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

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?   

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

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.

Chatham Towers and Chatham Green Withdraw from The Chinatown Working Group

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