|
Letters to the Editor For Better Housing, Fines Not the Answer Dear Editor: I would like to talk about the housing issues that were raised in John Reilly's column, "Creative Budgeting Needed to Preserve Quality of Life" [March 28 -April 10, 2002]. The city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) currently employs 308 field inspectors, apprentices, and supervisors. This is the highest number of Housing Maintenance Code inspectors and supervisors since the state eliminated funding for inspectors in 1991. Overall condition of the city's housing stock is the best that it's been since the US Census Bureau began measuring it in 1965. A little over 60 percent of our housing stock was built before 1947. This is amazing really in a city that came to preservation relatively late Ð and allowed over 350,000 housing units to be lost to abandonment and arson in the 1970s and early Ô80s. But the preservation of that aging stock represents some challenges and must, I believe, be our first priority in a housing policy. We simply cannot afford to lose housing because of disinvestments and abandonment. And so it is important to remember the devastating impacts of the last wave of housing abandonment. Nearly 800,000 people were displaced as a result of the loss of over 350,000 housing units at a replacement cost of over $20 billion (we are still paying that bill) and entire communities were nearly lost forever. We simply can no longer afford that. We must focus our efforts on keeping owners and tenants in place. This means assisting owners with information, access to capital and enforcing housing standards when owners do not comply. And it means encouraging entrepreneurs with ties to the communities to purchase, own and manage rental housing. And, make no mistake, these strategies prevent tenant displacement. We must acknowledge our successes. We have changed the entire environment in New York City with crime reduction, growing job opportunities and vibrant immigrant communities. And this has led to increased property values which helps to secure equity for low and moderate income homeowners and ensure that rental property owners have access to capital to maintain their buildings. But with more people flooding our city than there are apartments and homes to receive them, we are seeing an impact on crowding and affordability. Reilly concludes his section on housing by saying, "Better housing improves everyone's quality of life." I agree. Where Reilly's logic is flawed is thinking that more fines result in better housing. Preventing violations in the first place through infrastructure investment in roofs, heating systems, plumbing, and the like through anti-abandonment and preservation strategies is a sounder objective. Also, contrary to Reilly's contention, money collected through fines goes to the city's overall budget; it is not earmarked for Code Enforcement. Better housing improves everyone's quality of life. I agree. Jerilyn Perine The writer is commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Act Now on Water Rates Dear Editor: Last Thursday morning, the New York City Water Board held borough hearings at Lehman College about a rate increase and some billing policy changes. Four Bronx residents spoke at the hearing. I'm not writing to talk about the response to the hearing. I'm writing to urge people to say something now by phone or by mail to the Water Board (718-595-3601; 59-17 Junction Boulevard, Queens, NY 11373) and to the mayor (212-788-9600, City Hall, New York, NY 10007) and to our City Council members. The Water Board is considering a 6.5 percent rate increase to take effect on July 1. They will finalize the increase at their May 3 Water Board meeting. In addition to the rate increase, they are voting on several billing policy changes that could have a major impact on water users. The most notable one would expand the Department of Environmental Protection's ability to turn off water service for non-payment. Under current rules, in single- to five-family homes, there must be one delinquent charge open and unpaid for at least three years; in six or more family buildings, there must be one delinquent charge open and unpaid for at least two years. The new proposal would allow termination of service if there exists either at least one delinquent charge of at least $1,000 open and unpaid for at least one year or accumulated delinquent charges of $10,000 or more. The Water Board representative who was present explained that the 6.5 percent increase is in part due to the success of conservation efforts. Since the Water Board has to cover all the water systems' costs with rates and since the system is primarily a metered system, a reduction in water use actually results in the need for an increase in rate to generate the income necessary to pay for the operation of the system and the debt on the system. He also stated that their intent was not to use the increased turn-off powers on residential properties. The hearing served as a fresh reminder of a couple of things and a wake-up call on a third thing. First, the potential impact on rates if the city continues to proceed with filtration plans that will increase the debt obligations of the Water Board. Second, the insanity of a completely metered water billings system, and third, the importance of not accepting a turn-off policy without clearly spelled out rules and regulations. While I do not question the Board representative's integrity, the fact is that he may not be the one making the decisions on turn-offs in the future. As I suggested earlier, I am urging people to contact the Water Board, mayor and the City Council to urge them to reject the rate increase and any modifications on turn-off policies. For more information, you can look at www.unhp.org under the Section entitled "Recent Updates: Water Board Rate Hike Hearings." Jim Buckley The writer is executive director of University Neighborhood Housing Program.
|
