CITY LIMITS

COMMUNI Y HOU NEWS

DECEMBER 1977
VOL. 2 NO.7
BARONI FINDS RESISTANCE
TO NEIGHBORHOOD
PROGRAMS
FOUR HOUSING GROUPS
UNITE\ IN EAST HARLEM
Elevated Penn Central tracks through East Harlem.
Four community-based organizations in East Harlem, including Metro'
North Association, Inc., have joined forces in an effort to improve housing
and spur economic development in a l00-block area serving about 70,000
people. _
Thanks to a $500,000 grant from the Mott FQundation of Flint, Mich-
igan, the four East Harlem groups have formed a new organization called
the Association for Neighborhood Development. continued on page 8
By Bernard Cohen
WASHINGTON - Efforts to
create programs sensitive to neigh-
borhoods and to provide com-
munity-based groups with needed
resources have to overcome skepti-
cism and even ridicule by many
government professionals, accord-
ing to HUD Assistant Secretary
Msgr. Geno Baroni.
"I'm on the Urban and
Regional Policy Group and head of
the neighborhood task force,"
Baroni said, "and I hear the ridicule '
and the cynicism of the new profes-
. sionals plus the old ones: 'You're
going to give those people money?
i Who's going to audit them?' "
The word "neighborhood" is
' turning up more and more in
, government policy statements, and
there is a growing recognition of
neighborhoods as important parts
of the urban system, Baroni said.
But, at the same time, there is a
strong bias against neighborhood
programs on the part of profes-
sionals who associate them with the
"bad taste" from the War on
Poverty programs of the 1960s or
who feel that priorities on spending
should be left up to \he mayors.
continued on page 14
HUD ISSUES NEW REGULATIONS
FOR CD BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
New regulations that take some positive steps
toward insuring that Community Development Block
Grant funds are spent properly h ~ v e been issued by
HUD.
The proposed regulations to the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1977, which will pro-
vide more than $12 billion to local governments over the
next three years, were issued on Oct. 25. A comment
period will last through Nov. 25.
The changes in the proposed CD regulations appear
to include many improvements: clearer targeting of
funds to low and moderate income families; stronger
community participation; better Housing Assistance
Plans and performance reports; direct funding of non-
profit organizations and tighter restrictions on excep-
tions to eligible activities.
There is a new emphasis on concentrating CD
funds in target areas of greatest need, specifying
strategies for meeting neighborhood revitalization,
housing and community facilities needs and holding
cities accountable for the goals they have set.
Community development plans, consisting of Ii
summary of community development and housing
needs, a comprehensive strategy and a summary of
projects proposed to be carried out will be submitted
every three years rather than annually.
There is also a new category of funding, called
Urban Development Action Grants, which is available
for severely distressed cities and urban counties and is
designed to spur investment by the private sector.
While many of the changes are for the better, some
of the amended regulations either do not go far enough
or they open up new loopholes. Others that seem
constructive are ambiguous enough that only time will
determine their actual value.
Probably the largest single issue has been, who is
benefitting from CD funds? It is clear from the 1974
legislation creating the block grant program that Con-
gress intended community development programs to
directly benefit low and moderate income families.
In the past, CD plans were to give "maximum
feasible priority" to projects that principally benefit low
and moderate income people. This was a vague equation
that left communities open to charges that they were
using the funds improperly to rehire police, build sewers
or redevelop their business districts.
Under pressure from neighborhood and anti-
poverty legal organizations, HUD has now specified
that at least 75 percent of CD grants must be spent on
projects that principally benefit low and moderate
income people. What the new regulations actually say is
that 25 percent may be used on "exceptions" provided
the project 1) helps prevent or eliminate slums and
blight or 2) meets an urgent community development
need.
The regulations have tightened the language defin-
ing urgency to mean a problem that has arisen in the
past 18 months and cannot be financed out of local
revenues.
They also strengthen language on eligible activities
related to slums and blight, except for "economically
distressed cities" which can use funds for projects
aimed at attracting middle and upper income residents
tlirough economic development projects.
The regulations re-emphasize the obligation to
address the particular needs of low income people.
While community-based groups have argued in
favor of limiting exceptions to a fixed percentage,
HUD's method of measuring who benefits is faulty.
There is concern that cities will be able to spend signifi-
cantly less than 75 percent of their CD funds on projects
principally benefitting low and moderate income
people.
To make matters worse, the regulations also open
up a sizable loophole by allowing the HUD Secretary
. considerable leeway to waive the limit on exceptions.
, 2 ,
The rules set no standards or procedures for such a
waiver.
Also on the negative side from the point of view of
poorer neighborhoods, the regulations for the first time
invite as eligible a range of economic development acti-
vities, including acquisition of property and acquisition,
construction or rehabilitation of public, commercial
and industrial facilities. The regs do say that expansion
of jobs for low and moderate income people should be
a goal of economic development activites. In the past,
many economic development projects were ruled ineligi-
ble because they could not be shown to benefit low and
moderate income people.
Here at a glance are some of the other proposed
major changes:
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION - Better but still
lacking. A written citizen participation plan is required
for the first time. The plan must show how a community
is encouraging submission by citizens of views and pro-
posals and how it intends to make timely responses.
1
Participation at the neighborhood level as well as city-
wide will be required for all stages: planning, imple-
mentation, monitoring and evaluating CD programs.
Technical assistance to help neighborhood organiza-
tions and others participate effectively will have to be
available. The new regs do not require ongoing citizen
committees nor do they require that local governments
work with or through neighborhood organizations.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - Tougher
requirements. Through HAP, to be submitted every
three years, and an annual "action program" applicants
will have to address not only the identified needs for
housing assistance but also those needs listed in prior
plans that were not fulfilled. Included are new propor-
tionality rules to insure that the needs of different
household types such as renters or small-home owners
are met. For the suburbs, a change in the method for
calculating the "expected to reside" formula is aimed at
increasing housing opportunities for low income
families.
PERFORMANCE REPORTS - Better timing.
Requiring grantees to issue their performance reports in
the eighth month of the CD year will give HUD and the
community adequate time to judge how effectively the
money is being used.
DIRECT FUNDING OF NON-PROFITS - A
breakthrough. Legislative amendments now make it
possible for non-profit groups such as neighborhood-
based organizations to qualify for block grants for all
activities normally eligible for CD funds plus planning
and administrative costs.
DISPLACEMENT - Applicants must specify in
their community development plans how they will assist
low and moderate income people to remain in their
existing locations and to mitigate adverse effects on
them as a result of neighborhood revitalization activi-
ties.
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD REVI-
T ALIZATION AREAS - A major shift toward
greater impact. Local governments will- be encouraged
J
to designate target areas for concentrated funding in
coordination with other resources and programs.
Grantees will have to describe a strategy for neighbor-
hood revitalization, housing, community facilities and
economic development.
UDAG - $400 million for each of the next three
years. Separate from the rest of CD. Urban Develop-
ment Action Grants are for cities and urban counties
that qualify under a special formula as suffering from
physical and economic distress. Activities ruled out
under the CD block grant program are eligible for
UDAG. The grants are for projects which are already
planned and can be implemented swiftly.
PUBLIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES - Improved.
Service expenditures will be further limited to those
relating directly to physical or economic projects funded
with block grants and not for regular city police hiring
or social services.
Hopefully, the new regulations will make it hearder
for New York City and other localities to misspend CD
funds. Community groups have been waging a long-
standing battle over New York City's performance with
CD.
Last September, HUD approved New York City's
CD 3 application for $150 million after knocking out
citywide street repairs and "conditionally approving"
several other items for a total of $10 million in question-
able projects.
To date, according to the New York City Housing
and Community Development Coalition, the city has
been able to spend only 47.9 percent of its CD funds
through the first two years of the program and commit-
ted a high 22 percent to administration.
In addition, the coalition has criticized the city for
setting high income limits for determining low and
moderate income families, failing to comply with equal
opportunity requirements of the law and using CD
funds to undertake capital budget projects outside low
and moderate income areas.
For a copy of the proposed regulations and a more
detailed analysis of them contact City Limits.
Doing the 'Do-able'
In Sunset Park
Three Sunset Park kids whose street between the Gowanus
Expressway and the waterfront is lined with abandoned buildings
and empty lots. They ~ o o k a cheerful tack, saying that the space was
good for playing.
Sunset Park in BrooKlyn is on the threshold of its
second major attempt in five years to rehabilitate its
stock of old frame houses and reverse the abandonment
that dots some blocks and virtually blots out others.
In its first try, the neighborhood saved 15 buildings
and set a precedent for rehabilitation of one and two-
family abandoned homes. Unhappily, the cost was so
high, due in large part to financial hardships wrought by
the government, that the project drew to a close on a
somber note of disappointment.
"I would guess it was the broken promises kind of
thing," said John Gallagher, an architect and last sur-
viving staff member of the Sunset Park Redevelopment
Committee.
Once again, the success of the effort to turn this
struggling neighborhood around depends in a large way
on government. And while there are already some indi-
4
cations that it is hatching new obstacles, Gallagher
remains optimistic.
"Essentially, our second chance hasn't started yet.
But things haven't looked this good in quite a while."
What looks good is that SPRC (pronounced
SP ARK) has signed a contract with the city to rehabili-
tate 21 buildings, including lion three of its worst
blocks, under the Small Home Improvement Program
(SHIP). Two of the buildings will be fitted for solar
energy. In addition, SPRC has applied for $600,000 in
Section 8 funds for substantial rehabilitation of 28 units
in three more buildings. SPRC also expects to add four
new staff people-a bookkeeper, marketer, draftsman
and handyman-hired under the CET A program.
"SHIP should be able to do all of the abandoned
buildings that are do-able in this neighborhood,"
Gallagher said, looking to the future. "And it opens up
the possibility of other federal programs."
Gallagher works out of a bright but cramped office
in the gleaming 500-bed Lutheran Medical Center,
which opened last July in a converted city-owned
factory building.
Set one block from the waterfront in Sunset Park's
most rundown neighborhood, the hospital looks like a
beached white whale surrounded by aging industrial
buildings, warehouses, Bush Terminal piers, crumbling
housing, overgrown lots and a few junked and rusting
autos.
In selecting this site for its relocation, Lutheran
expects to spearhead a broad revitalization of the area,
which extends from 39th to 59th Streets and from the
waterfront to Seventh Avenue. SPRC was formed as a
result of a coalition between the hospital and the
community.
Once a stable, even thriving neighborhood of some
70,000 Scandinavian, Irish, Italian and Polish immi-
grants, Sunset Park has suffered from a number of
depressing influences, including the sharp decline in
merchant shipping through the Port of New York.
In 1941, the residential and commercial heart of the
community was impaled by the Gowanus Parkway,
which Robert Moses constructed atop pillars of the old
BMT elevated line along Third A venue.
Many homes along both sides of Third Avenue
were demolished to make room for the Gowanus. The
", myriad stores, restaurants and threaters that made the
area alive began to disappear. People began to shop
elsewhere and the once-bustling street became more and
more deserted. The blight spread in both directions,
though far more brutally along the side streets toward
waterfront.
East of the Gowanus, most of the frame houses and
occasional brownstones are in pretty good condition
today with some spots of abandonment. West of the
Gowanus to the piers is badly deteriorated with aban-
donment widespread.
Thanks to blockbusting and subsequent forclosures
of one to four-family homes with federally insured
(FHA) mortgages, Sunset Park was left with a scandal-
ous inventory of abandoned buildings in the early
1970s.
SPRC, formed in 1965 as a volunteer, non-funded
organization, developed a plan in 1972 to buy the
vacant, often dilapidated buildings, rehabilitate them
and resell them to moderate income community
residents.
Close to the Gowanus Expressway. this house at 317 55th St. was
rehabilitated and sold to an electrician who provided the electrical
work as part of his equity investment.
5
That plan resulted in the completion and sale of 15
buildings, but not before a revolving loan fund financed
by a $150,000 grant from the Ford Foundation had been
exhausted.
"I saw it coming," said Gallagher. SPRC was
losing money on each building. Becaust of consistently
low FHA appraisals of the homes, SPRC was having to
sink its own money into the rehabilitation in order to
cover the full cost.
Furthermore, since SPRC could not recoup its
investment until the sale contract was signed, its capital
was continually tied up by FHA sluggishness in approv-
ing the completed work.
"By the eleventh or twelfth building we found out
that by the fifteenth we would be out of money-our
revolving loan would be down to zero," Gallagher said.
The loan dried up in July, 1976. By that time,
SPRC's board had already been forced to layoff the
organization'S executive director, assistant director and
full-time secretary, leaving only Gallagher.
He has had his hands full as the sole staff member.
"You become a jack of all trades: drawing up plans;
running the program; attending meetings with the city
and FHA; being a real estate salesman; making minor
repairs, running out to seal up a building.
"I've also gotten very good at typing," he added.
Sunset Park's hopes for a better housing future
now lie with the city's SHIP program, which is fitting
since SHIP was modeled on SPRC's experience in
rehabilitating the FHA-foreclosed homes. (Not one has
suffered a default, although new buyers replaced two
original owners after they ran into financial problems.
Under SHIP, SPRC will buy the 21 homes, prepare
the rehab plans and hire contractors to do the construc-
tion. The city, using Community Development funds,
will pay part of the cost of rehabilitating the house,
easing the financial burden on the new o w n e ~ .
6
The sealed up buildings are 331 and 333 54th St. which will be
rehabilitated under the SHIP program. Both frame houses will be
equipped for solar energy through a HUD grant. Work is expected to
begin in January.
For example, a bank might grant a $29,000 mort-
gage based on an FHA appraisal of the house. The total
cost of rehabilitation might be $44,000, however. Sub-
tracting a $1,500 downpayment by the owner, the city's
contribution would be $13,500.
A hitch in the plans developed when FHA declared
flatly that it would not insure any mortgages in the run-
down blocks between the Gowanus and the piers. After
some negotiations and a personal visit by a HUD offi-
cial, FHA designated 55th, 56th and 57th Streets as pilot
blocks eligible for FHA insurance.
SPRC expects to generate income from SHIP by
providing architectural and marketing services.
While SHIP appears to hold great promise for Sun-
set Park, city inefficiency is hampering startup of the
program.
The SHIP contract, signed last October, must be
approved by the Emergency Financial Control Board,
the state overseer of New York City's fmances since the
fiscal crisis hit. The contract has now missed two EFCB
meetings. City housing officials say they have not been
able to complete the necessary support paperwork.
In addition, the blueprints drawn up by city archi-
tects for seven Sunset Park homes are inappropriate,
based apparently on the plans being used for very differ-
ent buildings in East New York's SHIP program. For
example, the Sunset Park blueprints are for masonry
buildings with overhead utility connections while the
homes in Sunset Park are mostly frame with under-
ground connections.
Room layouts in the city plans are also more expen-
sive than necessary, Gallagher said, adding that "I am
still reviewing the plans. "
Gallagher said city housing officials have been
cooperative and supportive. "But in terms of getting
them to produce anything, they are inefficient. "
by John Gallagher
New York City is again vying for the title of
"Movie Capital of the World." After some fifty
years of making movies in California, the major
studios are choosing to come back to New York
for the sets of new movies.
A small piece of Tinseltown, where every-
thing is pretend, came to Brooklyn this summer
when Universal Pictures began shooting "Nunzio"
in the Sunset Park-Boro Park area.
The final scenes called for a burning building
and Universal's production manager, John Nico-
lelia, spotted 558 50th Street as an ideal location.
His search for the ownerof the vandalized building
brought him to the Sunset Park Redevelopment
Committee, which had just acquired the building
for inclusion in its 28-unit Section 8 rental subsidy
rehab project.
Shortly after hearing of approval of its Sec-
tion 8 preliminary proposal, SPRC was
approached by Universal with the idea of using the
building as a set for "Nunzio."
"After reassurance that there would be no
damage to the building or to neighboring proper-
ties, we gave the go-ahead," said Kathy Wylde,
Board Secretary of the Redevelopment Commit-
tee, "and Universal reimbursed us for staff time
and for the hiring of a dozen neighborhood teen-
agers to do some initial cleaning out of debris and
garbage."
The budget for "Nunzio" was set at $1.2
million. Although impressive in housing group
terms, it was small compared with the industry
average of $10 million-12 million. There was room
in the tight budget, however, to hire several local
people as actors, extras, and production help.
The story was written by James Andronica, a
former neighborhood resident, who also co-stars,
and based 100se,ly on an actual character and
events. "Nunzio" is a retarded 31-year old who is
trying to cope in an antagonistic world lacking in
modern heroes. The story climaxes with Nunzio in
a dramatic rescue of the residents of a burning
building, which is where SPRC helped out.
Universal sent in a special effects crew to
prepare and protect the building by installing
sheet metal hoods and building a sheetrock and
asbestos "box" at each window in which bottled
7
Another Brooklyn building in flames? Not really . . . just a visit
from Hollywood movie makers to Sunset Park.
gas could safely be ignited. Fire extinguishers,
hoses, and a group of New York City firemen
standing by added to the precautions. When
preparations were completed, by window sash,
glazing, curtains, blinds, etc., the building looked
from the exterior as though it were fully occupied
by satisfied tenants served by a benevolent land-
lord.
As shooting progressed throughout 10 all-
o night sessions, the "fire" spread through the
building until, according to the script, Nunzio, this
time played by a stunt man, not by star David
Proval, was forced to jump from the roof of the
"burning" building to the roof of the
adjacent P.S. 94 mini-school about 35 feet below,
in order to escape flames with a small Child,
really a doll; in his arms. 0
About a month after the movie-makers left
and reality began to return to the lives of neighbor-
hood residents, and while local teenagers were
again engaged in cleanup work, an unexplained
fire, this time for real, broke out in a top floor
apartment, burning through parts of the roof and
causing about $6,000 damage. SPRC is continuing
with its plans despite the setback.
East Harlem continued
The Mott grant is $l00,OOO-a-year for five years
with AND to provide an equal match to cover an annual
budget of $200,000. In addition, Mott provided a
$40,000 grant to the Pratt Institute Center for Commu-
nity and Environmental Development and a $100,000
grant to the Association of Neighborhood Housing
Developers, Inc., three quarters of it for ANHD
members.
The East Harlem groups, in addition to Metro
north, are Concerned Citizens of East Harlem, Inc.,
Lexington Planning Coalition, Inc. and Lexington
Avenue Neighborhood Association. Their target area is
bounded by East 96th Street and East II6th Street, Fifth
and Park Avenues and the East River.
"Nobody has been doing anything of any con-
sequence," in that area, said Ralph Cassetta, former
chairman of Metro North and director-planner of
AND. "What I would like to see is arresting the deterio-
ration with new programs and start moving toward
upgrading of neighborhoods." .
First priority of the AND agenda is housing.
Between 1940 and 1970, public housing projects were
built for nearly 53,000 residents, making East Harlem
probably the site of more public housing than any other
place of comparable size. Still, 60 percent of the popula-
tion is said to be crowded into severly substandard
tenements. Abandonment of decaying buildings is
rampant and living conditions in many are abominable
(see related article).
Unlike its neighbor to the west, East Harlem has
never had periods of prestige. It has been a slum since its
real development began in the second half of the 19th
century.
Most of its earliest inhabitants were European
immigrants who spilled out of the crowded Lower East
Side. First there were the Germans and Irish, followed
by Jews and Italians from 1880 to 1910. By World War
I, East Harlem was horne to the largest colony of
Italian-Americans outside Italy.
Blacks and Puerto Ricans formed the next wave. EI
Barrio, the largest concentration of Puerto Ricans out-
side the Commonwealth, has now become the core of
East Harlem.
Since 1960 there has been a 25 percent decline in
East Harlem's population, which is estimated at not
more than 140,000 today. Unemployment is high and
many Puerto Rican and black families earn less than
$5,000 per year.
Although the East Harlem area is well served by
mass transit, the elevated tracks of the Penn Central
Railroad along Park Avenue offer almost no service to
the area and act as a noisy, polluting and hazardous
barrier shutting off East Harlem from the rest of the
city.
On the plus side, 13 new schools have been built in
East Harlem since World War II and 10 others modern-
ized; health facilities are expanding significantly; there
is good potential for commercial growth and the city
recently completed a new combined police and fire
station, although the fiscal crisis blocked a second new
police station.
AND has designated four sites for development of
new housing construction:
l00th to WIst Streets between First and Sj!cond
Third A v e n u ~ between IOOth and WIst Streets and
Lexington Avenue between WIst and 102nd Streets;
107th to 108th Streets between Lexington and Park
Avenues;
1 10th to Illth Streets, First to Second Avenues.
. Although plans for these areas are still in the
works, they call for several hundred units of new
construction, possibly incorporating innovative energy
conservation technology in some. Much of the land on
these sites has already been cleared.
Housing rehabilitation projects are being planned
for three other sites, including one between l04th and
105th Streets, First to Second Avenues, that will involve
Left to right: George Rodriguez, Lexington Planning Coalition; Bob
Lowe, Metro North Association; Willie Soto, Concerned Citizens of
East Harlem; Christine BarseIla, Lexington Avenue Neighborhood
Association; Ralph Cassetta, Association for Neighborhood Develop-
ment.
8
conversion of a 75-year old structurally sound public
school to a cultural and multi-service center.
Devising community management programs and
economic development projects (hardware, building
supply and equipment businesses) is also on the agenda
along with formation of a seal-up, demolition and
building construction and repair company.
AND will have a staff of 11: a director-planner, an
architect-researcher, a director from each of the four
groups and five secretaries. Pratt and ANHD will
provide technical assistance.
Underlying the new group is the belief that preserv-
ation and redevelopment of East Harlem can best be
accomplished by its own people through locally-based,
community-controlled non-profit organizations with
access to technical expertise.
1791 LEXINGTON:
The written proposal for AND notes that "the
massive infusion of public and publicly-assisted housing
and other infrastructure improvements and facilities
since the end of World War II has failed either to stern
the tide of increasing poverty, unemployment and
personal despair or to prevent the steady depopulation
of the area."
What makes AND different is that the people of
, East Harlem will be guiding its redevelopment insteao
of outside "experts" who don' t know East Harlem and
lack personal stake in it.
"Those of us who have worked closely in this
area," said Bob Lowe, chairman of Metro North, "feel
that the people who live here should have a major voice
in what happens to the future of this community."
THE EAST HARLEM
HOUSING NIGHTMARE
Francisca and Domingo Santos's apartment was
deceptively warm for an early November day. Outside
their broken living room window the temperature was
55 degrees, three degrees higher than normal. The steam
rising from the large pots of boiling water on the kitchen
stove made the place fairly comfortable.
Francisca Santos is 62. Her 47-year-old brother
Domingo is blind. Together, they are trapped in an East
Harlem building where heat and hot water have not
existed for months but cold water drips plentifully
through the ceiling onto their stove and few pieces of
furniture. '
Only four of the 24 apartments at 1791 Lexington
A venue are occupied. The graffiti is peeling with the
paint from the walls in the dimly lit halls of the six-story
building. The front door has no lock so the tenement is
open to anyo,ne. There is a large puddle of water in the
downstairs hall from leaking pipes. The boiler is
inoperable.
The building is infested with cockroaches and rats
who thrive on the garbage mounting in a side alley.
Maximina Sanchez, a tenant, has swollen fmgers from
rat bites. For security another tenant has smashed a
ragged hole in his wall to thread a chain
through it and a hole in his front door where the knob
should be.
Inside the Santos's bleak four-room apartment,
two windows are broken, one supposedly from a
gunshot; a half-hearted patch covers exposed wood
la!hs . in the bathroom ceiling where the old plaster has
9
fallen. The bare walls throughout are smudged with
grime.
Mrs. Santos hates her living conditions. She is .
angry for herself and fearful for the safety of her sight-
less brother. They do not pay their $70 a month rent
but, of course, that does not make living at 1791 Lexing- ;
ton Avenue any easier.
East Harlem has a lot of public housing but a lot
more people who want it. Santos says she applied
to the city but was told she would have to wait. The list
of names ahead of hers is long. So she is trapped.
Mrs. Santos's building was acquired by the city
through in rem tax foreclosure last April from the
owner, identified in city records as Maria Hernandez,
for failure to pay $22,665 in real estate and other taxes
dating back to 1972.
With the city as landlord, the tenants at 1971
Lexington Avenue have fared no better. They claim to
have had no heat or hot water for six months. Ralph
Rodriguez, a bousing aide to East Harlem Assembly-
man Angelo Del Toro, said he has been trying for
months to get the Department of Real Estate to correct
conditions in 1791 and many other buildings in the area.
He has made no headway, he said. .
City Limits reached Milton Markowitz, deputy
commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, on
November 10th. Markowitz said a work order had been
placed that very morning for repairs to restore heat and
hot water at 1791.
said the city is unable to cope with the
volume of work necessary to provide even minimally
essential services to the residential buildings it owns. He
cited three particular problems.
- By the time the city forecloses, private landlords
have already milked the buildings to the point where
they are often in very bad condition and require exten-
sive work.
- The City is having a hard time finding contrac-
tors willing to put up with the long delays in getting
paid. It takes the city six to nine months to pay up for
work completed.
- A recent law requiring the city to begin foreclo-
sure for nonpayment of real estate taxes after one year
instead of three years has increased the Real Estate
Department's workload from about 3,500 parcels
annually to 15,000 to 20,000. At the same time, the
number of city employees to do the work has shrunk.
Markowitz said he could not account, however, for
why the families of 1791 Lexington Avenue have gone
so long without hot water. "They (the city managing
agent for the building) should have checked the boiler,"
he said. "I can't understand why they didn't try to
restore immediately the essential services."
Nevertheless, from what Rodriguez says, 1791 is no
exception. Other nearby buildings with no heat or hot
water, he said, include 212 E. l06th Street; 166 E. 118th
Street; 433 E. 119th Street; 161 E. 108th Street; 63 East
l1lth Street; 122 E. l1lth Street; 57 E. lllth Street;
and, 118 E. 117th Street.
City Limits will be following the progress of 1791
Lexington Avenue. _
Domingo and Francisca Santos in their kitchen at 1791 Lexington Ave.
Through the open door behind them is the hallway.
10
j
LINGO
By ROBERT SCHUR and RICHARD ZEITLIN
Letter M (Continued)
MISFEASANCE - A failure to do an otherwise
lawful act in a proper manner; that is, performing
an act which one has the right to do, but otherwise
than in the way that it should be done. (See defs.
"Malfeasance" and "Nonfeasance.")
MISREPRESENTATION - Any untrue state-
ment of fact,.or statement which, even if literally
true, is intended to mislead or deceive or to lead
another to believe that a condition is otherwise
than actually exists.
MISTAKE - An unintentional act, omission or
error which arises from ignorance, forgetfulness,
surprise, misapprehension or misplaced
confidence. The concept of "Mistake" is impor-
tant in connection with real estate transactions,
where one or perhaps both parties are in error
about some fact or legal consequence relating to
the property (for example: its size or location, or
what may be done with the property under exist-
ing zoning laws). In some, but by no means all
cases, the law allows a party to a real estate
contract, deed, lease, mortgage, etc. to retract or
withdraw from the transaction if a "Mistake" is
discovered.
MOIETY - A half-share of anything. In real
estate, the term is used to deinote the undivided
one-half interest in a piece of property owned by
one of two joint tenants, tenants in common or
lessees.
MORATORIUM - A term designating a period
during which the normal legal rights of a creditor,
such as a mortgagee, are suspended and such
person is not permitted to enforce his or her usual
rights. Thus, during the economic depression of
the 1930s, a number of states passed laws declar-
ing a "Moratorium" on the rights of mortgagees to
foreclose on properties used by the mort9agors as
their homes, even when the mortgagors failed to
pay the interest or principal on the mortgage.
Similarly, the fe.deral government during World
War II and many states even today, have laws
which forbid creditors to enforce claims against
persons who are in military service.
The term "Moratorium" is also sometimes
used to denote a voluntary agreement by a
mortgagee or other creditor not to demand or take
legal action to collect the payment of the debt
when due (see def. "Forbearance.")
MORE OR LESS - A phrase frequently found
in deeds and other documents pertaining to real
lJ
estate, especially in rural areas, where the exact
dimensions or area of a parcel of land are un-
known and can only be approximated. In such
documents, the property will be described by
location, metes and bounds (see def.) or area,
followed by the qualifying words, "more or less."
MORTGAGE - A debt which is secured by a
pledge of real property, which is legally owned by
the borrower-debtor (called the "Mortgagor"),
whereby, if the debt is not paid as and when due,
the lendor-creditor (called the "Mortgagee") has
the right to bring a legal action for a court
judgment directing that the property be sold and
the proceeds used to pay the debt. This action is
called a "Foreclosure" (see def.).
Depending upon the law of the particular
state in which the land is situated, a mortgage is
deemed to be either a conveyance (deed) of the
land from the mortgagor to the mortgagee on
condition that if the mortgagor pays the debt, the
conveyance will be void and of no effect and that
so long as the mortgagor makes the payments as
they become due, the mortgagor will be entitled to
possession of the property; or, as merely creating
a lien in favor of the mortgagee with legal title
always remaining in the mortgagee. New York
State has, by statute, adopted the latter definition
of a "Mortgage."
There are several distinct types of mortgages,
depending upon the particular purposes for which
they are issued, the nature of their repayment
provisions and the nature of the property which
stands as the security. Among the common types
of mortgages are:
-FIRST MORTGAGE: A mortgage which is a
first or prior lien on the property described and,
which is ahead of any and all other mortgages
which may exist on the same property. In the
event of a foreclosure, the holder of a first
mortgage is entitled to payment in full ahead of
the holders of any other mortgages.
-SUBORDINATED (or Junior) MORTGAGE:
A mortgage whose lien is inferior to and is entitled
to payment only after the full payment of one or
more mortg_ages on the same property.
-PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGE: A mort-
gage given by the purchaser of the property to the
seller or to a third party as a means of financing all
or part of the cost of purchasing the property
covered by the mortgage. A Purchase Money Mort-
gage may be a First Mortgage or a Subordinated
Mortgage.
. -BALLOON MORTGAGE: A mortgage which
does not provide for payment of all of the principal
sum over or during its term, and which will there-
fore require the payment of a substantial sum on
its final due date.
-STANDING MORTGAGE: A mortgage
which does not require that any part of the
principal sum be paid prior to the due date, the
whole amount therefore becoming due at one
time.
-CONVENTIONAL MORTGAGE: A mortgage
which is ' taken by a regular lending institution
such as a bank or insurance company, without
being insured by a government agency (Le. the
Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans
Administration or the New York City Mortgage
Insurance Corporation).
-SELF LIQUIDATING MORTGAGE: A mort-
gage which provides for payments of the entire
principal sum during its term such that it is fully
repaid on or before its final due date.
-BLANKET MORTGAGE: A mortgage which
covers two or more separate parcels of land, each
parcel standing as security for the mortgage so
long as it is unpaid in any amount. Note: that in a
situation where a developer purchases a number
of properties and gives a Blanket Mortgage to '
finance these purchases, if lie then sells the
parcels to separate owners, each such owner will
be liable to lose his/her parcel if any of the .other
separate owners should default. The way to avoid
this consequence is for the individual buyers to
demand a release of the parcels they are purchas-
ing from the mortgage.
-CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE: A mortgage '
which replaces and substitutes for two or more
separate mortgages covering the same property.
-INSURED MORTGAGE: A mortgage, pay-
ment of which is guaranteed by a government
agency (such as the Federal Housing Administra-
tion or the Veterans Administration). In return for
the payment by the mortgagor of an insurance
premium (usually computed as a fraction of one
percent per year of the mortgage principal), the
government agency agrees that, if the mortgagor
defaults, it will pay the mortgagee all or part of any
balance outstanding on the mortgage.
-OPEN END MORTGAGE: A mortgage
which, but its terms, allows the mortgagee to
borrow additional money on the security given for
the existing mortgage.
-PARTICIPATING MORTGAGE: A mortgage
held by two or more mortgagees, each of which
h ~ s loaned part of the money borrowed by the
mortgagor.
-MORTGAGE EXTENSION (or extension
agreement) - An agreement whereby the mort-
gagee extends or enlarges or postpones the
period of time within which the debt secured by
the mortgage must be paid.
MORTGAGE BANKER - An individual or
organization in the business of lending money on
the security of mortgages.
MORTGAGE BROKER - One who acts as
an intermediary between a mortgagor and a mort-
gagee or as agent for a mortgagor in locating a
lender and arranging for the loan and mortgage
transaction.
MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION - By the
terms of some mortgages, once a default in
making payment of the debt secured by the mort-
gage or of any other specified act required of the
mortgagor (such as paying the real estate taxes,
properly maintaining or operating the property,
etc.) occurs, the mortgagee is entitled to take
possession of the property and oust the owner
(mortgagor), even before a legal foreclosure
occurs. In other cases, a mortgagor in default may
agree to allow the mortgagee to take possession.
In either event, the status of the mortgagee who
obtains possession of the mortgaged property, is
known as a "Mortgagee in Possession."
MORTMAIN - From the French, meaning
literally "dead hand." The term is used to denote
the transfer, by deed or will, of lands to a religious
organization. During the middle ages, in England,
the Catholic Church and the King engaged in a
lengthy struggle for power. Since land was then
the chief source of wealth and under the feudal
system ownership of land brought with it may
"political" as well as economic powers, it became
the practice of the church to encourage gifts and
bequests, as well as sales of land to it by indivi-
duals. It was observed that church officials
frequently "bargained" with landowners guarante-
eing them absolution from sins and a place in
heaven if the owner showed his true religious faith
by giving his land to the church. To counter this
practice, the King had parliament adopt laws
which forbade or at least restricted the convey-
ance of land by lay persons to the church. These
laws are called MORTMAIN ACTS and are in effect
today, both in England and in many states of the
United States, including New York - where a
deceased person may not, by will, give more than
fifty percent- of his estate to religious or certain
other eleemosynary institutions.
MOVABLES - ~ term used to denote personal
property which, literally, is capable of being
moved or carried from piace to place, as opposed
/2 ,
to property which is permanently affixed to land.
MULTIPLE DWELLING - Under New York
law, any building which contains three or more
separate and self-contained dwelling accom-
modations is classified as a "Multiple Dwelling."
(Actually, the term is limited to buildings in New
York City; upstate they are termed "Multiple
Residences," because a different set of laws
applies in those areas.)
The term is more generally used as being
synonymous with "Multi-Family Dwelling" or
"Multi-Family Residence" and may denote any
building containing more than one dwelling unit
(under some federal housing programs, the term
is used to denote only buildings with five or more
dwelling units).
MUNICIPAL - Relating to a city, town or
village. Thus, a Municipal Corporation is a public
corporation, created by an act of the state legis-
lature for the purpose of and to enable the citizens
of the locality described in the act creating the
corporation to conduct its local civil government,
which in turn has only such powers of government
as are granted by the state act creating the corpo-
ration or by general laws enacted by the state.
MUNIMENTS - Documents, such as deeds,
wills, etc. which are evidence of title to property
and by means of which an owner can show the
extent and nature of the interest in the property
which is claimed.
MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK - A bank usually
created by state charter, which is owned by its
depositors, who are entitled to share in the earn-
ings of the bank, in proportion of the size of their
respective deposits by receiving dividends or
interest. The bank is operated by its officers and
directors, who invest the funds deposited by the
owner-depositors, mostly in first mortgages on
real property. Mutual Savings Banks are an
important source of capital for real estate invest-
ment. In New York State most savings banks are
Mutual Savings Banks. There are approximately
118 such banks in the state and their aggregate
deposits are over $70 bi II ion.
'Open City Offers Free Weatherization
Free housing weatherization to save fuel and
keep apartments warm this winter is available
through Operation Open City.
Eileen G. Lee, executive director 0.1 Operation
Open City, has appealed to low income residents
throughout New York City to apply for housing
weatherization repairs.
To date, Operation Open City has winterized
almost 8,000 units of low income one and two-
family homes and multiple dwellings in the
nation's first inner-city weatherization and energy
conservation program.
Fuel savings resulting from the weatheriza-
tion program averaged 26 percent to 60 percent or
nearly $3,000 for a typical multiple dwelling's
winter heating bill, according to the organization.
"Deteriorating low income housing has
received desperately needed repairs, and the
dollar savings from lowered fuel bills-which
should be well over $400,000 by this winter's
end-is being put to use for additional housing
13
repair work or to purchase food and other necessi-
ties for the poor," said Ms. Lee.
tn addition, the program has enabled Opera-
tion Open City to hire and train 200 poverty area
residents.
Eligible for the program are: non-profit
commlJnity-owned and managed multiple
dwellings, low income co-ops, landlord-
abandoned buildings managed by tenants, city
receivership or 7-A housing and one and two-
family homes owned by low income senior
citizens or families.
Open City accepts requests for this free
housing weatherization service at each of its
borough offices:
509 Willis Ave., Bronx 10455 (993-3250)
1059 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn 11225 (778-8616)
103 East 125 St., Manhattan 10035 (348-7122)
161-10 Jamaica Ave., Queens 11432 (658-4304)
472 Jersey St., Staten Island 10301 (727-7940)
Baroni continued
Baroni, who was born into a Pennsylvania coal
mining family, worked for many years in inner cities. In
1970 he founded the Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs in
Washington. He has been with the U.S. Catholic Con-
ference Urban Task Force on Poverty.
As assistant secretary for neighborhoods,
voluntary associations and consumer protection, Baroni
is the head of a new office at HUD and one that is
regarded as an important beachhead for the neighbor-
hood movement.
"We're still in the first period of excitement that we
have a little ' section of the government," said Milton
Kotler, head of the National Association of Neighbor-
hoods. "Our main energy now is to expand that section
with more money, more access and more influence."
Most observors say it is premature to judge the
effectiveness of Baroni's office. He is said, however, to
have pushed hard for changes in the Community
Development Block Grant program that improved
citizen participation and targeted 75 percent of the
funds to low-and moderate-income people.
"Baroni is getting good," one knowledgeable
observor said. "In the first six months be was afraid his
ideas were too radical, but he is starting to take the
gloves off. "
Another person who has been close to Baroni said
he is frustrated when policy or program recommenda-
tions that look good when they leave his office get
watered down as they make the rounds at HUD.
"I think he will be effective, but it will take support
from outside groups," she said. "Unless (HUD
Secretary Patricia) Harris sees that groups are putting
pressure on Geno to get things done, the people at HUD
won't believe him. They're skeptical. They're not so
ready to believe that they will just accept his word. "
Baroni said in a two-hour interview at his Washing-
ton apartment recently that he has observed a steady
increase of activity in the past eight years by neighbor-
hood groups around the country. He cited the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the new National
Neighborhood Commission as two examples of
Washington reacting to the demands of organized
neighborhoods.
Baroni said he gets angry at the professionals who
dismiss neighborhood-oriented programs as unwork-
able but that he lacks the statistical evidence to show
that small programs run by community-based groups do
succeed.
"The budget types who sit in on meetings, see,
they've got all these numbers; 'it takes x dollars to
create x CETA jobs for x public service.' And I say,
'Yea, but there's something in there that dollars can't
buy. There's networks, there's status, peers, culture.'So
I'm saying, how do you study that money out to just
make-work programs costs more and gets less than
14
finding the Rabbits -(Roberto Nazario of Interfaith
Adopt-a-Building) and fmding the groups and putting
something together that relates to their mother or
grandmother or themselves. '
"That's what I'm trying to sell. But the people in
here haven't been there. They haven't been out there
with someone scratching $1,500 who has leveraged $6
million. "
Baroni said he wants to support efforts to develop
the capacity of neighborhood groups to deal with other
institutions like the mayors and the banks.
"I really think that's why I went to HUD - maybe
I should have stayed out, but - to raise this agenda, to
raise this issue. It's got to be broad based. There's no
one single answer. Federal, state and local. There's a
bottom up as well as trickle down.
"I'd like to see the New York people take that
concern to their state reps, Congressmen and Senators
and hope they bring the neighborhood message and the
neighborhood agenda to Washington. I think that's the
way we're going to get something done."
Geno Baroni
The January issue of CitY Limits will contain a survey
of federal programs of interest to neigbborbood bousing
Included will be opinions from the
Wasbiogton penpective on the emerging role of neigb-
borlaoods .. important links in tile urban system.
Here are excerpts from an interview with Geno Baroni, Hun assistant secretary for
neighborhoods, voluntary associations and consumer protection, conducted Nov. 17.
Q. Do you see a new neighborhood consciousness
at the federal level.
A. I think there is a new consciousness of neighbor-
hoods. I think that in the last eight years there has been
an increase of activity around the country by neighbor-
hoods and neighborhood associations. There were two
dimensions of neighborhood activity that got to
Washington in those eight years that I think were unique
in terms of federal activity that was not initated by any-
body in Washington. Those two issues were: one, the
federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which came out
of the community groups, principally Chicago and
others, ,who raised the question that money was being
taken out of their neighborhoods-disinvested. I think
it's important because out of that concern came some-
thing that usually doesn't happen. The neighborhood
issue was raised up to a public policy question. The
second kind of similar activity that came out of
community groups was the issue of the National
Neighborhood Commission, and that again was pro-
moted and sponsored by local groups bringing it to
Congress. Now there's a third factor. I think it's
symbolically important that Carter went from Warm
Springs, Georgia on the opening day of his campaign to
Brooklyn and gave his neighborhood speech.
Q. That's a brief historical look at a couple of
factors that brought the neighborhood issue to the
attention of the federal government. Would you say the
neighborhood issue now has the ear of the federal
government.
A. The neighborhood issue is part of an overall
look at the economy. It has to be put in context: energy,
inflation, jobs, cities, neighborhoods, welfare. At the
professional levels, there's a hangover in Washington
about neighborhoods and community groups, which
has kind of surprised me from the more traditi",nal,
liberal professionals, careerists even, who survived and
the new ones coming in. And that has been the bad taste
around the 1960s, Model Cities, OEO. And there's kind
of a throwaway lihe, 'Oh, we did 'that before and it
didn't work.' Of course, nobody said there was a
Vietnam agenda that took resources or that what the
heck's going on for eight years people have been doing
by their toenails, nickel and diming, pieces and parts. I
can point to some groups in New York City that
probably do more rehabilitation than the whole city. I
try to argue that we cooked up the menu in Washington
and sent the menu with the money to the groups whether
they were ready or not. And they took it whether they
liked it or not because the menu and the money came
together. Another thing that is very important is that
Nixon shifted domestic policy drastically by revenue
sharing. And then you have a whole constituency,
15
mayors, League of Cities and others who say, 'You
want to cut red tape? It's easier to send money out there
with a computer.' So there's a federal mentality in the
system that's in place and has a lot of support because it
probably is more efficient and it probably cuts down
bureaucracy. But if you're talking about neighborhoods
and if you're talking about low and moderate income
people then they're not the beneficiaries.
Q. Where have you seen this anti-neighborhood
bias.
A. I'm on the Urban and Regional Policy Group
and head of the neighborhood task force, and I hear the
ridicule and the cynicism of the the new professionals
plus the old career ones: 'You're going to give those
people money? Who's going to audit them?' I guess I'm
reflecting my own feelings that I expected that there was
a drastic shift and change; yea, neighborhoods are right
up front. Now, they use the word neighborhood all the
time now. 'Urban policy should focus on neighborhood
revitalization.' But it still says mayors ought to do it, the
cities ought to do it.
Q. What is the political significance of the new
Community Development regulations that target 75
percent of the money to low and moderate income
people and improve citizen participation.
A. I think the department (HUD) did make a major
policy shift in the targeting. That was an affirmative
action. It think it was a great plUS. There was a battle
but they did take it and they knew the mayors were
going to come. I hope it holds. The Secretary is for it.
The second major issue is citizen participation. The
guidelines are tighter but a lot of people don't think
they're good enough and the mayors don't even want
what we've got, so its all relative. I prefer structured
citizen participation and a plan. We don't have all that.
Q. Many people have criticized the first draft of the
report of the Urban and Regional Policy Group, which
will be the foundation of President Carter's domestic
policy. What is your assessment.
A. The present draft of the report is unfortunately
seriously incomplete. Unless neighborhoods are
prominent in the statement the policy will be in serious
jeopardy. We will be abandoning the constituency that '
can provide the critical support needed for a national
urban policy to succeed. What we don't have is evidence
of the economy of groups. See, what I'm saying is that
we can create jobs at the neighborhood level probably
more efficiently and better than through building
factories and a lot of new stuff. But who documents
that? I think it's very hard to bring that kind of concept
to technicians, to budget people, people who are look-
ing for bigger answers. And this stuff sounds so small.
'What do you mean, 78 units?' Displacement is .
completely ignored. We're looking now at the National
Relocation Act to see whether it's adequate to cover
relocation costs. But that's still'a/mitigating mentality,
rather than a pluralistic approach that would say, not
how do you mitigate somebody getting moved out but
I'm saying how do you legitimize people staying?
Q. What kinds of programs are you working on
now.
A. I've asked the Department of Labor for some
money, $8, million, to give to eight or ten groups. I'm
working on that right now. I want to tie in housing. I'm
going to say, 'HUD has some houses here and here is a
group that wants to deal with that. Can we get them
some Section 8?' It's really a mini-demonstration. I'd
like to go back to Labor and get some more. I'd also like
to have $20 million to $25 million to do the capacity
building, give the groups some money to hire some one
to come up with some plans . in terms of neighborhood
revitalization.
Q. Is that a possibility.
A. If we can get into the budget. The budget people
so far think that's starting something new. See, that's
going back to categoricals. That's. against revenue
sharing. The budget types who sit in on meetings, see,
they've got all these numbers; 'it takes x dollars to
create x CET A jobs for x public service.' And I say,
'Yea, but there's something in there that dollars can't
buy. There's networks, there's status, peers, culture.'
So, I'm saying, how do you study that money out to just
make-work programs costs more and gets less than
finding the Rabbits (Roberto Nazario of Interfaith
Adopt-a-Building) and finding the groups and putting
something together that relates to their mother or
grandmother or themselves?'
That's what I'm trying to sell. But the people in
here haven't been there. They haven't been out there
with someone scratching $1,500 who has leveraged $6
million.
Q. Are mayors and neighborhoods doomed to be
antagonists.
A. They shouldn't be. If I was mayor, I would plug
/6
in. I'd be unhappy if 25 percent of the damn people
were voting. In Birmingham, Ala., where they have an
extensive neighborhood kind of mentality, a $66 million
bond issue went through because they cut the neighbor-
hood people into it, whereas in many cities those kind of
bond issues go down the drain. At first, a strong
community organization was bitterly opposed to the
city, which was going to buy a golf course from some-
body out of CD money. The community group stopped
it. And the community group got involved with that city
about what the CD money could be used for-so
involved in the CD issue that three years later com-
munity groups there are saying the city has done such a
good job that we endorse money going to the city to do
these kinds of things. So the city now has a broader
constitutency. I think that's the reverse of the profes-
sionals, the mayors and so on seeing the groups and
people as the enemy. I really think that's wrong. It's
said derisively so often, it's said in scorn, I t ~ s crazy. If
people can go from reacting to creating they become
part of the process.
Q. Do you see a process of constituency building.
A. We have to do it and we're very weak at it. What
happens is the mayors and the builders, they have
lobbyists and they take the time and they know the
Congressional staff guy. They're constantly at it. We
just go down and raise hell at meetings, scream and then
go away. Nobody comes back and writes sentences
about displacement, redlining. Nobody goes to the Hill
and puts it in the bill. We don't have that kind of
resources. I really think that's why I went to HUD-
maybe I should have stayed out, but - to raise this
agenda, to raise this issue. It's got to be broad based.
There's no one single answer. Federal, state and local.
there's a bottom up as well as trickle down. I'd like to
see the New York people take that concern to their state
reps, Congressmen and Senators and hope they bring
the neighborhood message and the neighborhood
agenda to Washington. I think that's the way we're
going to get something done. And not from
Washington. _
CETA VI FIGHT CONTINUES:
NONPROFITS FORM COALITION
Nov. 21 - The Association of Neighborhood
Housing Developers has joined forces with a coalition
of over 40 other nonprofit organizations to pursue the
resolution of issues surrounding the city's design of the
CET A Title VI program.
. On September 28, 1977, at a meeting organized by
the Community Council of Greater New York, the non-
profits came together for the first time to articulate their
frustration and dissatisfaction with the Department of
Employment's plans for implementing and operating
the current round of Title VI programs. A wide range of
issues and problems were raised by nonprofit agency
representatives, including:
-the proposed method of recruitment of Title VI
enrollees, particularly the lack of provision for
agencies to directly reCruit qualified neighborhood
residents for Title VI slots;
-the city' s intention to hold nonprofits liable for wages
of enrollees referred from Neighborhood Manpower
Service Centers (NMSCs) and found to not meet
CET A eligibility criteria;
-the imposition of a limit on the number of prospective
enrollees the nonprofits can interview arid reject for
Title VI slots;
-the prohibition of replacement of enrollees fired by
the agencies;
-the lack of clear guidelines from the city on which
administrative costs are allowable under the program;
-the city's refusal to provide funds in advance for
agencies' administrative staffs; and
-the city's intention to grant Title VI umbrella agencies
a "floating" administrative budget, which would
fluctuate over the one-year contract period, depend-
ing on each agency's overall enrollee retention rate.
It was the consensus of the agencies at the meeting
that these issues ,were of mutual critical concern and, if
unresolved, would seriously hamper the successful
implementation and operation of the nonprofit Title VI
projects. To press the city into a resolution of these
issues, the nonprofits organized into an Ad Hoc
Committee of CET A Title VI Nonprofit Umbrella
Agencies.
The urgency of these concerns prompted Deputy
Mayor Lucille Rose to hastily convene a meeting on
October 6th of all nonprofit agencies serving as
umbrella organizations administering CET A Title VI
contracts and representatives of the city's Department
of Employment and the Department of Labor's regional
office. The nonprofits articulated their fears that the
entire CET A Title VI program was jeopardized by
. unreasonable city regulations and procedures. Lengthy,
17
often impassioned discussion between agency spokes-
persons and government officials marked the three-hour
session.
Two important policy decisions were made by the
Deputy Mayor during the meeting: allowing non-profits
to draw cash advances for administrative costs and
exempting agencies from financial liability for non-
eligible enrollees referred from NMSCs. The issue of
replacement of terminated enrollees was referred to
the Regional Office of the Department of Labor, which
subsequently ruled in an October 7th letter that agencies
would be permitted to refill vacancies as they occur,
regardless of the type of termination. To clarify the
issue of allowable administrative costs, the Deputy
Mayor indicated that written guidelines would be
forwarded to the nonprofits. To date, these guidelines
have not been received by the agencies.
To deal with the controversial issue of the recruit-
ment procedure for the program, the Deputy Mayor
assigned Department of Employment Assistant Com-
missioner Thomas McEnery to work with a committee
of CET A Title VI Project Sponsors to develop a
mutually satisfactory plan for selection of Title VI
enrollees.
After three lengthy working meetings during the
month of October with McEnery, no visible progress
has been made. The non profits proposed an additional .
source of referral for potential Title VI applicants,
described as the "agency pool." Under the plan, the
four standard sources of referral - New York State
Employment Service, NMSCs, New York City Depart-
ment of Labor WIN Program - would be supple-
mented by a fifth source. The agency pool would be
formed by locally-based outreach and recruitment
campaigns for eligible, qualified enrollees who might
otherwise be excluded from the recruitment process of
the established bureaucracies. To date, the city has
neither put forth any revised selection guidelines nor
even indicated to the nonprofits which aspects of their
proposal would be acceptable.
In an issue that ANHD has pursued separately,
some progress has been made. ANHD has sought to
funnel a portion of its CET A Title VI administrative
funds to the neighborhood-based organizations which
will be operating CET A VI projects. The funds are
targeted for use for the partial defrayal of other-than-
personnel-services (OTPS) costs expected to be
generated by the operation of these projects. This
budget request for OTPS costs on behalf of ANHD sub-
contractor worksites has been contested by the city.
CET A continued
DOE claims that certain OTPS cost categories-
particularly rent, utilities and office equipment - are
prohibited under the federal CET A regulations.
Association staff, however, interprets the regulation as
specifically allowing such costs. The matter was sub-
mitted to the regional office of DOL for interpretation,
and is still officially pending. However, in a November
9, 1977 letter to the city from Thomas Hill , Associate
Regional Administrator, the DOL position was stated as
follows: "The approval of such costs is not prohibited
by the regulations .... " and referred to the regulation
ANHD had cited as part of the enumeration of
categories of allowable costs.
Manual on How to Start .
A Nonprofit Business
From March, 1975 until March 1977, East
Harl em Interfaith, Inc. operated a boiler repair
shop. In t wo years, the business was responsible
for f ixing 223 boilers for nonprofit housing groups,
tenant associations, churches, private landlords
and the city.
While East Harlem Interfaith was forced to
close down the boiler repair shop for financial
reasons, the experience from those two years has
been summarized in a helpful manual called "How
t o Start and to Run a Non-profit Business - Do's
and Don'ts for Beginners. "
The 25-page booklet provides practical infor-
mation and describes a range of problems that .
have to be surmounted from obtaining credit to
scrounging up equipment and supplies.
"The most tragic and unnecessary flaw in
many small programs and businesses is the lack
of a competent, honest bookkeeper and of a
simple, fool-proof bookkeeping system," the
manual states.
It also lists people who provided helpful
advice on a variety of questions and takes up such
problems as advertiSing, estimating and pricing,
insurance, getting people with proper skills and
much more.
"How to ... " is a candid manual that admits
the mistakes made by East Harlem Interfaith. But
in this case, the lessons learned from the errors
are just as valuable as the knowledge gained from
successes.
The manual is available from:
. East Harlem Interfaith, Inc.
2050 Second Av.
N.Y., N.Y. 10029
427-1500
/8
Rehabilitation Coordinator
The Lower East Side Coalition for Human
Housing is seeking a rehabilitation coordinator for
254 units of Section 8 housing. Previous housing
experience desired.
Duties include acting as liaison with the
developer, builder, architect and government
agencies; review of all submissions and corre-
o spondence between the developer and govern-
ment agencies; working with the Coalition board
to produce plans for management, rent-up and
tenant selection; help develop proposals for
future projects.
' y
Salary is $12,000-a-year.
Send resumes to Ruth Santiago
Coalition for Human Housing
210 Stanton St.
New York, N.Y. 10002
If You're BUG-ged, PEST-er Us!

Prospect Pest Control Service
..
"':00.
I<I ,
Bill Sayegh 294-9100
I
1'1

'](r\ 7<."-(\ \.
/.

;,
,
f-1 ...
/\)
-.. )
.:
.
,
EXPRESS ---.d----.=:J
Moving & Trucking Day or Night
Reasonable Rates All Boroughs
Phone: 493-2926 or 772-0927
Recommended by Bathgate Community
Housing Development Corp.
Have You Sent Us YourSubscription?
If you haven't, don't feel guilty-send us your
subscription today. You'll feel better and we"l1
reduce our mounting deficit.
Just fill in the form below and send it along
with a check or money order made payable to:
"ANHD - City Limits" for the appropriate amount.
THANKS!
1. Private businesses, foundations, banks, government agencies & officials, city-wide groups-$10.
oo
2. Individuals and non-profit, community-based organizations-$4.
oo
3. Volunteers, students, unemployed-$2.
oo
To subscribe to CITY LIMITS, please fill outland return the form below with your check to the order of
ANHD - CITY LIMITS
Name
Organization
CITY LIMITS SUBSCRIPTION
Address _________________________ ZIP Code ___ _
Telephone No. Status (No.1, 2, or 3) ___ _
Amount Enclosed ____ or, Send Bill to: ____________________ _
Return form to Editor, CITY LIMITS, ANHD, 29 East 22nd Street, New York, New York 10010
------------------------
_CITY LIMITSt
pubUaIied mOBtllly by tile AssoclatiOB of Nelabbtirbood Housmg
Developen, 11K., 19 East lll1d Street, New Y orlt, New Y orlt 10010
(1I1) 674-7610
Editor .................. . .. . . .... . . .... . . . . . .. .. Bernard Cohen
Design and Layout ..................... . ... . ....... Louis Fulgoni ,
..
Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Marianne Czernin
Copyright 1977. All rights reserved. No portion or portions 0/ this
Newsletter may be reprinted without the express written permission
0/ the Association 0/ Neighborhood Housing Developers, Inc.
19
U ON l!WJ9d
A oN '>tJO A M9N
Pled
39V1SOdoson
91:101I:l0I:ld-NON
IN THIS ISSUE
Baroni and federal neighborhood policies
New assault on East Harlem blight
1791 Lexington
New CD regs
Sunset Park
AoN ''IJOA MeN leeJIS 1183 6Z
OUI 6u!Sf1OH
,p<>04Joqllf5!aN jO