Over the last few years, as work on the Second Ave. subway has progressed, I’ve written extensively about the impact construction has on local businesses. With streets and sidewalks torn up, foot traffic to many Upper East Side businesses has slowed to a crawl, and more than a few shops have closed up in the face of a decade-long threat of subway construction.
Over time, I’ve been less sympathetic to the business owners who bemoan these inconveniences. In the end, the Second Ave. subway will benefit Upper East Side businesses and New Yorkers as a whole. If a few owners who had ample warning of impending construction are facing a tough time, that is a price the city must willing to pay for transportation progress. (For more on the business side of the equation, check out this piece from Friday’s amNew York.)
The residential part of the relocation issue, though, is a different story. Because the MTA has to purchase some Second Ave. properties for substations, ventilation shafts, emergency access stairwells and other infrastructure-related needs, federal law imposes an obligation on the agency to find displaced residents “comparable housing.” As Michael Grynbaum reports, this process has been plagued with problems as residents and the MTA struggle to define what comparable housing really is. He writes:
Dave Zigerelli was told to consider low-income housing across from an on-ramp to the Queensboro Bridge. The first apartment shown to Nicolle Poian was half the size of her own. Ann and Conrad Riedi, ensconced in the same rent-stabilized apartment for 40 years, said they were encouraged to move out of Manhattan — and their dog, Biscuit, might not be allowed to come along. “They told us to think outside the box,” said Ms. Riedi, 64.
The Riedis’ apartment, a big three-bedroom in a stucco-walled walk-up, is one of 60 homes on the Upper East Side that will soon be converted into ventilation shafts, public stairwells and electronics hubs, the infrastructure for the $4.5 billion underground line, scheduled to open in 2017.
The transportation authority said that it was doing its best to accommodate residents who want to stay in the neighborhood, and that no one was being forced to leave the area. Affordable housing was suggested to residents who might be eligible, said a transportation authority spokesman, Kevin Ortiz.
But the options for tenants are limited. At first, Mr. Ortiz denied that the relocation service hired by the authority, a national real estate company called O. R. Colan Associates, had suggested that residents move outside their district, which stretches from East 59th Street to East 96th Street. Given an e-mail message showing that one tenant was encouraged to consider housing in Harlem, at East 116th Street, Mr. Ortiz said the authority wanted to offer as many choices as possible.
“We’re doing our due diligence,” he said. In the case of the Harlem apartments, he added, “No one seemed to be interested.”
According to Grynbaum, officials generally interpret “comparable housing” to be of the same size and rent in the same or a nearby neighborhood. If someone opts to upgrade their housing, says Grynbaum, the MTA will be on the hook for the rent different for 3.5 years. Based on the anecdotes he tracks down, though, this idea of “comparable” has so far eluded the MTA.
Numerous couples report being shown low-income housing. Others talk about options to relocate to Roosevelt Island or an apartment underneath the tram at 60th St. and 3rd Ave. Still others talk about being shown smaller apartments without similar amenities.
In the end, the MTA has few choices in this matter. They are legally obligated to relocate these residents to “comparable housing,” and if the agency cannot accommodate that demand, then the residents can sue for an injunction. Any legal proceedings would slow the long-delayed project to a halt. It is in the best interests of the MTA to find the right housing, and they owe it to these Second Ave. residents to do so.
20 comments
While there is no question that the MTA must relocate these tenants, how picky do the tenants get to be? Rejecting Harlem is one thing, but 60th and 3rd is not what I would call a hardship. Maybe a little noisy, being so close to the bridge, but 2nd Avenue is also noisy, so they’re not really losing out. And showing them low-income housing? Aren’t these tenants, well, low-income themselves? Otherwise they would be able to relocate on their own. Right?
I will leave the whole rent-regulated tenant debate for other blogs, but let’s hope that these holdouts don’t delay the project any more than it has been already. If that were possible.
It is possible that “low-income housing” would mean moving into a high-crime neighborhood. Housing Authority projects unfortunately
fall into that category also.
I say just tell ’em they won the eminent domain lottery and give the old-timers a big lump sum. Let them spend it on whatever they want; a Trump condo, a unit in Boca Raton, or the tables at Vegas. Why encourage them to keep renting if they’re just gonna stay put for the rest of their lives. This one-time payoff ought to come out to just pocket change in this leviathan project.
The last comment makes sense. I always understood that eminent domain meant lump sum payments to the people pushed out, but maybe that is just for the owners. It should be for the renters too. It wouldn’t take a big lump sum payment to get me to move from my apartment.
I live in a rent stabilized apartment, and one problem is that an apartment with the equivalent rent for most rent stabilized apartments is, like, in New Jersey. Its sucky system, but these people found their apartments when rents were much lower and most likely helped gentrify a dodgy neighborhood. They shouldn’t be forced to start over again in their old age.
The Upper East Side was never dodgy.
Take a serious look at Roosevelt Island. Figure in the cost of the subway (or tram) ride, if you don’t already bear it, and realize that Roosevelt Island is a great place to live…
I’m sure, Dick, that Roosevelt Island is a very nice place to live for people who want to live on Roosevelt Island. But to tell someone on the Upper East Side that Roosevelt Island is “comparable housing” is laughable.
“this idea of “comparable” has so far eluded the MTA.”
well, it’s eluded the brokers. i read that article, being a lifelong resident of yorkville, and was appalled by the superciliousness of the comment in the first paragraph quoted above (“They told us to think outside the box,” said Ms. Riedi, 64.), which came across from the article (and i believe it) as typifying of the brokers’ mentality.
i’m also appalled by the crassness of christopher’s comment, assuming a right to dictate what others should accept in housing, and characterizing people who have invested their lives in this neighborhood and in their homes as “holdouts”. the craven attitude towards business and government elites entailed in such thinking is contemptible.
The MTA should have hired a better real estate agency!
My local real estate agent went out of her way to find me what I wanted. Apparently this “national company” is *not* doing that for the tenants. That rather seems to have caused the problems!
With all due respect to the reporter and Ben’s acceptance of his account as gospel, the MTA is going far beyond what is required or reasonable to ensure that each impacted resident is able to move in the least disruptive way possible. For people living in rent-stabilized units, if comparable stabilized units cannot be located in the neighborhood, we will put them in comparable market-rate units and pay the rent difference for as long as the original unit would have been stabilized. For many of these tenants, the MTA is prepared to pay that difference for the rest of their lives (in amounts many multiples beyond the federal $5,000 limit). Each tenant is offered three comparable units to start, and if none are acceptable we continue to work with the tenants to find an acceptable solution.
It is especially disappointing that a blog claiming to support investment in transit would fail to note that a $4.5 billion project, running 33 blocks in developed Manhattan, is only taking 48 residential units in 4 buildings. That is little consolation to those who are affected, to be sure, but it is a testament to how carefully the project was designed to limit impact on residents.
Jeremy Soffin
MTA Press Secretary
I think the criminal part is the “$4.5 billion project, running 33 blocks” part. In Tokyo, a subway running the same length would cost $1 billion.
I think every person who’s so prejudiced as to refuse to be interested in Harlem should, on general principle, be deported from the city.
Alon, As I ride my bike through the streets of Harlem, I see plenty young white folks on the sidewalks. Rarely if ever do I see anyone the age of me and Mrs Reidi, 64.
I might wanna deport any younger folks who refuse to consider living there. But most older people get very set in their ways, and that effect is probably amplified for those who have lived in the same building for more than 40 years.
But I can see why the MTA’s brokers thought there could be deals in Harlem. I see a large number of handsome buildings going up. A huge supply of high-priced apartments are coming on the market and they are likely to go for MUCH lower rents than the developers and their bankers ever imagined.
The part of Harlem where I lived was overwhelmingly black. My girlfriend and I counted people on the street once, and about 80% were black, with most of the rest Hispanic. Our building had a few whites in it but that was just one building – even the block was probably less than 10% white plus Asian. The white people who did live there were younger than average, but not by a lot.
Besides which, since when is being 64 an excuse for racism?
Hey, maybe they want to live next to a subway line, and if the MTA promised to build phase II and the 116th St. Station, they’d feel differently? 🙂 Maybe they moved in because the MTA promised that the Second Avenue Subway was coming soon, and they feel cheated by being asked to move away just when it’s arriving? 😉
This site must be renamed. All of its information about the construction of the SAS comes news artilces and the MTA itself. How can Kabak repeat the nonsense that this project will be completed in 2017 for 4.5 billion? He repeats because he evidently does not observe on a regular basis the farce that this project has become. It will not be completed in 2017 as planned; nor will it cost 4.5 billion. In two and a half years, The MTA has not yet begun to build any of the four stations, and they have not built one inch of the tunnel from 96th down. Who believes that in eight years the MTA can complete four stations and a mile and a half tunnel? Go the site, Kabak; look at what is happening. Many days only a few workers can be seen. Yesterday no one was working. Most of the workers who are at the site carry clipboards and stand and eat and talk or don’t carry clipboards and stand and eat and talk. And they can’t begin constructing the tunnel until they finish blasting beneath 92nd to 93rd Street, and they can’t begin blasting because they have already compromised the foundations of three buildings. By the way, what happened to those pitiful residents who were told to vacate those buildings immediately? Why doesn’t the MTA tell us about their fate. The whole thing is a colossal and criminal fiasco.
Correction: three buildings whose foundations were already defective, whose owners derelictly and negligently failed to fix building code violations for years, got slightly worse when the MTA started digging.
That one is really not the MTA’s fault. That’s the damn landlords’ fault.
The main problem is that in the umpteen years these people have been living in their rent stabilized apartments, housing costs have soared citywide, and particularly in their neighborhood. So, there is nothing “comparable” in location, amenities and cost: you have to lose one. It sounds like the federal law doesn’t offer any suggestions on this count: I imagine the courts will likely recognize this omission and tell the residents, “tough”. In the mean time, no subway.
[…] and the MTA’s need for a blast permit while the other is a follow-up from last week’s relocation saga. Both present the possibility of even more delays for this troubled […]
[…] the MTA and Upper East Side residents are at odds over Second. Ave relocation measures, the authority has a cash reserve in place to mitigate moving expenses. According to a report in […]