to a low bow before the BID proponents. She is claiming that those is opposition to the BID are doing so through intimidation, but that is far from the truth and a low blow unbecoming an elected representative. But Chin seems to care little for facts or the truth when it comes to BIDs in her district. Instead she sides with powerful real estate interests promoting these new BIDs, few of whom reside in her district, over her constituents who have spoken out loudly and clearly against BID plans and expansions.

If Councilmember Chin truly cared as she claims she does about small property owners, businesses and residents in these BID districts then why did she fail to get any protective language regarding budgets or assessments or expansions written into the BID District Plans? Her word means little when the law grants power to those monied few who run a BID. And when Chin is out of office then her assurances, promises and empty declarations will mean nothing.

As Chin herself has noted in regard to BID assessments, "an annual assessment would be double taxation." Elected officials should stand up and reject these proposals, which will levy unnecessary taxes on small businesses and property owners.

Stop the Chinatown BID
Stop the SoHo BID
Stop the Expansion of the LES BID

commenter: Ingrid W.

The disgraceful response from Chin and her corporate supporters underlines why the Chinatown BID has to be defeated!

commenter: Lotus bud

If it is true that Wellington said, at the 6/23/10 BID meeting, that the BID petition should "target non profits [since they are exempt from the assessment fee] and $1.00 private residential owners" then there's a serious scandal that the news ought to cover.

http://www.ccrcnyc.com/2011/07...

A BID purports to justify itself as representative. If it targeted its petition, then it is not representative at all, but working as an advocate, and the public should know whom they are advocating for at the expense of the local community voice. Why wouldn't the BID trust the voices of all the local interests?

Margaret ought to be in the forefront of questioning the BID's methods. If not, she abrogates her sacred public trust.

commenter: Lora Tanenbaum

Kudo's to Jan Lee and his courageous group for revealing that the Emperor has no clothes. Chin should be ashamed, as should the Mayor's Office. At all the community board meetings the board members were told that there had been a 95% return on the mailings and that 97 % of those returns had been in favor. But the fact is only 24% of those who supposedly received ballots sent them in. And even less said yes. No proof of distribution of the ballots to all potential voters is necessary and no care need be taken that the respondent is entitled to cast the ballot. We know from the SoHo BID that many property owners never get ballots. In sharp contrast, objectors must wait until the BID proposal passes council committee before they can file formal objections, each of which must be notarized and contain a copy of the title deed to show proof of ownership. Fair ? Equal? A resounding no. The system is stacked in favor of BIDs.

Keep in mind that this isn't only about money. Its about political power. The Council Member, the Borough President, the Mayors Office and the Finance Department all have seats on the BID Boards. The whole process basically privatizes public space, giving BID boards unequal control over what happens in the community. Which is probably why non-resident, Steering Committee Member Michael Salzhauer, whose Benjamin Partners real estate company owns real estate in the district, is so pro-BID. His record of regularly mading political donations to Michelle Bachman, Allen West and the Club for Growth PAC created by Pat Toomey clearly show a likely preference for privatization.

But that begs the question of why does Margaret Chin?

Chinatown Property Owners respond to accusations made by Councilmember Chin

2011-07-27T16:23:00.005-04:00

The Downtown Express Newspaper, on July 20th 2011, printed an article about property owners in Chinatown making a "last ditch effort" to stop a Business Improvement District from forming in Chinatown. Local Councilmember Margaret Chin made strong accusations about opponents to the BID in the article including
"“They’re spreading a lot of misinformation about the B.I.D.,” said Chin, who adamantly supports the initiative. “When you give people correct, accurate information, they understand the value of this project, and there’s overwhelming support for it,” she said, pointing out that ninety-two percent of property owners who previously cast a ballot for the B.I.D. voted in favor of it. and
"“The biggest problem here is, we have a very articulate opponent with no regard for the truth. It’s a very powerful enemy, and it’s very hard to combat,” said B.I.D. spokesperson Pat Smith. “If someone comes up to you and says, ‘the B.I.D. is going to raise your taxes,’ and they say, ‘sign this’… the easiest thing to do is sign it.” - Rubenstein PR firm on behalf of The Chinatown Partnership LDC

It is rare for any Council Member to label those who oppose her views as liars, enemies, and combatants, but this one has made it clear she is battle ready and has played fast and lose with some numbers to make it seem as though 92% of all of Chinatown wants the BID, which is simply not true.

Furthermore , she says that it 90 objection forms were submitted to the City Clerk by condo owners who would be paying $1.00 a year towards the BID. Through a FOIA request we have found that in a June 23rd 2010 Meeting of the Chinatown BID steering Committee is was Executive Director Wellington Chen who said that the Steering Committee should, in order to get MORE BALLOTS "target non-profit organizations (since they are exempt from the assessment fee) ; the $1.00 private residential owners and the $200.00 doctor offices" -

Margaret Chin and Wellington Chen conspired to bolster their ballot count by TARGETING residential condo owners who would be paying $1.00 a year into a BID. So before Chin starts pointing fingers and crying foul, perhaps some introspection is in order about how those ballots were obtained in the first place. That is, those ballots which have never been vetted through any neutral party.

According to Aline Reynolds of the Downtown Express: "Contrary to opponents’ claims, the annual assessment fee does not rise with real estate taxes, B.I.D. proponents said. The fees would only change with a majority vote from the B.I.D. board of directors and a final stamp of approval by City Council.

“It’s the single biggest lie the B.I.D. opponents have been telling. Assessments stay [the same] no matter what happens to your property taxes,” said Smith.

Pat Smith of Rubenstein PR may be an expert at "spin" but is not an expert with BID fees !

One only has tolook at the BID fee formula to calculate the assessment tax from the public hearing notice. it's in black & white that the assessment is included into the formula for the Class A calculation.

If there is one variable in the formula changes, the answer will change. This means that the BID assessment tax will vary from year to year.

Property owners know that assessment rates will be subject to change from year to year. Ask them to explain how that number will not change if it is included into the formula. Any sample copy of a property owner's property tax billing notice (can use any block & lot found online at the finance website) will prove this example. Rates have continued to increase and not decrease over the years.

Property owners who oppose the BID responded with a letter to the Editor of the Downtown Express:

To the editor:
Re: “Last-ditch attempt to stop Chinatown B.I.D.” (news article by Aline Reynolds, July 20)

Owners of 562 Chinatown small properties filed the required notarized statements and deeds within the mere 30 days allotted to organize and express their written opposition to Councilmember Margaret Chin’s fierce advocacy to form a Chinatown Business Improvement District. The large number of objections to the B.I.D. was historic according to the City Clerk’s office.

Yet Chin says we have used “intimidation tactics” to garner support. This is an insult to the intelligence of these property owners who are adamantly opposed to a Chinatown B.I.D. If anything, we took the time to educate property owners as to the true implications of a B.I.D. We even translated into Chinese the actual objection form, which no one else had done.

Only 550 property owners cast a ballot for the B.I.D. out of a total of 2,300 benefited properties that exist within the proposed district. Despite the poor outreach, Chin and her group have been trumpeting a 97 percent approval rate based on this small ratio (the 97 percent is out of 550 respondents, not out of the overall number of properties). While B.I.D. objections could only be filed by vetted property owners, no standard of official verification was applied to those who supported the B.I.D. Where’s the fairness here? Your paper failed to mention these two very important facts. 76% of those surveyed about the B.I.D.never responded (this information was edited out of the letter by The Downtown Express)

Pat Smith of Rubenstein Associates Public Relations firm, (who is also the official spokesman for the proposed Soho B.I.D.) along with Margaret Chin and Wellington Chen have launched a campaign in the past few weeks defaming us and calling us liars in both English and Chinese language media. If anything, this only demonstrates their desperation and disrespect for the very people who are preserving Chinatown’s small businesses. Chin has chosen to sugar coat the B.I.D. fees and disassociate it from a permanent tax.

The one-time $1.9 million government funds being withheld from the community and offered as an incentive only if a B.I.D. is formed is actually “bait” money that unfairly influences the process of B.I.D. formation. Once the B.I.D. is formed the taxes and fees shouldered by the property owners and businesses will, in essence, be permanent. Despite the B.I.D.s claim that their board can vote itself out of existence at any time, this is has no basis in reality. B.I.D.s in the past have never been dismantled because they are deliberately designed to make it virtually impossible to deconstruct.

Councilmember Chin founded the Chinatown Partnership, garnered campaign funds from its members and lobbied for its transition to a B.I.D. for years. Why is Margaret Chin dismissing and disparaging the concerns of the immigrant community that elected her by accusing opponents of her B.I.D. of intimidation and lies? Is she now the official mouthpiece for real estate developers in Chinatown and Soho? With having used all these resources, including her influence on the City Council, who has she really been intimidating?
Sincerely,
Jan Lee, 917-710-7503
The Coalition Against the Chinatown BID

Shortlink:

The Chinatown B.I.D. will tax Property Owners and Businesses to clean up The City's Property !!!!

2011-07-10T13:02:00.007-04:00

" The BID will clean the sidewalks in front of the parks, as it will clean all the sidewalks, including those in front of schools, churches, government buildings and your home and place of business." - David J. Louie, Chinatown BID steering committee - Chairman Chinatown Chamber of Commerce

Hundreds of hours will be billed to Chinatown property owners and businesses to clean up NYC's government and public spaces if a Chinatown B.I.D. is passed in City Council.

The CPLDC has quietly, very quietly added these properties to their service area. Not one piece of 56,0000 mailed "outreach" materials explains that Chinatown Businesses will be paying to keep City property clear of litter. Talk about triple taxation.
How many hours will BID workers spend cleaning in front of government owned property?
Non Profit organizations don't own brooms and dustpans? Aren't BIDs supposed to be failsafes against free loaders? Last we checked NYC school budgets come from NYC Taxes - so does the school janitor's salary.
Why arent' the public buildings cleaned by the BID pointed out in the BID literature?

Since they don't tell you all facts associated with the Chinatown BID, we will:

There's quite a number of city-owned government properties that the community will have to pay to maintain the blocks. They include:

Columbus Park (which was promised to be removed by CPLDC, yet remains in the BID)
Roosevelt Park
DCAS building at 125 Walker Street (between Centre & Baxter Street)
Former school at 70 Mulberry Street
Police Department at 19 Elizabeth Street
Federal parking garage at 137-145 Lafayette Street
School at 145 Baxter Street
School at 137 Baxter Street
DEP at 57 Monroe Street
DEP at 144 Madison Street
DOT at 127 Madison Street
Sanitation at 72 Henry Street
DEP at 141 Madison Street
School playground at 34 Catherine Street
School at 2 Henry Street
New York Public Library at 33 East Broadway
Park at 10 Market Street
DOT at 87 East Broadway
DOT at 85 East Broadway
City of NY Building at 88 East Broadway
Post Office at 128 East Broadway
Fire Department at 75-79 Canal Street
IS 131 at 36 Forsyth Street
NYCHA housing (Seward Park Extension) at 45 Allen Street
DCAS at 117 Chrystie Street
Fire Department at 363 Broome Street
DEP at 142-148 Grand Street
And finally the Louis J. Lefkowitz Building at 141 Worth St. (the ENTIRE SQUARE BLOCK!) which is now the City's marriage Bureau, formerly the motor vehicles building.

City owned properties and all houses of worship are BID tax exempt. Also Asian Americans For Equality's office at 109 Division Street is BID tax exempt. Asian Americans For Equality is lead agency in support and creation of a Chinatown B.I.D. for well over a decade. Councilmember Margaret Chin is a principal at Asian Americans For Equality as a founding member. According to The Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corp. (also founded by Councilmember Margaret Chin) IRS 990 filings for fiscal year 7/1/06 to 6/30/07 $71,508.00 was paid to Asian Americans For Equality from The Chinatown Partnership LDC.

NY DAilY NEWS - Barbara Ross - Blocking the BID group - Boro Prez - not taking sides?

2011-06-27T11:01:00.001-04:00

NY DAILY NEWS - Barbara Ross reporting - June 27 2011
Boro Pres. Scott Stringer "has not taken a position" ........ yet.

Councilmember Margaret Chin "no comment"

LES (a B.I.D.) - high rent - lost the cool businesses - Crain's New York

2011-06-23T12:09:00.000-04:00

The Lower East Side B.I.D., according to Crain's NY, has failed not only its retailers, but New York tourists as well. "Not enough foot traffic" says Ms. Havlicek in the article. Perhaps the Executive Director Bob Zuckerman, of the LES BID should have spent less time trying to get the Chinatown B.I.D. started and more time helping small businesses in his own BID. Long time retailers of Lower Manhattan understand what these LES businesses are complaining about and find them far more believable than BID propaganda because the retailers are the ones paying the increased rent due to the BID's presence. Its no mystery either, after you read the article below, that one of the community board's biggest BID proponents is a bar owner from the LES.

Lower East Side's fashion faux pas

Higher rents, light foot traffic force local apparel, accessories stores to move to areas like Williamsburg.

Print Email Reprints Comment

By Adrianne Pasquarelli

June 19, 2011 5:59 p.m.

When Annie Havlicek was searching out locations for her first store last year, the womenswear designer was immediately drawn to the Lower East Side's eclectic charm. The area's relatively inexpensive rents, vintage retail tenants, and heavy nightlife scene persuaded her to open a 350-square-foot shop at 154 Orchard St. But in May, after just one year in business, the Chicago native shuttered her boutique.

“There's just not enough foot traffic in that area,” said Ms. Havlicek. “[Stores] are shifting away from it.”

Initially expected to be the next SoHo or West Village, the Lower East Side is getting an F as a shopping destination. Since February, Ms. Havlicek and several other apparel shops, including trendy In God We Trust, have given up on the Lower East Side. Others, such as accessories purveyor Bag and fashion boutique Convent, have announced their imminent closures. Businesses complain that landlords, anticipating completed developments, have been jacking up rents, though several construction projects are still stalled with recession-related woes.

MOVING TO WILLIAMSBURG

But above all, retailers say the foot traffic, which skyrockets at night, simply does not exist during the day, prime operating time for retail. At the same time, other up-and-coming shopping frontiers, like Williamsburg in Brooklyn, are attracting the same local tenants who are now fleeing downtown's east side.

“Cooler tenants are starting to get a little tired of Manhattan and are looking to explore other neighborhoods, like Williamsburg, as SoHo becomes more and more of a mall,” said Peter Levitan, a managing director at Sierra Realty.

In the past, the Lower East Side, like much of downtown, was a haven for drugs and crime, though it was also a go-to place for inexpensive materials, like leather and fabric, and vintage finds. In the early 1990s, the area began to include more restaurants and bars. With the nightlife came retail pioneers.

“Probably 20 years ago was the first scattered emergence of some frontier-type retailers seeking interesting spaces,” said Steve Rappaport, a managing director at Sinvin Real Estate. “The area was just emerging from the depths of the drug trade.”

Yet such boutiques have never really thrived in the neighborhood, which is still, first and foremost, nightlife-driven. Though many dive bars still exist, they are now joined by more and more chic nightclubs, each boasting its own distinct appeal. Late last year, 10,000-square-foot Beauty & Essex, a swanky club that offers free champagne in its ladies' bathroom, opened up at 146 Essex St., while Hotel Chantelle, a World War II-type bar with a private dance club rumored to only be accessible with a skeleton key, debuted on Ludlow Street.

“The neighborhood is definitely a destination for restaurants and bars, but it's more local traffic during the day and not so much an apparel destination,” said Mr. Levitan.

SOARING RENTS

The influx of nightlife has only driven up rents, making the area even less appealing for emerging boutiques. In the past 18 months, asking prices in the neighborhood have jumped, increasing 20% following recession-related drops. Now, asking rents on prime streets range from $100 to $150 a square foot, while secondary areas are closer to $65 a square foot, according to brokers.

In God We Trust, a seven-year-old apparel and housewares label whose wares are made entirely in New York, was hit with a 25% rent increase—to $150 a square foot—for its 400-square-foot Ludlow Street shop. The company shuttered the outpost in February, and now operates locations only in SoHo, which has enough foot traffic to justify higher rents, Williamsburg and Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

JUST STEVE MADDEN AND BARS

“If I was a landlord, I'd want to fill the block with cool local stores so the foot traffic is cool—we don't need another NoLIta or SoHo,” said Julie Noyce, In God We Trust's general manager. “The Lower East Side has always been for artists and rock 'n' rollers—if you get rid of that local flavor, then it's just Steve Madden and a bunch of bars.”

Some stores leaving the Lower East Side are flocking to Brooklyn. Ms. Havlicek, who wholesales her silk dresses and tops and also sold a collection at Anthropologie, isn't ruling out a future store, possibly in the West Village or Williamsburg.

Already, Williamsburg is home to local shops like Built by Wendy and Sir, as well as newcomer Grand Street Bakery, which sells everything from denim to swimwear. Even mainstream fashion chain Scoop is looking to expand into the neighborhood.

A version of this article appeared in the June 20, 2011 print issue of Crain's New York Business.

NY Daily News Coverage of determined property owners of Chinatown Stop-BID efforts

2011-06-21T14:22:00.000-04:00

The efforts to STOP the formation of a Chinatown BID continue undaunted

2011-06-21T14:19:00.005-04:00

June 21 2011 CONTACT: Jan Lee 917-710-7503, Stephen Cheung – 212- 941-7452

Location: Lin Ze Xu Foundation headquarters at 22 Chatham Square.

Weekly meeting of property owners and small business owners Against the Chinatown BID.

Today, at 11:00am, property owners and small business owners met to discuss their plans for this week as the deadline to submit Official Objection Forms to the City Clerk nears.

OBJECTION FORMS CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY CLICKING HERE

Friday June 24th is the last day that objection forms may be handed in to the city clerk’s office at 141 Worth Street.

Plans that are in progress right now:

1) Volunteers will be on hand tomorrow Wed. 22^nd 11:am – 1:pm to assist (Chinese and English) property owners within the BID to fill out Official Objection Forms. The location: Chatham Square Near Lin Ze Xu Statue. They will help locate missing deeds, and notarize the forms on site. Rain location : # 22 Chatham Square 3^rd floor – Lin Ze Xu Foundation headquarters.

2) Door to door outreach continues as it has for the last month. More volunteers needed to go to large buildings, volunteers can contact: Jan Lee, 917-710-7503 (eng.), Stephen Cheung (Chns.) 718-961-1272

3) Property owners and businesses will submit a letter to the entire City Council:

Asking City Council “HELP SMALL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS SAVE CHINATOWN- NO B.I.D.”

4) Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund will send a letter to City Council as well.

5) Another protest rally is scheduled for June 28^th (the day before the City Council votes on the Chinatown B.I.D.) on the STEPS OF CITY HALL – we ask all small business and small property owners to join this rally – to express our concerns to City Council members to vote “NO” for the Chinatown BID. Property owners will sign an open letter to Council member Margaret Chin at the Rally. ALL who are Against the BID are welcome to join, but especially small businesses and property owners. We wish to publish this so we can get good attendance.

6) It was agreed that the property owners will organize to form a Property Tax Payers Association, a group that is unified against the B.I.D.. Applications can be picked up at 74 Forsyth Street, 212-941-7452, Mr. Stephen Cheung.

There will be a small membership fee to cover the group’s expenses paid by property owners, small businesses can join for FREE. This group will also work with community boards, and explore alternative cleaning services – that do NOT involve a BID.

CLICK HERE FOR THE DRAFT MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION (DRAFT VERSION)

CLICK HERE FOR English version of application (DRAFT VERSION)
more complete application forms will be coming soon, we need to get an idea at this point of how many people/buildings are signing on. The property owners group is still forming the corporation at this time.

7) It was unanimously agreed that efforts to stop the BID from forming will continue, and even if the BID is formed the efforts to dismantle it will continue indefinitely.
NO B.I.D. in the City has ever had this many objection forms turned in.

9) The small property owners organization will explore cleaning options that the Councilmember and CPLDC refuse to explore.

End. – submitted by Jan Lee, Coalition Against the Chinatown BID

Protest rally against Margaret Chin's Chinatown B.I.D. - CPLDC Fundraising dinner - Chin: Honoree

2011-06-18T00:39:00.003-04:00

Excerpt of the June 16th protest of Councilmember Margaret Chin's Business Improvement District at Jing Fong Restaurant on Elizabeth Street where Chin was the honoree.

The Chinatown Partnership LDC held their annual fundraiser where property owners, residents and business owners made sure the attendees understood that Chinatown does not approve of Chin or her B.I.D. Campaigning in Chinatown will be a challenge for Chin as she will be branded as the Councilmember who advocated for raising taxes to clean the streets while promoting herself.

World Journal Coverage of No-BID protest Rally - translation - ourChinatown.org

2011-06-13T18:11:00.000-04:00

www.ourChinatown.org The Daily Five: June 10

Posted by alexpengNEWS, The Daily 5Friday, June 10th, 2011

Translated by Alex Peng, staff reporter

Photo: World Journal

Opposition of Chinatown BID Heard
Dozens of concerned Chinatown property and small business owners opposed and protested against the pending Chinatown Business Improvement District (BID) plan. They gathered at Kim Lau Square yesterday morning to announce that this plan will have disastrous impact on the community. They worried that a B.I.D. will destroy existing small businesses and affordable housing. They also said that City Councilwoman Margaret Chin only promotes her own political agenda and ignores other opinions. The New York City Council will vote on this matter later this month.World Journal (C2)

Bees take over a lamp post on Mott St. - no apparent threat to people

2011-06-13T17:21:00.002-04:00

Thousands of bees on a lamp post in front of Lin Sing Association

Bees made a lamp post on Mott St. their home today. A huge crowd was gathered across the street from Lin Sing Association where they stood gawking up at the lamp post. The NYPD has a special bee keeper who will be on site to remove the hive. At 5:pm Mott street was being closed off to vehicular traffic.

NYPD closed off Mott St. to vehicles at 5:pm today awaiting the NYPD bee keeper.

The bees will be relocated.

Crowd watching the removal of the bee colony 6:15pm

Professional personnel removing the colony (see the bees swarming over head)

Chinatown small businesses respond to impending street closures as prescribed by Chinatown Partnership LDC

2011-06-12T14:24:00.004-04:00

In the document produced by Asian Americans For Equality's Rebuild Chinatown Initiative: "America's Chinatown - A Community Plan" AAFE employee Robert Weber writes:

"Historic Chinatown presents an opportunity to create a great marketplace akin to those of East

Asia. A marketplace is all about pedestrians, not automobiles. And Historic Chinatown’s dense

warren of narrow streets is its latent asset for pedestrians, just as it is a headache for vehicles. All that is needed is to close selected streets to traffic, to make room for sidewalk displays and dining, during the peak weekend afternoons and evening." - Robert Weber, Asian Americans For Equality, 2004

Exceptional video about the conflicting traffic demands of NYC Streets

2011-06-11T16:17:00.003-04:00

3-Way Street from ronconcocacola on Vimeo.

Civic Center Residents Coalition received this video tip from Jack Brown of the Coalition Against Rogue Riding.

Large Scale Development Co's salivating at the idea of a Chinatown B.I.D. which Councilmember Margaret Chin promotes

2011-06-10T12:32:00.004-04:00

Originally posted as:

As BID Heats Up, Brokers Look to Chinatown

By Jacqueline Hlavenka

– APRIL 24, 2011 (Globest.com)

As Chinatown’s new Business Improvement District awaits a City Council blessing, landlords and agents are beginning to eye prime properties on Canal Street, brokers tell GlobeSt.com. New York City-based brokerage firm ABS Partners Real Estate LLC says they are looking to sell or long-term net lease an existing one-story property at 250 Canal, envisioning several repositioning alternatives for the site, such as commercial mixed-use, retail redevelopment or a hotel to be located on the southeast corner of Canal and Lafayette streets.

“Ultimately I think it will be very positive for the neighborhood,” Steven I. Hornstock, ABS’ co-managing partner and director of investment sales, tells GlobeSt.com. He describes the location as “highly visible” with “continual pedestrian and vehicle traffic,” given direct access to six subway lines and proximity to the Holland Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge.

The area is currently zoned for manufacturing uses, says ABS’ managing director Keith Lipstein, who is hoping for a commercial rezoning designation to pave the way for office and retail. “We’ve done a lot of research and we found particularly in that stretch of Canal, there is no manufacturing going on any longer,” Lipstein tells GlobeSt.com, explaining that manufacturing activity has moved out of the country or elsewhere in the city. “The designation of an M zone as manufacturing is out moded and, by definition, you are somewhat restricted on uses. If we changed over to a C commercial zone, that would allow other uses of the property, and it would have a higher density.”

On the municipal side, discussion about improving commerce in the area is a hot topic. In February, the New York City Planning Commission unanimously approved Chinatown’s BID proposal; it is now up for a City Council vote later in the year. Community Boards 1, 2, 3 and Councilwoman Margaret Chin have also voiced support for the BID, as has the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corp., led by executive director Wellington Chen.

According to a statement from the Chinatown BID Steering Committee, the proposed BID has a $1.3 million budget for its first year in operation. The majority of the funds–approximately 78%–will be committed to sidewalk cleaning and trash removal, which will create around 30 jobs. An additional $1.9 million is expected to come in from various government sources if the BID reaches final approval.

However, several residents, business owners and community leaders are opposed to the BID’s formation, expressing concern about taxes, big-box development, neighborhood expansion and maintaining the character of Chinatown’s small business atmosphere. The Coalition Against the Chinatown BID, a grassroots group of concerned citizens, for example, poses questions on its Web site such as “What does it cost to clean a street in Chinatown?” and “Why is SoHo in a Chinatown BID?”

Proposed tax assessments for the BID, according to the Chinatown BID Steering Committee, include a minimum $200 assessment for 35% of owners. A handful would pay between $2,000 and $5,000.

Hornstock says an “inertia” remains over the potential rezoning in neighborhood, which has created a small split between property owners and residents, but he predicts the Canal retail corridor will be redeveloped over time. “There will probably be some rezoning at some point because certainly Canal Street, which is a two-way heavily trafficked busy street, should really get the benefit of an increased zoning,” he says. “Taller buildings, more commerce, more commercial and better retail will happen.”

Video of June 9th Protest Rally Against The Proposed Chinatown BID

2011-06-10T11:56:00.014-04:00

Video by George Lou, Chinatown resident

We'd like to thank George for donating his time to document this historic event, thanks George!

This is a quote from Wellington Chen, Exec. Dir. of Chinatown Partnership LDC in an attempt to diminish the efforts of hardworking tax-paying property owners in Chinatown who have to work against his world-class lobbyist in order to be heard:

"Chen believes Chinatown is at a crossroads. It has the choice of rallying around a BID, of keeping the streets clean and of protecting the neighborhood for decades to come. Or, he said, the community can remain divided and it can forfeit the chance for self-improvement for many years.

“Who in their right mind would try to try this again?” he asked.

He told me opponents of the BID are loud and skilled at the game of media manipulation, but that they represent a tiny constituency." from www.thelodownny.com

Who are the ones really in charge of media manipulation? The community who is out on the street or the CPLDC who hires professional lobbyists who work for Real Estate Developers?

In 2010 and again in 2011 Chinatown Partnership LDC hired Rubenstein Public Relations to promote the Chinatown B.I.D.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN Rubenstein Public Relations

and The Chinatown Partnership LDC whose purpose is to professionally target and lobby City Council Members to Vote "yes" to approve the Chinatown B.I.D.

Rubenstein's real estate clients include (according to their website):

Real Estate:

Bizzi & Partners
The Setai Fifth Avenue
Brown Harris Stevens
Capstone Equities
Nest Seekers International
Halstead Property
Prodigy International
Estates at Alpine
Concierge Auctions
Swig Equities
366 Fifth Avenue/Joseph P. Day
Gal Nauer/”The Plaza Unveiled”
Corigin Holdings
Lisa Lippman
Paula DelNunzio
Azure
Madison International Realty
Century Properties, Inc.
Clipper Equity
WEmi:t
The Galleria Group
Keller Williams NYC
Morris Adjmi Architects
Savanna

Property Owners take to the streets to protest against the Chinatown BID

2011-06-09T14:36:00.018-04:00

Bethany Li, attorney at Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) speaking on behalf of AALDEF, who recently made a request of small business services to deliver documents pertaining to the BID, and The Coalition To Protect Chinatown and The Lower East Side.

Yi Tao speaking on behalf of the Lin Ze Xu foundation, (bronze statue at Kim Lau Square

)

Song Mei Rong, flower stall owner (left) and Stephen Cheung, Chinatown real estate broker

Councilmember Margaret Chin's support for the BID was highly criticized at the rally today.

volunteers, many of whom are property owners themselves helping to fill out objection forms

Volunteers helped property owners sign objection forms today at the anti-BID rally

Chinatown resident and former small business owner Paul J. Q. Lee

Coalition Against The Chinatown B.I.D. representative, Jan Lee with members of the Chinese media

Property owner Raymon Mak with fellow property owners

property owner Raymond Mak

property owner David Ng

"You can't tax us into prosperity"

Chintown real estate professional Stephen Cheung (hand raised)

Property owners, small business owners, residents and real estate professionals took to the streets today in blistering 95 degree heat to protest against the formation of a Chinatown Business Improvement District. Of particular emphasis at the rally was the unified opinion of the property and small business owners who declared over and over again they will not support Margaret Chin because she supports the BID.

While the rally was going on volunteers provided help in English and Chinese for property owners unfamiliar with the process of how to fill out the official BID objection form.

Dozens at a time were signing objection forms with a notary public on site to stamp each form. Yet more volunteers were on hand to provide computer help in obtaining the deed necessary by law to accompany each form for each property wishing to object.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE OBJECTION FORM

www.nochinatownbid.org info@nochinatownbid.org

Protest Rally Against The Chinatown B.I.D. - Property Owners have their say

2011-06-08T15:15:00.004-04:00

For Immediate Release:

Jan Lee, 917-710-7503

Stephen Cheung, 212-226-8400

Song Mei Rong, 917-771-6006

Media Advisory

Community Opposes Chinatown Business Improvement District and Its Disastrous Impact on Small Businesses and Working Class Families

Councilmember Margaret Chin Criticized for Favoring Outside Developers

And Ignoring Community Needs

Who: Concerned Chinatown small business owners, workers and residents

Coalition Against the Chinatown BID

What: Press Conference

When: Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 11AM

Where: Kim Lau Square, also known as Chatham Square plaza

Why: Chinatown small business and property owners, residents, and workers oppose the proposed Chinatown Business Improvement District (BID) because it will destroy existing small businesses and affordable housing. While ignoring all opposition to the Chinatown BID, City Councilmember Margaret Chin is promoting her political agenda. She has promoted only the B.I.D. and ignored all other options. The Chinatown BID is not in the public’s interest and primarily serves to promote outside developers’ interests in encouraging luxury, high-rise development along Canal Street and throughout Chinatown.

Property owners are told they cannot enter City Council Hearing on the BID today

2011-05-26T16:39:00.006-04:00

About forty property owners patiently waited outside 250 Broadway today to testify against the formation of a Chinatown Business Improvement District. Today was the last chance for the public to testify in person if they supported or opposed the Chinatown BID's formation.

As the last few Chinatown Partnership Local Development employees passed through the metal detectors to go upstairs to the 16th floor hearing room, the remaining people on line, were told the hearing was closed. The video of what happened is posted here.

The security for 250 Broadway explains that the hearing is closed for the rest of the day, and a representative for the City Council explains in the video clip that a "list" of speakers is already determined and that if the property owners who showed up to speak are not on that list, then "you messed up". The Sargent at Arms for the City Council informed the property owners who wished to testify that he was told directly by the Chairman of the Finance committee that "those people who are scheduled to testify are being allowed up, if you are scheduled to testify...." "There is no list" said Jan Lee, property owner, "There IS a list, I told the finance chairman 'are you taking testimony?' he said 'only the people who are scheduled to testify'" Explained the Sargent at Arms. "So this was preset with the committee lawyers..... You guys didn't get on that list, then you guys messed up."

This is no way to treat Chinatown property owners who took time to come to what they thought would be an open and democratic process. The Chairman of the Finance committee sent a clear message that the Committee, its legal advisors and Councilmember Chin have taken "preset" lists of people to testify and closed out the rest of the opposition.

To support this bias towards BIDs is to support a failed and dysfunctional system of pay to play politics at its utter worst.

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund FOIL requests missing data of The Chinatown Partnership LDC

2011-05-26T03:42:00.006-04:00

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund has used the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to obtain missing information pertaining to The Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corporation, on behalf of Chinatown property owners and small businesses. The Chinatown Partnership is the entity that has been trying to morph into a Business Improvement District for Chinatown.

A Copy of the FOIL Request is below, which can be downloaded and/or printed:

Connecting the dots within the Chinatown Partnership, AAFE, Margaret Chin and the B.I.D.

2011-05-25T20:04:00.005-04:00

Councilmember Chin’s Well Oiled Machine

The progenitor of the ”BID," The Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corporation, or CPLDC, was founded by Councilmember Margaret Chin with public funds earmarked for 9/11 recovery.

That organization rose from yet another of Margaret Chin’s groups called Rebuild Chinatown Initiative (RCI) which was formed while Chin was still atAsian Americans For Equality where she was Deputy Executive Director under Christopher Kui who,with real estate tycoon Bill Lam, of Longine Realty, tried unsuccessfully to form a BID in 2002.

Bill Lam

Chris Kui (left)

RCI produced a guidebook and a wish list in 2004 of ideas to help Chinatown recover post 9/11 and among other ideas it promoted the opening of big box stores in Chinatown such as Home Depot, the upzoning of Canal Street and the formation of a Chinatown B.I.D.

A seven million dollar clean "sweep"... read the whole story by clicking here

Property Owners in the BID district must fill out this form to object to the Chinatown BID

2011-05-24T14:20:00.012-04:00

Unfortunately there exist many obstacles for property owners and businesses who do not wish to be in a Chinatown Business Improvement District.

There is a deadline for the objection forms to be filed which is

June 25th 2011.

Under city law those wishing to object to the formation of a Business Improvement District must first obtain an official form at the City Clerk's office. Then property owners must get the signature notorized and then provide a copy of the deed for EACH property they own.

Although only property owner's forms are counted in the official vote, businesses are also welcome to object as this makes a clear statement to the City Council that indeed Chinatown businesses do not want a BID in their neighborhood.

If 51% or more of the properties in the BID district object to the BID, it will not happen.

Previous to this posting there is no convenient way for property and business owners to obtain the only official objection form recognized by the City Clerk of New York.

Well, with the help of volunteers we've gotten the proper form and made it available for anyone wishing to object to the Chinatown BID can PRINT OR DOWNLOAD (down arrow) either the English or Chinese form BELOW by clicking the button to the far right below the form

NOTE: THE CHINESE VERSION IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY!!!!

Only the ENGLISH VERSION may be submitted to the City Clerk's office.

This is the form translated in to Chinese, which also didn't exist until volunteers in the community took it upon themselves to do.

THIS IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY !!! Only the ENGLISH version of this will be accepted by the City Clerk !!!! DO NOT SEND IN THE CHINESE VERSION - ONLY THE ENGLISH ONE IS ACCEPTED.

for more information Jan Lee: 917-710-7503

Stephen Cheung (Chinese and English language) 718- 961-1272

Chinatown BID Hearing May 26th 10:am PUBLIC HEARING

2011-05-17T12:56:00.005-04:00

CHINATOWN BID STEERING COMMITTEE

On behalf of

THE CITY COLNCIL

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

The City Council, by resolution adopted on May 11,2011, set May 26,2011 as the date, 10:00 a.m. as the time, and the City Council Hearing Room, 16th Floor, 250 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, as the place for a public hearing (the "Public Hearing") to hear all persons interested in the proposed legislation which would establish the Chinatown Business Improvement District (the "District") in the Borough of Manhattan. The District shall be established in accordance with a district plan (the "District Plan") on file at the Office of the City Clerk.

The City Council has authorized the Chinatown BID Steering Committee to mail, on its behalfl this notice of the Public Hearing containing the information required by Section 25-406(c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New york and summarizing the resolution adopted.

The District Plan provides that the proposed District shall include properties in an area generally bounded by Broome Street to the north, Broadway to the west, Allen Street to the east, and Madison and Worth Streets to the south. Services in the District shall include, but not be limited to sanitation, holiday decorations, marketing, transportation management

and parking, advocacy, administration ofthe District and additional services required for the enjoyment and protection of the public and the promotion and enhancement of the District (hereinafter "services").

Pursuant to the District Plan, capital improvements (hereinafter "lmprovements") may include, but shall not be limited to: streetscape improvements;

sidewalk amenities such as lighting and street furniture; trees and plantings; open space enhancements and traffic calming improvements; and new trash receptacles. The Improvements shall be implemented on an as-needed basis.

During the existence of the BID, the maximum cost of the lmprovements, if any, shall not exceed $6,500,000. The District shall be managed by the chinatown District Management Association, Inc.

To defray the cost of Services and Improvements provided in the District, all real property in the District shall be assessed in proportion to the benefit such property receives from the Services and Improvements. Each property shall be assessed at a rate, determined annually by the Chinatown District Management Association, Inc., to yield an amount

sufftcient to meet the District's annual budget. The annual budget for the District's first year of operation is $1,300,000.

Those properties within the District which are devoted in whole or in part to retail, commercial or professional use, or mixed used with commercial and residential components shall constitute Class A properties and shall be assessed in accordance with the following formula:

Rate l: 0.5 xBudget-(TotalAssessmentsofClassB andC+Total$200&$5.000Assessments)

Total Class A, D, E, (0.5*F) & M Linear Front Feet (FF) Rate2: 0.5 xBudeet-(Total Assessments of ClassB andC +Total $200 & g5.000Assessments) Total Class A, D, E, (0.5*F) & M Assessed Value (AV)

Individual Assessment: (Rate I x Individual Property FF) + (Rate 2 x Individual Property AV)

For Class A property, there shall be a minimum assessment of $200 per annum. In addition, there shall be a maximum

assessment calculated as follows:

Maximum Assessment: Current Year Assessment Budget x $5.000

FY 2011 Assessment Budset For the first contract year, Rate I shall not exceed $15 per individual property linear front foot, and Rate 2 shall not exceed 0.0015 per each dollar ofindividual property assessed value.

Those properties within the District devoted in whole to residential uses shall constitute Class B properties and shallbe assessed at one dollar ($1.00) per tax lot per year.

Govemment and not-for-profit properties within the District devoted entirely to public or not-for-profit use shall constitute class C property and be exempt from District assessment. Govemment or not-for-profit owned property devoted in part to commercial or for-profit uses shall constitute class A property and the portion ofthe property devoted

to commercial/for-profit uses shall be assessed in the same manner as those properties listed in class A.

All vacant properties within the District, without structure or any commercial use, shall constitute Class D properties and shall be assessed at the Class A rate until such time as they receive a temporary certificate of

occupancy.

All properties within the District. used as parking lots shall constitute Class E properties and shall be assessed in the same manner as the Class A property.

All properties devoted in whole or in part to retail, commercial or professional use, or mixed-used with commercial and residential components, and located on one tax lot and within two business improvement districts, shall constitute class F properties and shall be assessed at 50-percent ofthe class A property rate.

All properties within the District devoted in part to commercial use and in part to residential condo or coop use shall constitute Class M propefty. The proportion ofthe property devoted to residential use shall be assessed at one dollar ($1.00) per annum. The proportion of the property, as determined by the Finance Department, devoted to commercial

use shall be assessed at the same rate as the Class A property.

The amount, exclusive ofdebt service, assessed and levied in any given year against benefited real properly within the District may not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total general City taxes levied in such year against such properties.

Copies of the resolution adopted by the City Council, which include a copy of the District Plan, are available for public inspection from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday at the Office of the City Clerk located at 141 Worth Street, New York, New York 10013. In addition, copies of the resolution are available free of charge to the public at the Office of the City Clerk.

Any owner of real property, deemed benefited and therefore within the District, objecting to the District Plan, must file an objection at the Office of the Cif Clerk, on forms made available by the City Clerk, within thirty (30) days of the close of the Public Hearing concerning the establishment of the proposed District. If owners of at least fifty-one percent

(5 1%) of the assessed value of benefited real property situated within the boundaries of the District proposed for establishment, as shown on the latest completed ass€ssnieiit roli of the Ci6r, or at least fifty-one percent (5104) of the owners of benefited real property within the area included in the District proposed for establishment file objections with

the City Clerk, the District shall not be established.

Details of the bill introduced by Margaret Chin - No Liquids on City Sidewalks

2011-05-13T15:14:00.006-04:00

As a courtesy to local businesses The Civic Center Residents Coalition is circulating this detailed description of the bill introduced into the City Council by Council Member Margaret Chin.

To our knowledge at this time this detailed information is not translated into Chinese and Spanish.

A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the cleaning of liquid on a sidewalk, flagging or curbstone generated by trash placed curbside for collection and allowing the use of a hose to conduct such cleaning during times otherwise proscribed by such code.

Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 16-118 of the administrative code of the city of New York is

amended by adding a new paragraph c to read as follows:

(c)(1) Every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or person in charge of any food or beverage service

establishment shall properly clean any liquid found on any sidewalk, flagging or curbstone resulting from the placement of garbage bags or waste receptacles for collection at or near any such location by any such person.

Where collection of waste for any such establishment is scheduled to occur during such establishment’s regular The New York City Council Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/13/2011

Where collection of waste for any such establishment is scheduled to occur during such establishment’s regular hours of operation, the owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or person in charge of such establishment shall properly clean any such liquid within one hour of waste collection. Where collection of waste for any such establishment is not scheduled to occur during such establishment’s regular hours of operation, the following

cleaning requirements shall apply: (i) where such collection is scheduled to occur before midnight, the owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or person in charge of such establishment shall properly clean any such liquid on the next day of business by the later of 7:00 a.m. or two hours before the time at which such establishment reopens for business; (ii) where such collection is scheduled to occur after midnight, the owner, lessee, tenant, occupant

or person in charge of such establishment shall properly clean any such liquid by the later of 7:00 a.m. on the day that collection is scheduled to occur or two hours before the time at which such establishment reopens for business on such day. If the food or beverage service establishment is not open for business on such day, the cleaning requirements of subparagraph i of this paragraph shall apply.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “food or beverage service establishment” shall mean any

establishment that serves food or beverages that is required to be permitted pursuant to articles 85, 87, 88, or 89 of the New York city health code or any beverage service establishment required to be licensed pursuant to section 100 of the New York state alcoholic beverage control law that sells beverages for on-premises consumption.

§ 2. Subdivision 9 of section 16-118 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended, subdivisions 10 and 11 of such section are renumbered as subdivisions 11 and 12, respectively, and as renumbered, subdivision 11 is amended, and a new subdivision 10 is added to read as follows:

9. Except for any violation of paragraph c of subdivision two of this section, any violation of

subparagraph one of paragraph b or paragraph c of subdivision seven of this section by a person using or operating a motor vehicle, [or ]any violation of subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven of this section, or any violation of paragraph d of subdivision seven of this section, any person violating the provisions of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty The New York City Council Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/13/2011

File #: Int 0453-2011, Version: *

of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, except that for a second violation of subdivision one, three, four, or six of this section within any twelve-month period, such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than three hundred fifty dollars and for a third or subsequent violation of subdivision one, three, four or six of this section within any twelve-month period such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less

than three hundred fifty dollars nor more than four hundred fifty dollars.

10. Any person who violates paragraph c of subdivision 2 of this section shall be liable for a civil

penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, except that for a second violation of such subdivision within any twelve-month period, such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred nor more than six hundred dollars and for a third or subsequent violation of such subdivision within any twelve-month period such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than nine hundred dollars.

[10] 11 . In the instance where the notice of violation, appearance ticket or summons is issued for

breach of the provisions of this section and sets forth thereon civil penalties only, such process shall be returnable to the environmental control board, which shall have the power to impose the civil penalties hereinabove provided in [subdivision]subdivisions nine and ten of this section.

§ 3. Section 24-332 of title 24 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:

§ 24-332 Use of water through hose. [It] Except for the purposes of cleaning liquids by an owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or person in charge of a food or beverage service establishment as provided in paragraph c of subdivision 2 of section 16-118 of this code, it shall be unlawful for any person to wash any street, sidewalk, areaway, steps, building or other place in the city by means of a hose or piping, or to use water through a hose or sprinkler for watering lawns or gardens, or to operate any outside shower where the water runs upon a street, sidewalk, or other public place between the first day of November and the last day of March

The New York City Council Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/13/2011

File #: Int 0453-2011, Version: *

following.

§ 4. This local law shall take effect immediately.

JJH - LS 1511

12/15

Chatham Towers and Chatham Green Withdraw from The Chinatown Working Group

2011-04-04T14:46:00.009-04:00

Chatham Green co op photo: midcenturymundane

Chatham Towers co op photo: condodomain

In an emailed letter today two residential co ops informed the CWG co-chairs that their properties and volunteer boards are formally withdrawing from the planning exercise known for the last two years as "The Chinatown Working Group". Danny Chen submitted the following statement:

"To: Members of the Chinatown Work Group

With this letter we would like to announce the withdrawal of our two buildings, Chatham Green and Chatham Towers, from active participation in the Chinatown Work Group. We each have our reasons for withdrawing but we have common hopes and concerns which we would like to share with you.

Two years ago, when presented with the opportunity to participate in what appeared to be a

ground breaking effort to bring the minds and voices of our community together, we deliberated on the pros and cons of participating. The pessimistic view said that the effort would be mired in politics while the optimistic view saw a wonderful opportunity to amplify our own voices to get the City to focus on the right issues for our community. Looking back, we can say there were elements of the CWG that both the optimists and the pessimists could point to in support of their views.

As members of volunteer boards for our respective co-ops, we are forced to choose where

we focus our time and attention. Despite our best efforts to open the organization to different

modes of communication and participation, CWG participation remains constrained to the once monthly in-person meetings - with alternate meetings occurring during business hours. Our calls to open up the CWG mail list to facilitate member to member communications have been met with puzzling resistance. There is no better example of this than this very letter - which we are forced to route through the co-chairs for distribution. We also note that our suggestions for weighted voting for “decision making” seems have fallen off the agenda for discussion.

Despite all this, we feel that our participation in the CWG has been worthwhile. We have met

some truly dedicated people who sacrifice much for our community. On the flip side, we have

also met people from outside of our community with a disproportionate voice in the CWG.

Navigating the politics of trying distinguish altruistic volunteers from potential carpet baggers

has been an interesting experience.

The draft Preliminary Action Plans represent a good amount of work and captures some of

the issues that are relevant to our community. And while we have often objected to co-chairs

stepping beyond their roles as “facilitators” and instead acting like former President Bushstyle

“deciders”, we commend all co-chairs, past and present, for taking on the facilitator role. It

is a difficult role but we should all remember that when one makes a unilateral decision, voices

are being silenced.

We end this letter with well wishes and a note of caution. Even though much work has gone

into drafting the various Preliminary Action Plans, even more work is required to keep these

documents “alive”. These documents should have an “expiration date”. Otherwise, future

decision makers may be basing their direction on ideas that have gone “rancid”.

Respectfully,

Danny Chen, Chatham Green

Jeanie Chin, Chatham Towers

Downtown residents "mop up" the pop up cafe idea by D.O.T.

2011-03-30T21:17:00.002-04:00

SoHo and NoHo have successfully defeated all but one application for the so-called "pop up Cafes" that were supposed to be springing up like spring flowers all over the downtown area, regardless of existing zoning laws or traffic conditions. The pop ups are six foot wide platforms that would sit in the gutter and protrude into what are usually parking spaces, although in some instances the DOT has targeted areas where cars are prohibited (usually because parking there would pose a serious safety threat).

Here's the story on www.nearsay.com <--------click here.

A family comes together to help all New Yorkers in the wake of personal tragedy.

2011-03-28T19:36:00.005-04:00

The Civic Center Residents Coalition reported on the passing of Stuart Gruskin in June of 2009.

We also reported on the founding of the Gruskin Family Foundation.

photo : Gothamist, Krista Ciminera

Sadly cycling blogs and bike lane advocates didn't acknowledge the passing of Mr. Gruskin, that is until his wife Nancy Gruskin turned personal tragedy into her mission - to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen to more New Yorkers. Stuart Gruskin was struck by a cyclist going the wrong way, with no bell, no brakes, and no helmut. The cyclist worked for a catering company who, after the accident, settled with the Gruskins out of court.

Nancy Gruskin is nearly impossible to ignore these days, she initiated a dialog with Commissioner of Transportation Janette Sadik-Kahn shortly after the cyclist hit and killed her husband in 2009, to start teaching delivery men and women to be more responsible cyclists and to make sure the City was up to enforce the laws regarding safe cycling.

Sadik-Kahn, living up to her reputation as a less-than-sensitive bulldozing machine who listens only to those clutching bike helmets when speaking to her, sent a form letter response to Gruskin's request for a meeting addressed to Gruskin's late husband Stuart. The faux pas got some press, and the Commish was forced to make up for it with a meeting, who knows if she would have met with Gruskin had the snafu not occurred? City leaders have commented that they can't even get a phone call returned by Sadik-Kahn, others have been on the receiving end of a shout-fest instead of a conversation. We're sure The Great Kahn was minding her manners when confronted with a real life hero like Nancy Gruskin.

So here's three cheers for Nancy Gruskin - A NY'er of the week on NY1 News. &left;--- click here to see the video of Nancy's interview.

Chinese New Year Festivities Continue this Saturday - Chinatown Community Young Lions closes in on 40 years!

2011-02-11T14:18:00.007-05:00

Chinese New Year celebrations are continuing tomorrow, Saturday Feb. 12^th in Chinatown. Once again the fierce lions and dragons will wind their way through the streets of Chinatown doing their best to ward off evil spirits and cleanse the path into the new year.

What: the closing of the Chinese New Year celebrations

When: Saturday , Feb. 12 11:am to 5:pm

Where: all the streets of Chinatown

Why: because New York is privileged to witness living history in the streets of Chinatown during this time of year.

Among the troupes in the parade is The Chinatown Community Young Lions, of which I am a director . Founded my by sister Valerie Tom in 1972, the troupe has become recognized as a vital teaching institution, mentoring program, and safe haven from the streets for thousands of urban youths over the nearly four decades of its existence. Valerie, a former”NY1 New Yorker of the week” explains “when my son told me that he wanted to learn lion dance I found that he had to join a kung fu school, or a family association at that time in the early seventies. Those either had tuitions, or were affiliated with gang activity. So a friend of mine from the neighborhood who owned a restaurant, when he saw that my kids and their friends could play and wanted to perform, brought out some old lion heads and a drum and gave them to us”. Little did he know that that gesture would plant the seed for what has become one of Chinatown’s anomalies, a group of largely American born Chinese, including African Americans, Jewish and Puerto Ricans, not only learning and perfecting the drum beats and dance steps of Toi Sahn villages, but remaining faithful to the group’s mission which was to become a safe haven away from the bad elements of the street.

Existing for nearly forty years fully dependent on talent alone to get them through, the group has struggled from time to time debating about the future of “the club”. Having 501 3C status has helped over the years. Members pay no dues and are free to come and go, most stay however, and the founding members are raising their children to learn the culture and traditions of the most important holiday in the Chinese culture through lion dance. The teachers and directors all volunteer their time and resources. When the City Of New York doubled the rent on a space used by the club for over three decades in a DCAS operated building CCYL was forced to leave, so I carved out space in my showroom in Brooklyn for them to store their equipment. This February the club practiced on the sidewalks of DUMBO, Brooklyn to prepare for the parade in Chinatown.

The lion dance itself dates back to the early dynastic era and differs widely from Northern to Southern China. Nuances in drumming and the shape of the lion head distinguish one region from another. The Chinatown Community Young Lions preserves a drumming beat and dance style most akin to the region of China that the founding fathers of New York Chinatown originated from, Toi Sahn, a city state within Guangdong Province. Most New Yorkers don’t know that they are witnessing a living history through the lion dance performed in the streets of Chinatown, which has over a hundred year history in America.

The connection to this spiritual dance was no more profound than in the months after 9/11. With smoke still rising from the pile at ground zero and many streets barricading Chinatown, The Chinatown Community Young Lions felt the full weight of their responsibility to lift its residents and businesses out of the paralyzing shock of the unknown. With fewer tourists in the streets that year, and with reports of possible future attacks on New York, Chinatown merchants asked the troupe to bring the lions into their stores and restaurants to bow to the altars often tucked away near the back, reassuring the owners and staff that all will be ok. Away from the tv cameras and tourists, in the peaceful quiet of the store a merchant gently strokes the lion as he guides it to his altar, the performers, crouching on their knees are careful not to misstep, knocking over a teacup or a chair would be a bad omen.

As the lions back their way out of the store the drums kick into an “up beat” and the store owners are smiling, confident that somehow they averted whatever disaster the coming year might have brought.

As groups have joined the parade over the years, bringing in flourishes and tricks, fluorescent uniforms and bizarre color combinations to their lions and accoutrement, the Young Lions remain steadfast in doing things the same way since the beginning. The trade mark red sweatshirts, a significant color for the holiday, paired with the member’s own black jeans (budgets simply don’t allow for dressing a hundred and fifty kids in custom pants sizes) and the same frayed and tattered banners are a welcome sight to Chinatown merchants. There are only about a half dozen performance troupes in Chinatown that are indigenous to the area despite fifteen parade permits given out every year. In the old days of CCYL’s existence practically every merchant and restaurant owner knew someone in the club, it was that connection that filled the little red envelopes with lucky money in exchange for a blessing from the lions that appeared on the doorstep. Today, with the economic downturn many of the merchants from years ago have gone out of business or retired. The Young Lions are performing to a different audience, some from Viet Nam, Fujian Province, Shanghai or Cambodia but the task remains the same, to chase away evil spirits and offer a blessing, even if the envelopes are a little less full these days.

Full of youthful energy and the need for new funding resources The Chinatown Community Young Lions haven’t limited their performances to Manhattan. The troupe now includes Queens on their roster of events both public and private, recently performing in a newly opened mall in Flushing.

With renewed vigor and opportunity in the outer boroughs the Young Lions continue to thrive as business owners outside of the area cheer and squeal with glee that an authentic Chinatown lion dance troupe has come to their “distant shore” . As it has been for the last forty years the older members pack as many kids into their mini vans and cars as they can and drive off to their next performance, “is it a wedding, a bah mitz mah, a restaurant opening?” no one seems to care, instead they practice drum beats on the floor boards of the van and argue about who’s under the head first. A troupe director reprimands a kid “you have to put your whole body under the lion tail next time!” a student quips back “do you know how hard it is to stay bent over like that!?” , a collective “YES!” from the directors says it all.

- Jan Lee is a member of the Civic Center Residents Coalition and a director of The Chinatown Community Young Lions.

CLICK HERE to hear an AUDIO PODCAST of Governance Committee of Chinatown Working Group January 4th 2011

2011-01-07T10:22:00.003-05:00