City Limits Magazine, January 1989 Issue

January 1989
E A S T H A R L E M C O N D O F L A P D T A X F I G H T C O N T I N U E S
C I T Y ' S H O U S I N G P L A N B Y T H E N U M B E R S
. .
52.00
2 CITY LIMITS January 1989
eitJ/ Limits
Volume XIV Number 1
City Limits is published ten times per
year, monthly except double issues in
June/July and August/September, by the
City Limits Community Information Ser-
vice, Inc., a nonprofit organization de-
voted to disseminating information con-
cerning neighborhood revitalization.
Sponsors
Association for Neighborhood and Hous-
ing Development, Inc.
Pralt Institute Center for Community and
Environmental Development
Urban Homesteading Assistance Board
Board of Directors'
Bonnie Brower, ANHD
Harriet Cohen, Community Service
Society
Robert Hayes, Coalition for the Homeless
Rebecca Reich, UHAB
Andrew Reicher, UHAB
Richard Rivera, Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund
Tom Robbins, Daily News
Ron Shiffman, Pratt Center
Esmerelda Simmons. Center for Law and
Social Justice .
Jay Small, ANHD
'Affiliations for identification only.
Subscription rates are: for individuals
and community groups, $15/0ne Year,
$25/Two Years ; for businesses, founda-
tions, banks, government agencies and
libraries, $35/0ne Year, $50/Two Years .
Low income, unemployed, $9/0ne Year.'
City Limits welcomes comments and arti-
cle contributions. Please include a
stamped, self-addressed envelope for re-
turn manuscripts. Material in City Limits
does not necessarily reflect the opinion
of the sponsoring organizations. Send
correspondence to: CITY LIMITS. 40
Prince St. , New York, NY 10012.
Second class postage paid
New York, NY 10001
City Limits (ISSN 0199-0330)
(212) 925-9820
Editor: Doug Turetsky
Associate Editor: Lisa Glazer
Business Director: Harry Gadarigian
Contributing Editors: Beverly
Cheuvront, Peter Marcuse,
Jennifer Stern
Production: Chip Cliffe
Photographer: Andre Lambertson
Copyright 1989. All Rights Reserved.
No portion or portions of this journal may
be reprinted without the express permis-
sion of the publishers.
City Limits is indexed in the Alternative
Press Index and the Avery Index to Ar-
chitectural Periodicals.
Cover photo by Andre Lombemon
EDITORIAL
State Report Puts Housing
Forward Motion
.
In
The just released Governor's Task Force on Housing report sets out a
framework for improving the state's housing production programs. The
report stresses the contribution community-based housing groups have
made to the development of low and moderate income housing, despite
enormous bureaucratic obstacles. Too often, the victims of state and
city ineptitude have been blamed for the delays in housing production.
With new leadership in both the city and state housing agencies, we
hope to see continued improvements in the relationship between the
government and nonprofit sector.
The report proposes the elimination of conflicting requirements often
caused by multiple funding sources for affordable housing projects. It
recognizes the futility of using one governmental funding source to
leverage another and recommends that a lead agency be designated and
inter-agency reallocations be permitted.
The report also calls for the establishment of a housing council to
develop a comprehensive policy for guiding the design, development
and administration of the state's housing programs. Other key recom-
mendations include: Allocation of public resources commensurate to
need so as to serve the full range of income groups needing subsidized
housing; development of policies to foster economic and racial integra-
tion and to produce housing appropriate in scale to the surrounding
community; assurances that affordable housing remains affordable for
the long-term; and recognition that preservation of affordable housing
is as important as new production.
While the report doesn't call for an immediate infusion of new funds,
it does call for use of the $326 million infrastructure fund for housing
passed last summer and the issuance of a new housing bond in 1990.
This comprehensive report is well worth reading and warrants
scrutiny and support from housing advocates. We hope it will be used
by the governor and the legislature as a plan for expanded state involve-
ment in the protection and production of affordable housing.
* * *
Twenty years ago, a city water official predicted that within two dec-
ades the problem of water pollution would be relegated to the history
books. Although the rivers flowing immediately around the city are
cleaner, New York suffers a number of major threats to its supply of
water. Solutions to these problems will cost billions, and as time ad-
vances with little action, the costs will keep on mounting. And it is the
poorest residents of the city who will undoubtedly pay the largest pro-
portionate share of the bill. But in a broader sense, no amount of money
can pay for the loss of this precious resource.
We would like to thank Bob Alpern of the Environmental Policy
Forum and Cara Lee of Scenic Hudson for serving as an editorial advisory
board for this issue. This special report on the crisis facing New York's
water supply was made possible by a grant from the New York Commu-
nity Trust. D
..... X.523
...
INSIDE
FEATURES
Quality on Tap: Can W1 Keep New York's
Water Clean? 12
New Yorkers are used to swimming at city beaches and
drinking the "champagne" of tap waters. But sludge
dumping, sewage overflow and untrammelled develop-
ment are rapidly fouling the city's water.
Big Tappers: New Yorkers and Water Conservation 16
Every day, New York's demand for water exceeds sup-
ply. Drought is on the way, say officials.
DEPARTMENTS
Editorial I
State Report Puts Housing in Forward Motion. 2
Short lerm Notes
Rent Bi11 Misnamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
East Harlem Condo Flap .. ... .. .......... . 4
City, State Slam Shelter Report . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Tax Figlit Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Neighborhood Notes ......................... 6
Pipeline
Ten-Year Housing Plan: The City's Number ... 7
A City on Tap ... ...... ..... . .. .. ..... ... 8
Policy Makers
Who's the Boss? ........................ 20
Letters ................................... 21
\Vorkshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
January 1989 CITY LIMITS 3
System/Page 8
Quality/Page 12
Conserve/Page 16
SHORT TERM NOTES
RENT BILL
MISNAMED
The highly-charged rhetoric
about "rent control" that
preceded the City Council
Economic Development
Committees vote against the
proposed commercial rent bill
may have obscured important
facts about the legislation. "Its
only called 'rent control' by
those people who wont to
strengthen opposition to it by
giving it an incorrect name,"
says Council Member Ruth
Messinger, one of the main
sponsors of the bill.
Unlike bills that call for rent
control, Messinger says Intro.
914 "very clearly does not put
the government in the position
to set ceilings or percentage
increases for rents."
Intro. 914 would provide for
arbitration between landlords
and tenants only if the proposed
rent increase exceeds 45
percent over five years.
Co-sponsored by 22 members
of the City Council, the bill
would effect businesses under
4,000 square feet and all
manufacturers, nonprofits and
arts organizations. Its
proponents hoped to answer
the concerns of the 38 percent
of city merchants who call rent
their most serious problem.
A 1986 report by the Small
Retail Business Study
Commission stated that a
quarter of the city's small
business owners believed they
would be forced to move - and
probably close - because of
rent increases. Merchants with
new leases have had rent
increases averaging 66 percent.
The 19B6 report found that
almost half of the city's
merchants who rent their shops
faced lease renewals within
three years.
Steven Spinola, president of
the Real Estate Board of New
York, charges that the arbitration
bill violates the state constitution.
"You can't poss a law that
interferes with an existing
contract between a tenant and
owner. State law doesn't allow
interference with contracts
without enabling legislation,
and the City Council doesn't
have it."
Steven Simon, an aide to
Council Member Stanley
Michels, refutes Spinola's claims,
saying the bill applies only to
renewals, not existing leases. He
also says the city's Corporation
Counsel agrees the council does
not need state approval for the
bill.
As City Limits goes to press,
council supporters of Intra. 914
are trying to force a discharge
motion. This is a rare move to
take to the full council a bill that
has been defeated in committee.
DYlna Kelley
EAST HARLEM
CONDO FLAP
Charging that the city has put
East Harlem up for sale, the
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund has filed suit in
state Supreme Court to block a
lBO-unit, middle income New
York City Partnership
condominium project on the
Metro North Urban Renewal
Area. The project, which will
receive state and city subsidies
and be built on a site designated
for low and moderate income
housing some 20 years ago, will
fuel speculation and cause
displacement, argue opponents.
Peter Perpignano, Governor
Mario Cuomos son -in-low,
will build the condo project.
Metro North Association, a
local community housing group,
hod opposed the Partnership
project but later reversed itself
and became partners with
Perpignano Associates to
renovate three buildings on
Second Ave. and lOOth St.
under the city's Vacant Buildings
Program. Financing for the
54-unit rehab, of which at least
27 units must be affordable to
low income families, is not yet
complete. Bill Frye of the
Enterprise Foundation, which is
providing tax credit money for
the rehab, says everyone is "still
trying to make the numbers
work" and it is possible that the
They'll fight City Hall:
Ruff! Yaung of tile Hausing Justice Campaign and Jean Chappel, resident of a
city welfare hotel, following tile annauncement tIIat HJC had filed for an injunc-
tion to stop tile city's 10-year hausing plan.
deal could foil through.
In a letter to the Boord of
Estimate lost June, Metro North
based its role of local sponsor
of the condo project on the
rehab deal. "Ifthis doesn't go in
place our support of the project
is in jeopardy," says Jim Soler,
executive director of Metro
North. Butthe Boord of Estimate
has already approved the
condo project, and as Kathryn
Wylde of the Partnership says,
Metro Norths withdrawal
would only be "an issue
politically."
Ninety percent of the condo
units will be affordable to
families earning up to $53,000
annually and the remaining
units will be sold at market rates.
The project will receive
$25,000 per unit in state and
city subsidies. Builder Peter
Perpignano and Associates,
who was designated by the
Deportment of Housing
Preservation and Development,
can earn approximately $1.35
million on the project.
The PRlDEF lawsuit contends
that the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Partnership
project never examined the
issue of secondary
displacement. It also charges
that the federal urban renewal
plan, which calls for low and
moderate income housing, was
never amended to allow for a
middle income development.
Richard Rivero of PRlDEF
says the the projects does not
meetthe needs of a community
where the median family
income is $9,300. But George
Colvert of Hope Community, on
East Harlem-based ' housing
group, argues that there are
more than 3,000 low income
apartments in the area and that
there are many residents who
can afford the condos.
Rivera says that his clients are
not against middle income
housing. 'We want to include
middle income housing but we
0150 wont low and moderate
income housing in East Harlem."
They are calling for any project
to include one-third low and
one-third moderate income
housing. 'We have on
inclusionary plan while the city
has on exclusionary plan," says
Rivero.
Rivero odds that the
Partnership project "is going to
shrink the amount of land and
buildings available for low and
moderate income housing."
Rents are rapidly rising in the
neighborhood and some
charge city programs are
fueling the rise in speculation.
According to one source, five
buildings sold under the city's
Private Ownership
Management Program near the
Partnership site are ripe for
conversion. ODoug
Turetsky
CITY, STATE SLAM
SHELTER REPORT
City and state officials
condemned a report by the
Citizens' Committee for
Children about barracks-style
shelters for homeless families,
butthe authors ofthe report say
their critics contradict each
other and ignore the central
finding of the study.
The report slams New York
City's five congregate sheiters,
which house up to 125 men,
women and children in one
large room, as inhumane and
unsanitary. Citing rapid spread
of disease, high noise levels and
lack of privacy, one of the
report's authors, Judy Berck,
says, "The system is inherently
wrong."
The report contends that
despite a cost of up to $1 30 a
day for a family of three, the
shelters routinely violate state
law by failing to provide
services such as preparation for
permanent housing, child care
and recreation.
Suzanne Trazoff, a
spokesperson for the city's
Human Resources
Administration, describes the
report as "inaccurate" and
defends congregate shelters,
saying they "provide intensive
and very rich services for
families at a point of crisis." She
adds that the high cost of the
communal shelters is justified by
the quality of the services being
offered, and denies that the
shelters violate state law in any
major way.
Paul Elisha, communications
director for the state
Department of Social Services,
accuses the report of being
misleading because it presents
known facts as new information.
'We feel the report was put out
under false colors," he says,
adding that the state has
already cited the city for various
violations.
Members of the Citizens'
Committee for Children hasten
to point out that the state
position contradicts the city's
stance that serious violations
have not occurred. And they
note that city and state officials
have remained conspicuously
silent on the study's major
point - that no amount of
regulation is sufficient to fix a
system that was bad to begin
with. Fran levenson, a Citizens'
Committee board member,
says, "Barracks-style shelters
are an inappropriate place to
house families." OSarah
Babb
TAX FIGHT
CONTINUES
Acknowledging the high tax
assessments levied on nonprofit
cooperative buildings
purchased by tenants from the
city, the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development
is developing a plan to limitthe
amount of real estate taxes
these low and moderate income
co-ops must pay. The HPD plan
has yet to be formalized - nor
has it been presented to the
mayor - as City Limits goes to
press, butthe co-op owners are
already expressing
dissatisfaction with the proposal.
They say it does not have
enough long-term protection
against increasing real estate
taxes.
Sources indicate that the
current HPD proposal is to have
the city's Department of Finance
continue to assess the buildings
as they have done in the past,
but place a $3,500 per unit
assessment cap on the amount
of tax the co-ops must pay. But
the cap would be lifted when
the resale restrictions on the
apartments expire.
Thomas Grainger, president
of the Self Help Works
Consumer Cooperative, an
association that includes many
of the buildings thatthe city has
sold to tenants, says, "From what
I've heard, it's (the HPD
proposal) totally inadequate."
Grainger says that many
buildings are just a few years
from the end of their resale
restriction period and the rising
tax costs will threaten
affordability to current tenants.
"What we're struggling to do
is have affordable rents," says
Grainger, noting that rents in his
building at 544 W. 157th Street
average $270. Most of the
residents of these buildings,
formed under the state's
Housing Development Fund
Corporation law, are on limited
or fixed incomes. The buildings,
which needed extensive repair
work when purchased by the
tenants, survive on very tight
cash flows. Grainger and others
are concerned that high taxes
will recreate the arrears that
originally forced the buildings
into city ownership.
According to lee Farrow of
the Urban Homesteading
Assistance Board, the average
annual real estate tax for a 45-
to 50-unit HDFC co-op is
Subscribe to
. $15,000. Since the assessments
would keep mounting under the
HPD proposal, Farrow says,
"When the benefits expire the
buildings could be blown out of
the water."
last summer, a number of Self
Help Works members burned
their tax bills on the steps of City
Hall to protest assessment
increases of as much as 500
percent in one year (see City
LimitsAugust/September 1988).
UHAB assisted 29 buildings in
the preparation of challenges to
their tax bills last year.
Seventeen of the buildings
received assessment reductions
ranging from $5,000 to
$105,000.
Grainger and other Self Help
Works members support a City
Council Resolution sponsored
by Council Members Carolyn
Maloney and Hilton Clark.
Resolution 1439 calls upon the
state legislature to extend the
same tax assessment protections
to HDFCs as given to one, two
and three family homes.
Assessments on those buildings
cannot rise more than six
percent in a single year and no
more than 20 percent over a
five year period.
With real estate tax bills due
to be sent this month, HDFC
residents are looking for fast
action from the city and the
state. ODoug Turetsky
CITY LIMITS
Just S 15 brings you the best coverage
anywhere of the other New York. And
you'D save $5 off the cover price.
IndlYidual Community group rate:
C S15 1 year 0 S25 2 years
Ihastnea, got"t. tnsUtuUonal rate:
C $35 1 year 0 S50 2 years
C Payment enclosecS 0 BW me
Nam.
Stat.
City Prince StIl'few YorkIBY 10018
Zip
ne Bronx
Ribbon-cutting ceremonies took
place recently on Fox Street in the
South Bronx, where the Banana Kelly
Community Improvement Associa-
tion began renovations of 11 build-
ings on an entire city block. The pro-
ject will create 97 housing units: 59
units of cooperatively-owned hous-
ing for working class homesteaders,
23 rental units reserved for homeless
families and 15 low income coopera-
tive units.
B1'ooklya
The A TURA Coalition won a short-
term battle in their fight against the
Atlantic Terminal project. The city
retreated from plans for a December
bulldozing of the Long Island Rail-
road Terminal, the lone building on
the Atlantic Terminal site, after
ATURA lawyers filed in November
for an injunction in federal court.
"We think this is a sign of the legal
validity of the issues we have raised, "
says ATURA's co-chairman, Ted
Glick. While plans to tear down the
terminal are temporarily on hold, the
ATURA coalition is developing an al-
ternate plan for the entire site, in-
cluding mixed-income housing and
a community market inside the ter-
minal building. Coalition members
are also meeting with city representa-
tives and developer Jonathan Rose to
try and reach a compromise on plans
for the site.
Kanhatotan
Community Board 1 is standing
firm in its opposition to South Ferry,
a 60-story commercial tower planned
for the Battery area, and have rejected
an offer from the Public Development
Corporation to pay for a $9 million
park. Paul Goldstein, district man-
ager for the community board, says
the park is really just a plaza that
would be used by workers in the pro-
posed building. He says the neighbor-
hood needs a bus terminal or library.
"It's just absurd the way the city can
throw money around without paying
any attention to community needs,"
says Goldstein ....
WE CAN, the organization that re-
deems bottles and cans for the home-
less, will be homeless unless the
city's Department of Housing Preser-
vation and Development allows them
to use a building at 559 West 52nd
Street. After learning that developer
Lewis Futterman was taking back the
site on 43rd St. that housed WE CAN
to build an apartment building, HPD
Commissioner Abraham Biderman
told the group they could relocate to
city land on West 52nd - but they
couldn't use the building on the
property. "Offering the property-
about 600 square feet - is a non-
offer,"says Gus Polhemus, WE CAN's
administrator, explaining that the
project needs more space and shelter
from the cold. As City Limits goes to
press, negotiations are continuing.
Queena
Queens residents will be able to
buy fresh fruit and produce from a
farmers ' market throughout the year,
thanks to construction of a building
on vacant land on 160th Street be-
tween Jamaica Avenue and 90th Av-
enue. Space in the two-story building
will be leased by the Greater Jamaica
Development Corporation. Construc-
tion costs are being paid for by city
and federal funds. as well as private
loans and money provided by the
GJDC. D
prolllding complete architectural and engineering services to non-profit developers
NEW CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION AND CONVERSIONS
D Building Evaluation and Inspection
D Feasibility Studies
D Preliminary Design/Scope of Work Studies
D Complete Construction Drawings & Specifications
D Construction SuperviSion
HUD SECTION 202 SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING, HOMESTEADING PROJECTS,
GROUP HOMES, HPD RFPS, DSS/HHAP RFPS
Call John Harris RA. for an eIIa/uatlon of your project's needs
CHRISTIANSON/HARRIS ARCHITECTS
458 BERGEN STREET BROOKLYN. NEW YORK 11217 (718)398. 1440
PIPELINE
Ten-Year Housing Plan: The City's Numbers
TEN-YEAR PLAN
THE CHARTS ON THIS PAGE
present the number of housing units
the city intends to build or rehabili-
tate under all the programs in its 10-
year, $5.1 billion plan. The number
of apartments and income categories
the units are credited to come from
a Department of Housing Preserva-
tion and Development document
(dated December 6, 1988) obtained by
City Limits. The income categories
listed here follow the city's defini-
tions: low, $19,000 or less; moderate,
$19,000 to $32,000; and middle,
$32,000 to $53,000.
UNITS TO BE PRODUCED BY INCOME CATEGORY
PRODUCTION PROGRAMS
Roughly two-thirds of the 252,770
units affected by the plan are part of
the preservation programs for rehab-
ing the city-owned stock of buildings.
The vast majority of low and moder-
ate income units the city credits to
the 10-year plan fall under this cate-
gory. As housing advocates point out,
the city is taking credit for doing
exactly what is required of any other
landlord - maintaining and improv-
ing their property.
The 10-year plan will add 83,870
new units to the city's housing stock.
Thirty-eight percent of these new
units are affordable only to middle
income families, as defined by the
city. Just 18 percent are for the home-
less and 21 percent affordable to low
income families.
The single biggest source of new
units will come from the New York
Gut Rehabs
Capital Budget
Homeless Housing
Special Initiative Program
Urban Homesteading
Vacant Building
lISC
Small Building Low Income
Construction Mgmt.
Participation Loan
Small Homes Rehab
Small Homes Pvt
SROLoan
Mutual Housing Assoc. of NY
Cross Subsidy
City/State Homeless
New Construction
Partnership
Nehemiah
Real Estate Bd. of NY
Cross Subsidy
New Construction
(Condos)
(Rentals)
SUBTOTAL PRODUCTION
PROGRAMS
TEN-YEAR PLAN
Homeless
1,410
6,630
100
1,000
2,600
50
1,810
2,000
15,600
UNITS TO BE PRODUCED BY INCOME CATEGORY
PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
Moderate Rehabs Homeless Low Moderate Middle Total
Cross Subsidy 250 250
Private Ownership Mgmt.
Program 28,150 2,950 31,100
Participation Loan 140 980 6,1 50 7,270
After Sales Support 4,380 460 4,840
Community Mgmt. 4,850 540 5,390
8ALoan 30,030 37,120 67,150
SROLoan 20 640 660
Leasing (TIL) 22,280 2,360 24,640
7AFAIVERP 6,680 6,680
Capital Improvement 19,180 1,740 20,920
(SUBTOTAL PRESERVATION
PROGRAMS
160 117,420 51,320 0 168,900)
Low Moderate
140
1,290
900
9,000
3,900
750
300
1,150
110
350
17,890
230
7,420
2,170
900
1,400
230
480
160
5,010
60
18,060
Middle
940
230
22,530
3,050
220
3,980
1,370
32,320
Total
1,410
6,630
370
8,710
1,000
10,000
8,670
1,700
2,340
460
1,810
780
1,310
2,000
22,530
5,010
3,050
390
3,980
1,720
83,870
City Partnership program, which is
affordable only to middle income
families. The 10-year plan figures re-
veal that the city projects that it will
approve no more homes to be built
under the nationally-acclaimed
NeheD;liah program (the 5,010 units
listed are what has already been ap-
Eroved for East New York.) The HPD
igures also reveal that no units will
be added to the Urban Homesteading
program over the next 10 years. The
Small Building Low Income program,
which is projected to create 10,000
units for the homeless and low in-
come families, does not currently
exist and has never been announced
by HPD. The program represents 30
percent of the total number of units
to be created for the homeless and
low income residents. D
PIPELINE
A City on Tap
BY JENNIFER STERN
IN THE 1980 s WE ARE ACCUS-
tomed to connections with distant
places. We pick up a phone and in-
stantly hear a voice from California.
We open the mail and read a letter
typed in Chicago only last night. And
we turn on the faucet confident of a
quick flow of clean water coming
from the Catskill Mountains, some
100 miles away.
Yet when New York City's upstate
water supply system was first con-
ceived, near the turn of the century,
telephone service hardly existed.
Overnight mail service was not
around. And the building of an up-
state water supply for a city so far
away required all the technical know-
how civil engineers could muster.
New York's water system is an en-
gineering miracle, delivering some
1.547 billion gallons per day (last
year's daily average) to a thirsty
city - more than 200 gallons per per-
son per day.
Not only is the quantity of New
York's water miraculous, but its qual-
ity is consistently outstanding. It falls
well within all federal standards for
safety. Furthermore, a January 1987
Consumer Report study of tap and
bottled water voted New York's water
second only to that of Los Angeles in
taste - ahead of 24 bottled waters -
and called it "flawless or nearly flaw-
less in both taste and safety."
Although this system has served
the city well in the past, the future is
far from certain. New threats to both
quantity and quality have set in mo-
tion the vast machinery of city, state
and federal governments to plan for
the 21st century. Whatever solutions
they decide on will entail expendi-
ture of billions of taxpayer dollars
and perhaps, for the first time, the
expansion of supply to counties now
independent of New York City's water
supply system.
Different Sources
Despite the exalted reputation of
New York City's water among munic-
ipal water connoisseurs and among
New Yorkers themselves, not all the
city's water is created equal. In fact,
the city currently has three different
sources for its fresh water. If you live
Upstate water express:
A valve chamber in a water tunnel that ca"ies water from Catskill and Delaware reservoirs.
in upper Manhattan, you will use dif-
ferent water than if you live in Brook-
lyn and different water again than if
you live in Jamaica, Queens.
New York's newest water supply is
the Catskill-Delaware system, which
supplies 85 percent of the city's
water. The source for this system (the
watershed), located in the Catskill
mountains and including the drain-
age area of the Delaware River, is six
times the land area of New York City
itself. From six huge upstate storage
reservoirs, the water travels 100 miles
via two principal aqueducts, the
Catskill Aqueduct and the Delaware
Aqueduct, to distribution reservoirs
nearer the city. From there it enters
two city water tunnels - City Thnnel
Number 1 and City Thnnel Number
2, which deliver the water to the local
distribution system: 2.2 million feet
of trunk mains and 28 million feet of
distribution mains serving some
800,000 service connections and
99,000 hydrants. These tunnels will
be supplemented by City Tunnel
Number 3, a multi-billion dollar pro-
ject conceived in 1954. Although one
of the four stages of tunnel construc-
tion is scheduled for completion in
1991, the schedule for the rest of the
tunnel is still indefinite. The tunnel
will increase the system's capacity to
deliver water to Queens, Brooklyn
and Staten Island and provide a
bypass around the other two tunnels,
constructed in 1917 and 1936, respec-
tively, to allow them to be repaired.
Croton Troubles
Much older than the Catskill sys-
tem - and much more troubled - is
the Croton Supply, whose watershed
area is the drainage area of the Croton
River in Westchester and Putnam
counties. Built in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, this system
serves mostly the southern Bronx and
northern Manhattan. It normally de-
livers about 10 percent of the city's
water, and about 25 percent when
droughts affect the Catskill-Delaware
supply. From 13 smaller storage reser-
voirs and lakes upstate, the Croton
system's water comes to the city via
a 33-mile aqueduct and is distributed
from the reservoirs in Manhattan's
Central Park and Jerome Park in the
Bronx into the city distribution sys-
tem. The rich soils in the watershed
area of the Croton Supply, along with
increasing pollution in the rapidly ur-
banizing area, led the city to start to
build its first filtration facility for
water. The city currently only treats
its water with caustic soda to control
acidity and chlorination for disinfec-
tion. A small experimental facility
under construction next to the
Jerome Park Reservoir will be capable
of filtering 3 million gallons a day
...
...
1:1
~
Z
and is scheduled to begin operation
soon. A huge system able to filter 300
million gallons daily is planned for
the year 2000.
Thanks to careful placement of
these upstate reservoirs, water travels
to the city almost exclusively by grav-
ity. Only about five percent of the
water has to be pumped to reach the
distribution system, making New
York's water costs virtually indepen-
dent of energy costs.
The last source of water, the
Jamaica Supply, serving 500,000 cus-
tomers in southeast Queens, differs
from the Catskill-Delaware and Cro-
ton systems in two important ways:
the system uses groundwater and it
is privately owned. This sytem is also
the most threatened among the
High levels of iron and manganese in
the soil often stains the water and
gives it an unpleasant taste. The pre-
sence of small quantities of organic
chemicals, such as solvents, in the
water supply, have led the city to
close 16 of the Jamaica Water Supply
Company's 76 wells over the past dec-
ade, says Arthur Ashendorf, director
of the New York City Department of
Health's Bureau of Public Health En-
gineering. About half of the water
Jamaica supplies to its customers-
some 30 million gallons per day -ac-
tually comes from the city's Catskill-
Delaware supply. Even more of
Jamaica's wells may fall below state
standards beginning this month be-
cause the state is lowering the limit
for such chemicals from 50 parts per
billion to 5 parts per billion. As a
result, the company is building sev-
eral treatment plants for its water.
These, say Ashendorf, can remove
such pollutants almost completely
and may enable Jamaica to reopen
some of its closed wells.
Major Threat
The major threat to the quality of
the New York City drinking water lies
in the urbanization of the watershed
area. Residential building - and
population - continues to increase
in these upstate counties, and seem-
ingly innocuous substances such as
road salt , lawn fertilizer and pet feces
are seriously degrading the city's
water quality as they are carried into
the reservoirs with rainwater. The
area is governed by state watershed
regulations, but these were de-
veloped some 50 years ago and focus
almost exclusively on pollution
sources such as factory and wastewa-
ter discharge. (In order to protect the
water quality, the city operates nine
upstate sewage treatment plants.) The
regulations are currently being re-
vised by the city's Department of En-
vironmental Protection, and will
have to be approved by the state De-
partment of Health.
Threats to water quality are not the
city's only worry. The three major
droughts in this area since 1960 - be-
tween 1961 and 1967, in 1980-81 and
again in 1985 - have brought home
one message: we need to explore
other sources of water supply for the
future. How much we will need-
and how much we are willing to pay
for it - is another issue.
The standard measure of water sup-
ply needs is the "water supply de-
ficit," which compares the average de-
mand for water under normal condi-
tions with the available supply under
extreme conditions. In New York, the
average 1.5 billion gallons used each
day compares unfavorably with the
1.29 billion gallons per day available
:
MASSACHUSE TT S
CONNECTICUT
limits 01 tIw Hut/IOII end
Rill.r iM
_ N,..,YorlcCity Supply w.,.,..Md.
- Ne., Croton Aquedvct
-- CM:oltlll A4ueduct
-- O',. .... re A .... dfIct
9 2? 4p ,MIW
6 III k sb io ula 1Ol_'W
during the 1960s drought. Further-
more, both total and per capita water
use continues to climb steadily, with
no signs of tapering off.
Another source of concern that fu-
ture supply will not meet future de-
mand is the greenhouse effect - the
warming of the Earth due to the in-
creased concentration of carbon
dioxide and other gases in the atmos-
phere. Hotter, drier weather at this
latitude could lower rainfall and in-
crease evaporation in the reservoirs.
Water Future
The problem of decreasing, or at
least maintaining, the water supply
deficit requires a two-pronged ap-
proach - conservation and supply
creation. Conservation measures
being taken by the city include a pub-
lic education campaign ("Don't Drip
New York Dry.") and an on-going leak
detection and repair program for the
distribution system. The city cur-
rently estimates that 9.6 of
the water delivered to the CIty IS lost
to leaks. This figure is low compared
with other municipal water systems,
but this figure has been questioned
by some water experts, the
Citizens Union FoundatIon. Fmally,
a six-year study begun in 1987 will
evaluate the city's current water de-
mand and project the city's future
needs.
To increase future water supply, the
city is looking at medium- and long-
range alternatives. 1\vo medium-
range alternatives being studied in-
clude pumping .water from the
son River - whIch was done durmg
the last drought - and increased use
of aquifers - water in underground
soil and rock - beneath Brooklyn
and Queens. The current maximum
yield from the city's Hudson River
pumping station, the Chelsea station,
near Poughkeepsie, is 100 million gal-
lons per day. The city is studying the
costs and effects of continuous pump-
ing - either at Chelsea or two other
possible sites. The financial costs of
this additional capacity are estimated
in the $200 million to $400 million
range.
But another cost of this plan may
be too steep to pay. The increased
pumping from the Hudson could
move the salt front further up river,
affecting both the city's supply and,
more importantly, Poughkeepsie's
water supply, which comes exclu-
sively from the Hudson River. This
and other disadvantages have led the
state's Department of Health to argue
against this alternative. Nonetheless,
it is still being studied by Mayor
Koch's Intergovernmental Task Force
on New York City Water Supply
Needs, a group of city, upstate county,
state and federal agencies convened
in 1985 to plan for the future.
Increasing use of the Brooklyn and
Queens aquifers could mean continu-
ously pumping from aquifers cur-
rently not tapped for the Jamaica Sup-
ply, or periodically pumping from
these sources, particularly in times
of drought, and allowing them to re-
charge themselves - or be partly re-
filled with upstate water - between
uses. Theoretically, this latter possi-
bility could be extended to include
all of Long Island's aquifers - the is-
land would normally be supplied
with city water, and the aquifers
would relieve the city supply during
droughts. No costs have yet been esti-
mated for these groundwater alterna-
tives.
The intergovernmental task force
on water is focusing on two of several
alternatives for long-term supply.
One, a High Flow Skimming Project
on the Hudson River, would pump
up to one billion gallons of water a
day from the river into the city system
in times of high river flow, giving the
city an additional 400 million gallons
a day. The project would cost $2.5
billion. The other, involving the es-
tablishment of a new reservoir system
in the upper Hudson River basin,
could yield an additional 600 million
to 1.5 billion gallons per day at a cost
of $7 to $13.5 billion. This cost would
include the construction of a new
100-mile-Iong transmission tunnel to
bring the water to the city. Some of
the lands included in the watershed
area are protected from such use,
meaning a legislative act would be
needed to reverse this protection.
Whatever alternatives are chosen,
planning for future water supplies,
city officials insist, must begin now.
When the six-year demand study is
completed in 1993, it may find that
the city doesn't need as drastic a
source of new supply as the upper
Hudson Basin. Because planning and
construction of such a project could
take 20 to 40 years, it is necessary to
begin that planning now.
Whether or not any of the long-
range alternatives are implemented,
the future will not be without cost to
New Yorkers. The need for increased
conservation, the possibility of in-
creased water contamination, (and
the associated treatment costs); and
the price of refurbishing the current
system will all make New York's
water an even more precious resource
than it is today. 0
.COOPER ASSOCIATES
FUNDRAISING CONSULTANTS
Housing, Economic Development, Social Services, Arts
and Cultural Organizations
Call 718-789-5773
Competitively Priced Insurance
LET us DO A FREE EVAWATION OF
YOUR INSURANCE NEEDS
have been providing low-cost insurance programs and quality service
for HDFC's, TENANTS, COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT and other NONPROFIT
organizations for the past 10 years.
Our Coverages Include:
UABIUTY BONDS DIRECTORS'" OFFICERS' UABIUTY
SPECIAL BUILDING PACKAGES
ilLiberal Payment Terms"

306 FIFTH AVE.
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001
(212) 279-8300
Ask for: Bala Ramanathan
FEATURE
Quality on Tap:
Can We Keep New York's
Water
Clean?
BY LISA GLAZER
E
nvironmentalists have issued
ominous warnings about
water quality for decades, but
it didn't worry Jean Kreiling.
The Brooklyn resident was more con-
cerned about problems such as home-
lessness, hunger and the effect of gen-
trification on her community. What's
more, the stuff she drank from her
tap seemed to taste fine and swim-
ming in the Atlantic had been a favor-
ite activity for more than a decade.
Why think twice about where the
water came from or where it went?
But this summer, like many New
Yorkers, Kreiling was forced to con-
front the crisis of New York City's
water. Through June, July and Au-
gust, incoming tides washed up a
witch's brew of waste, including balls
of sewage two inches thick, crack
vials, stained bandages, and needles
and syringes, some of which tested
positive for AIDS. One after another,
beaches along the New York and New
Jersey shores were closed.
Kreiling had to take a long, hard
look at the water in Sheep shead Bay,
which flows out to the ocean, right
around the corner from her Brighton
Beach home. "The fishing here used
to be great," she says, recalling her
husband's catches of flounder,
bluefish and fluke. "But who wants
to eat fish now? Honest to goodness,
it looks like diarrhea out there."
Kreiling, now president of the Com-
mittee to Save Brighton Beach, says
that overflow from an overworked
sewage system is responsible for the
foul water, and she's committed to
fight a huge development project,
Brighton By the Sea, which could
Hunts Point sewoge treatment plont:
The solid materia/from tlte city's sewage is removed, treated and dumped in the ocean - more
than 100,000 tons a year.
strain the sewage treatment system to
its breaking point by building six
hulking towers for 5,000 new resi-
dents.
While the array of medical waste
on city beaches can be explained by
isolated incidents of illicit dumping,
the filthy water surrounding New
York is connected to much broader
problems like development. At every
step of the city's water flow - from
rivers, to homes and industries, and
eventually back out to sea - human
activity poses a threat to water qual-
ity.
Upstate growth near the reservoirs
that supply the city's drinking water
has led to an unprecedented need for
billion-dollar filtration plants. After
the water is transmitted to New York
City through an elaborate system of
tunnels and aqueducts, it reaches
antiquated pipes soldered with lead.
After the water is flushed, poured or
released, it gurgles down drains, into
an overworked and inadequate sew-
age system. Most of the city's 14 sew-
age treatment plants receive waste
from homes, businesses and streets,
yet they are incapable of removing
most industrial chemicals. They also
divert raw sewage into rivers and
streams after every storm. Spreading
pollution further offshore, sludge -
/'
the solid material removed from sew-
age - is released into the ocean on a
daily basis.
Michael Garabedian, chairman of
the Sierra Club, says it's no wonder
that the oceans are sending out an
SOS. "You can't harm the system
without expecting it to come back to
haunt you," he explains.
Upstate Threats
Mayor Koch calls the city's water
"the champagne of drinking water,"
and tests for quality as well as taste
substantiate his judgment. While
water experts agree that New York
water still meets all federal standards
for safety, praise is countered by
warnings about upstate development.
Historically, the quality of the city's
water, which comes from three up-
state systems, has been excellent be-
cause of a natural cleansing process.
Rainwater and groundwater flow into
upstate watershed land above the re-
servoirs, and the water drains
through soil and wetlands (the mar-
shy area near rivers and streams). The
soil and the wetlands work like a
liver, removing harmful materials
from the water. Once the water
reaches reservoirs and streams, expo-
sure to sunlight continues the cleans-
ing process, which is complete once
solid materials settle to the reservoir's
floor. This natural filtration system is
effective when vast portions of the
land upstate is pristine and unde-
veloped. As soon as high rises, shop-
ping malls and freeways are con-
structed, the system breaks down.
Feverish development in the last 15
years has increased the population in
New York City's watershed by one-
third, to more than 400,000. Parallel
to the development is increased
chemical and biological damage to
the reservoir water, caused by rain
washing over new parking lots, town
houses and industries. The oils, pes-
ticides and chemicals that are swept
into the reservoir are the prime cause
of damage. The problem is so severe
that a $266 million filtration plant is
being constructed for the Croton
water system, and water officials say
filtration will eventually be inevita-
ble for the much larger Catskill and
Delaware systems. The cost? Between
$2 and $3 billion, officials say.
New York City has some power over
the watershed - through an out-
moded set of regulations barring,
Mark lzeman. of the Natural Resources Defen .. Cauncil:
"H _ 110 alteocl witII filtrotion, this could give the ",...,. ,/gilt to develapen."
among other actions, the flow of
"house slops, sink, laundry, garbage
or stable wastes" into the water lead-
ing to reservoirs. City officials are in
the process of developing a new set
of watershed regulations. But some
environmentalists accuse the city of
neglecting watershed protection, say-
ing the trend towards filtration plants
is part of a political agenda which
does not call for aggressive environ-
mental conservation.
Stringent Controls
Mark Izeman, a research associate
for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, says that water quality in the
Catskill and Delaware systems can
still be preserved through stringent
control of the watershed. "If we go
ahead with filtration, this could give
the green flag to developers and have
the effect of actually increasing de-
velopment," he says. Leo Hetling, di-
rector of the state health department's
division of environmental protec-
tion, insists that growth can't be
halted. "We live in a home rule state,"
he says, adding that city or state reg-
ulations "can cause projects to be
built differently - but they do not
stop development."
Growth upstate takes place hun-
dreds of miles from city residents. but
another stress on water quality hits
closer to home - in the buildings
where people work and live. Pipes in
old offices and apartments are usu-
ally soldered with lead, a metal
which can cause mental retardation
in children and kidney damage,
anemia and hearing loss in children
and adults.
A report issued last November by
the Plumbing Foundation of New
York City, concluded that "lead con-
tamination in New York's water sup-
ply is a serious problem" and attri-
buted the high levels to increasing
acidity and antiquated plumbing. But
the study did not cite the precise level
of lead present in city water.
City water officials have disputed
the study, saying it serves the finan-
cial interests of plumbers. Hetling
says the amount of lead that enters
the water is so small that the liquid
remains safe. But he acknowledges
that when water sits in pipes, lead
sediments can build up, and advises
city residents to run their taps for a
few moments each morning to flush
out the sediments before drinking.
Wasted
The greatest source of harm to the
city's water, say environmentalists, is
sewage. Every day, New York City's 14
sewerage plants treat more than 1.5
billion gallons of waste from homes,
streets and sidewalks and pipe it back
into the waterways surrounding New
York - the Hudson River, the East
River, Jamaica and Flushing bays and
the Atlantic Ocean, just to name a few.
Twelve of the city's treatment
plants ensure primary and secondary
treatment of sewage, the waste re-
M CITY LIMITS January 1989
moval process required by the federal
Clean Water Act. When the sewage
arrives at the plant, grates remove
solid material including human and
animal feces, tampon applicators,
even umbrellas. The sewage is then
treated to remove damaging biologi-
cal materials, which can destroy
aquatic life by depleting oxygen in
the water.
City officials from the Department
of Environmental Protection say ef-
fluent that receives this primary and
secondary treatment meets federal
standards. But officials acknowledge
that this treatment does not remove
harmful chemical substances from in-
dustrial w ~ s t e and storm water. The
pollutants that the sewerage plants
do not treat include heavy metals like
lead, cadmium and mercury, as well
as oils and pesticides. Alan Mytelka,
chairman of the Interstate Sanitary
Commission, a three-state agency re-
sponsible for safeguarding water
quality, says this is a clear danger.
"Any heavy metals that are treated by
the sewerage system are purely inci-
dental."
Compounding this threat to water
quality is combined sewer over-
flow - the rush of raw sewage that
bypasses treatment during heavy
storms. Because many of the city's
sewage treatment plants are working
at capacity or above capacity, they are
incapable of handling the volume of
waste water created during storms,
and a regulator within the pipes di-
verts the waste directly into water-
ways.
The problem is exacerbated by the
work of gravity. During dry weather,
much of the solid matter in sewage
settles downwards (like mud in a
glass of dirty water) and sinks to the
bottom of the transmission pipes be-
fore it reaches the treatment plant.
After a storm, the cascade of liquid
flowing through the pipes scours the
layer of solids from the bottom of the
pipes - and much of this befouled
material enters waterways without
proper treatment.
Last year, more than 60 billion gal-
lons of untreated storm water and raw
sewage flowed into the city's water
and streams, according to a report by
the New York Public Interest Research
Group. The city's Department of
Health has concluded that rainfall
has a "severe adverse effect on New
York City harbor and beach water
Garbage by the sea:
Incoming tides sweep in a witch's brew 01 waste.
quality" and warns bathers to avoid
swimming for two days after heavy
rains at a number of city beaches.
Ann Fodera, a Queens resident,
doesn't need a health department
warning to keep her out of the water
after storms. Fodera works in a
warehouse located 100 feet from the
appropriately-named Flushing Creek.
Fodera says combined sewer overflow
has been an obvious problem for
years. "We have sealed windows, but
the smell still gets in," she says, liken-
ing the odor to toilet fumes.
Sludge Dumping
Despite these problems, the city's
sewage treatment system collects a
lot of waste material- which it then
dumps in the ocean. Every year, the
city dumps more than 100,000 tons
of this sludge into the Atlantic Ocean.
The dumping site used today is 106
miles offshore. Less than two years
ago, the sludge was dropped into
water just 12 miles from the New York
Harbor.
After the summer's beach closings,
Congress passed legislation banning
ocean dumping and the city will be
forced to stop releasing sludge into
the ocean by 1991. Finding an en-
vironmentally sound alternative is
easier said than done, according to
experts. The sludge is often loaded
with toxic materials and incinerating
or composting can lead to additional
problems.
A look back in time provides the
fullest understanding of the devastat-
ing effect New York City waste has
had on surrounding waterways, ac-
cording to John Cronin, director of
the Hudson River Fishermen's As-
sociation. "New York used to boast
some of the largest oysters in the
world and a multitude of fish," he
says. "We were the largest, most pro-
ductive ecological complex on the
East Coast." Now, he continues, "a lot
of species of fish - all shellfish, oys-
ters, clams, mussels, and scallops -
are not edible. People should have
serious questions about eating any-
thing from the New York Harbor."
Damage to the ecosystem has
spread even beyond the harbor, into
the delicate marine life of the Long
Island Sound and the New York Bight,
the 11,000 mile arm of the Atlantic
Ocean bounded by Long Island, the
Jersey Shore and the Continental
Shelf. Mytelka says, "New York's
waste is the linchpin of the health
and integrity of these great bodies of
water. That's very important for swim-
ming, fishing and the general health
of the aquatic ecosystem."
Environmentalists and water offi-
cials now agree that the most efficient
way to ensure the health of the ecosys-
tem is the removal of harmful chem-
icals at the industrial sites where the
l
taxies are produced. Mytelka says, "If
you want to keep out toxic materials,
you must pre-treat at the source. "
Although pre-treatment was man-
dated by federal law back in 1972, the
city took years to tighten old regula-
tions and implementation of the new,
more stringent pre-treatment require-
ments began just two years ago.
Mytelka says there's a reason for the
snail's pace of progress. "Pre-treat-
ment is a political issue as well as an
environmental issue. The city is af-
raid to enforce pre-treatment because
it could be a threat to industry."
George Lutzic, chief of operations
control for the city's sewage treatment
plants, says, "I think we're doing a
helluva job."
The NYPIRG report on sewage says
politics rests at the source of water
quality issues. The report reads: "To
an overwhelming degree, the barriers
to clean water in New York City are
not legal, technical or scientific.
What local, state and federal au-
thorities lack is the essential political
will to come to grips w:ith the city's
water pollution legacy and resolve it
once and for all ."
"Idealistic Standards"
For their part, water officials at sev-
eral agencies say massive clean-up ef-
forts in the Hudson and other New
York waterways have ensured a
steady improvement in water quality.
Lutzic acknowledges the criticism of
environmentalists and groups such
as NYPIRG, but contends, "You can't
operate a public system to the idealis-
tic standards of the environmental
groups. There are certain constraints,
like economics. From an administra-
tive point of view, we have to do the
best we can within these con-
straints."
Ironically, a city water official, Dr.
Merril Eisenbud, looked at the re-
sources available for pollution con-
trol in 1969, and predicted that
within two decades, city residents
would be swimming in the Hudson
and East rivers, and enjoying fish
from harbor flats. He said, "By the
late 1970s, we shall have made our
shores so attractive that, if we con-
tinue to deny their continued use for
swimming, we shall know precisely
why."
Instead of seizing the water clean-
up initiative that gained momentum
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
current city administration has made
development a priority - at the ex-
pense of New York's water quality.
Large-scale projects like Brighton By
the Sea contribute to the problem -
and people like Jean Kreiling believe
that Alexander Muss & Sons, the de-
veloper, will be lining their pockets
instead of paying for the astronomical
cleaning costs. That ever-mounting
expense, partially created by develop-
ers who build beyond the capacity of
the infrastructure, will be borne by
taxpayers. ''And for what?" asks Kreil-
ing. "So the quality of our life can be
destroyed? There's a limit to how
much we can put up with." 0
A NYPIRG report charges, " .. . the barriers to clean water in
New York City are not legal, technical or scientific. They are
political. "
FEATURE
Big Tappers: New Yorkers
and Water Conservation
BY BEVERLY CHEUVRONT
uture droughts in New York
F
City are a certainty, according
to Harvey Schultz, commis-
sioner of the city's Department
of Environmental Protection. So city
officials are developing safeguards
that include costly capital projects to
expand New York's source of water
and instituting initiatives to cut de-
mand.
But many environmentalists are
critical of what they view as the city's
reliance on capital projects. And they
argue that its conservation program
is insufficient and over-inflated. As
one critic put it, New York City's con-
servation efforts are "only a drop in
the bucket."
Officials vehemently disagree-
but there is one point on which there
is no dispute. New York City faces a
critical water shortage.
Residents are served by an aging
system designed to send 1.2 billion'
gallons of water flowing into the met-
ropolis daily. Consumption, however,
averages 1.5 billion gallons daily,
meaning the system regularly works
300 million gallons over its capacity.
"There's a gap between what the sys-
tem was designed to do and de-
mand," observes Steven Ostrega, as-
sistant commissioner for the DEP's
Bureau of Water Register.
And demand continues to escalate.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
predicts that by 2020, New York City
residents will be consuming 2.5 to 3
billion gallons of water each day -al-
most three times the system's capac-
ity.
Chaos Ahead?
These statistics point to a potential
crisis, with an overburdened water
system that can be strained by small
climatic changes. A prolonged and se-
vere drought can throw the system
into chaos. And of particular concern
now is the warming trend created by
the greenhouse effect - a long-term
decrease in the rainfall that feeds the
upstate reservoirs will be disastrous
for New York City.
What does this mean to the average
New Yorker? In the not-too-distant fu-
ture, cheap and abundant water will
become expensive. And our high-
quality, taste-test winning water will
most certainly lose some of its purity.
Experts have been scrambling to
find alternatives to impending sup-
ply-side shortages. Among the op-
tions developed by an inter-
governmental task force are perma-
nently activating the seldom-used
Chelsea pump station, which deliv-
ers Hudson River water to the city
system; building a high-flow skim
project, which also would pump
Hudson water into the city; diverting
Great Lakes water to New York; reus-
ing municipal waste water; desalini-
zation of sea water; and creating a
new reservoir system.
Some of these are politically infeas-
ible, some impractical. Upstate resi-
dents, for example, will oppose any
efforts to create new reservoirs. Di-
verting water from the Great Lakes
would cost an estimated $18 billion.
Using water from the Hudson River
is the most likely alternative. But per-
manent use of the Chelsea pump sta-
tion would cost about $500 million,
according to the environmental
group Scenic Hudson. A variety of
high-flow skim projects for the Hud-
son have been proposed, ranging in
cost from $2.5 billion to $13.5 billion,
according to a report published by
the Citizens Union Foundation (see
story, page 8).
Cost isn't the only drawback to
using Hudson River water, environ-
mentalists say. "We have a lot of con-
cerns about taking water from the
Hudson," says Mark Izeman, a re-
search associate with the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council. "To begin
with, it's not as clean and would have
to be treated much more heavily.
There may even be some toxins in it,
such as PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls, suspected carcinogens).
"We feel it's premature to single out
the Hudson as a major new supply of
drinking water," Izeman adds. "There
are other solutions, such as using
non-potable (undrinkable) water for
non-potable uses. We feel the city has
not pursued the alternatives
enough."
Others fear that withdrawing large
amounts of Hudson water will se-
verely damage the Hudson River es-
tuary. .
Conservation - decreasing demand
- is the flip side to increasing the
city's water supply. New York City
views water as a cheap and plentiful
commodity, and urban New Yorkers
are flagrantly wasteful in water con-
sumption. For example, city resi-
dents use per capita almost 40 more
gallons of water daily than upstate
residents. New development projects
tend to be heavy water consumers,
especially buildings that are temper-
ature-controlled and water-cooled.
And New York City's 5,700 miles of
pipes, 88,000 mainline valves, and
99,000 fire hydrants are old, with
many leaks along the way.
Officials say they are well aware of
the advantages of conservation and
are actively instituting a. many-
pronged water-saving program, with
metering as its centerpiece (see
sidebar). "We could go to costly, ex-
pensive and time-consuming solu-
tions. But if we can close the gap (be-
tween supply and demand) through
conservation, we can look to it as a
lower cost alternative," says Ostrega,
who points out that conservation will
also help to preserve New York City's
high water quality.
"The big project is water metering.
That's our main thrust, " reports Peter
Cannavo, a DEP spokesman. "In met-
ering, you pay for what you use. If
people want to save money, they'll
use less water. "
Leak Detection Leader
The city also boasts a sophisticated
program to find and repair infrastruc-
Dripping New York dry_,_
Mony of the city's 99,000 hydrants leale.
ture leaks, officials say. "We're the
leader in the nation in sonar leak de-
tection, which uses sound waves to
detect leaks," says Ostrega, adding
that seven million linear feet of sur-
vey work is completed annually by
his department.
"The program has been going
strong for three or four years. Since
its inception, we have been finding
every year about 250 leaks that are
not reported. We're finding 50 water
main breaks per year and we're saving
25 to 30 million gallons of water per
day."
Ostrega says that the city's Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
sets 20 days as its standard for fixing
small breaks. "Our response time is
usually within eight to 10 days, so
we're essentially beating the target
with an aggressive response tim;. Of
Each day, New York residents use about 40 gallons more water
per capita than their upstate counterparts.
course," he adds, "if it's a disruftive
main break, it's taken care a im-
mediately." Ostrega says DEP tallies
its systemwide leakage rate at about
9 percent, a figure he says is backed
up by the Army Corps of Engineers.
While sonar-equipped vans are
tracking system leaks, Ostrega says
the metering program will help to de-
tect leaks in individual buildings.
"One of the main reasons to meter is
to determine where water is going,
what's leaking in a building. That's
the key motivation of our program."
Some dispute the city's figures on
the system-wide leakage rate. "Some
watchdog groups believe it could be
as high as 20 percent," Izeman
charges.
Statistics in the Fiscal Year 1988
Mayor's Management Repott also
raise questions about the effective-
ness of leak detection, according to
Nevin Cohen, an environmental plan-
ner for City Council Member Sheldon
Leffler.
Cohen points to the report's obser-
vations that complaints of water leaks
rose by 20 percent from FY87 to
FY88. There were 13 percent more
water main breaks over that period,
the backlog on street leaks rose by 42
percent, the backlog of broken or in-
operative fire hydrants rose by 67 per-
cent and the length of response time
to leaks increased by 53 percent.
Ostrega replies that many factors
contribute to breaks and leakage, in-
cluding weather, which varies greatly
in its impact from one winter to the
next. A season featuring many freezes
and thaws "will wreak havoc on the
system," he explains.
Low Flow
Environmentalists point to a state
law that requires water-conserving,
low-flow fixtures to be used in new
construction, legislation that is not
enforced in New York City. Leffler has
introduced a City Council bill that
would incorporate the state stan-
dards into the city code, and many
city environmental groups are sup-
porting the bill.
"We support the spirit of the bill,"
Ostrega says. The DEP, however, does
not support Leffler's proposed legisla-
tion. "The state's powers are already
pre-emptive. It sets the standards in
the city and dictates what types of
fixtures can be installed and sold here
and sets the flow level. We are saying
we basically have the right to enforce
that, and we have been going to the
state legislature to get the power to
enforce it."
Ostrega adds that the city would
like to go beyond the state code -and
the Leffler bill - by requiring that all
new construction include a new
toilet that only uses 1.6 gallons per
flush as opposed to the current low-
flow standard of 3.5 gallons. Mas-
sachusetts is the pioneer in this field,
with recently enacted legislation re-
quiring the 1.6 gallon toilet.
DEP does not wholeheartedly back
Leffler's bill in part because it would
force the city to rewrite the existing
state code. "Why put out another
document for a document's sake?"
asks Ostrega.
As important, say critics, is to es-
tablish efforts to equip New York
City's huge housing stock with
kitchen and bathroom fixtures that
use a reduced flow of water, a process
known as retro-fitting.
"We are doing that with HPD (the
city's Department of Housing Preser-
vation and Development) ," responds
Ostrega, noting that three city-owned
buildings are included in a three-
month-old pilot program to outfit
them with low-flow fixtures to test
their applicability to older buildings.
The buildings are being metered, and
after the data is complete, Ostrega
says that HPD will begin retro-fitting
all existing city-owned buildings.
"We recommend that it would be
worthwhile to do a larger-scale pro-
gram using 20 or 30 buildings as a
cross-section," says Cohen. "The
councilman (Leffler) also recom-
mends making low-cost or free low-
flow fixtures available.
"You have to encourage the con-
sumer to conserve water, but it's not
enough to tell them to turn off the
tap when brushing their teeth,"
Cohen continues. "It's more effective
to have a full-scale program to offer
people low-flow fixtures for their
homes."
Izeman echoes Cohen's words.
"Metering needs to be done in con-
junction with programs that mandate
low-flow fixtures," he says, pointing
to the state legislation. "We should
be thinking in terms of a bill to re-
quire retro-fitting of existing build-
ings with low-flow fixtures ."
Izeman adds that the city should
also look at methods to encourage
high-consumption commercial users
to conserve. "We should be using
rates to effect decisions, not looking
at it as a revenue-raising source but
as a method to effect usage," he says.
Cohen also points to a poor record
in watershed protection, which he
claims is inadequately monitored.
"In 18 years, there's been a 25 percent
decline in inspections and there are
many unfilled, funded positions for
inspectors," he says. "That's our first
line of defense. "
Public Education
Public education is a critical com-
ponent of a water conservation pro-
gram. "Without a public education
and information program, for in-
stance, metering and retro-fit pro-
grams cannot achieve their maximum
possible benefit," the Mayor's Inter-
governmental Task Force on New York
City's Water Supply Needs wrote in
1987. "We cannot say with assurance
that public education alone will ap-
preciably increase the total
maximum conservation savings, al-
though other areas have realized sav-
ings averaging eight percent from
education efforts."
The task force's Conservation Com-
mittee urged the development of pub-
lic awareness programs, stressing the
need for conservation, specific
methods for conserving, and incor-
porating conservation programs in
the schools.
Officials point to the subway adver-
tising campaign, warning people
against "dripping New York dry" and
to school curriculums in science and
social studies classes. DEP experts
give frequent talks on conservation,
and they lead troops of youngsters on
tours of the city's water tunnels.
Izeman believes the public educa-
tion program is necessary, "but it's
only as effective as the legislative and
regulatory backbone behind it." He
says the city needs a more compre-
hensive approach. "What's lacking is
"There is a tendency for governmental decision-makers to
gravitate towards quick-fix solutions," says Izeman.
Goin!f to the source:
The city's upstate reservoirs struggle to meet tfJe
needs of 0 tfJirs1y city.
a way to bring all these threads to-
gether, for example an advisory board
that would get people going back to
their communities with the resources
to deal with specific problems."
Leffler calls the subway ads "a cam-
paign for a campaign. It's more impor-
tant to implement the mechanical
things that would save water, then
you wouldn't have to tell them to save
water." He also suggests mandating
that the city install low-flow fixutres
in all of its many public buildings
and facilities.
Some question the extent of the
city's commitment to conservation.
"Clearly, New York City is not looking
at demand control or conservation as
an alternative to creating new large-
scale sources of supply," states Cara
Lee, environmental director of
Scenic Hudson.
"There is a tendency for gov-
ernmental decision-makers to gravi-
tate towards quick-fix solutions,"
adds Izeman. Methods like recycling
for garbage disposal or conservation
of water resources "require a different
use of personnel and outreach to com-
munities. But most officials are look-
ing for a minimal number of steps to
solve the poblem - it's what looks
crisp on paper," Izeman says. D
POLICY MAKERS
Who's the
80ss?
A TANGLE OF LOCAL, STATE AND
national government agencies over-
see New York City's water. In the
broadest terms, the federal Environ-
mental Protection Agency sets the
standards for water quality through
laws like the Clean Water Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Respon-
sibility for enforcing those laws is de-
legated to the state Department of En-
vironmental Conservation, which
also exercises regulatory powers over
state conservation laws and sets
water supply policy. The nuts and
bolts work of supplying water and
ensuring quality is the responsibility
of the city's Department of Environ-
mental Protection.
Here's a closer look at some of the
major players in the city and the state:
Within the Department of En-
vironmental Protection, the Bureau
of Water Supply and Sewers is the
hub of water-related activity. As its
name indicates, the bureau runs the
sewage treatment plants, operates
and maintains the water supply sys-
tem and writes the regulations for the
watershed area upstate. Also impor-
tant is the Bureau of Water Register,
which tracks water use through meter
reading. Run by Commissioner Har-
vey Shultz, the DEP takes directions
from the mayor, and operates under
budgets proposed by the mayor and
approved by the Council and the
Board of Estimate. Working closely
alongside the DEP is the city's De-
partment of Health.
The state Department of Environ-
mental Conservation and the state
Department of Health oversee much
of the city's work, issuing permits for
water supply and waste management
as well as enforcing the city's
watershed regulations. They also set
water supply policy, with input from
the state Water Resources Planning
Council. The Department of Environ-
mental Conservation is run by Com-
missioner Thomas Jorling, and re-
ceives directives from the governor
and state legislature.
The Public Service Commission
regulates private water companies.
The Jamaica Supply Company, the
largest private water company in the
state, falls within the PSC's jurisdic-
tion.
Also important are two entities
created by state law in 1984 - the
New York City Municipal Water Fi-
nance Authority and the New York
City Water Board. The Water Finance
Authority has issued $400 million in
revenue bonds for water and sewer
projects and will become the chief
source of funds for projects in the
next decade. The water board sets
and collects water fees.
Created in 1985, the Mayor's Inter-
governmental Task Force on New York
Water Supply Needs includes people
from a variety of agencies who are
doing long-range planning on issues
like water supply and quality.
People wanting to become in-
volved in water planning can join
citizens' advisory committees set up
by the state DEC and DOH. A number
of environmental groups, including
Scenic Hudson, Citizens Union
Foundation, Environmental Policy
Forum, Coalition for the Bight, Hud-
son River Fishermen's Association,
Audobon Society, Environmental
Defense Fund, the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council and the
Sierra Club, are also active on water
issues. D
PUBLIC FORUM
THE
HOUSING CRISIS '
IN NEW YORK CITY
Date: Wednesday, Jan. 25, 6-8 p.m.
Hunter High School
(94th St. & Park Ave.)
Moderator: Mark Green
Panelists: Ruth Messinger, Bob Hayes
Richard Ravitch, Stanley Hill
Presented by Americans for Democratic Action
in coopera tion with Municipal Workers Union-DC 37
"COMMITMENT"
SInce 1980 HEAT has provided low cost home heating oil . burner and boiler repair services.
and energy management and conservation services to largely minority low and middle income
neighborhoods in the Bronx. Brooklyn. Manhattan and Queens.
As a proponent of economic empowerment for revitalization of the city's communities. HEAT is
committed to aSSisting newly emerging managers and owners of buildings with the reduction of
energy costs (long recognized as the single most expensive area of building management).
HEAT has presented tangible opportunities for tenant associations. housing coops. churches,
community organizations. homeowners and small businesses to gain substantial savings and
lower the costs of building operations.
Working collaboratively with other community service organizations with similar goals. and
working to establish its viability as a business entity. HEAT has committed its revenue gener-
ating capacity and potential to providing services that work for. and lead to. stable. productive
communities.
'ThrouBh the primary service of providing low cost home heating oil, various heating
pIMt services and energy management services, HEAT members have collectively
saved over $5.1 million.
HOUSING ENERGY ALLIANCE FOR TENANTS COOP CORP.
853 BROADWAY. SUITE 414. NEW YORK. N.Y. 10003 12121505-0286
If you are interested in leaming more about HEAT,
or if you are interested in becoming a HEAT member,
call or write :he HEAT office.
LETTERS
Disturbed
To the Editor:
I was quite disturbed to read your
recent article regarding the Public
Development Corporation's water-
front development efforts ("Between
the Idea and the Reality Falls PDC,"
City Limits, November 1988). It
amazes me that such an article,ridden
with charges and accusations against
PDC's waterfront development ef-
forts, could be written without the
opportunity for rebuttal and clarifica-
tion. This lack of professional cour-
tesy has resulted in an article laden
with distortions and inaccuracies
that could have easily been clarified.
For example, the article claims to
report upon the public hearing before
the City Council's Legislative Panel
on Waterfront Development, at
which Jim Stuckey, president of PDC,
was the first to give testimony. A
written copy of this testimony was
submitted to the council and made
public. It seems clear, however, that
the contents of this testimony were
ignored. I can find no other reason
for the apparent confusion regarding
PDC's process of planning and
negotiating development deals. The
testimony clearly outlines PDC's
waterfront development process-
the extensive pre-development
studies that are undertaken before in-
itiating a project, the development
guidelines that are formulated, the
Request for Proposals issued to en-
sure competitive developer response,
and the selection criteria for desig-
nating a developer. This section of
the testimony was obviously over-
looked, with PDC's developer selec-
tion process redefined in the article
as a system by which PDC "corrals a
developer with commitments of pub-
lic dollars." Had we been contacted,
clarification regarding this issue-
which was apparently needed-
could have been provided.
The city's developer designation
process is designed to encourage as
many development proposals to be
submitted for a project as possible.
In keeping with this policy,
whenever PDC issues an RFP, the re-
quest is widely advertised in na-
tional, local and regional publica-
tions. Additionally, a copy of the RFP
is sent to a mailing list of over 200
potential respondents. Clearly, this
type of extensive outreach generates
adequate responses from which a de-
veloper can be selected based upon
its qualifications and proposal - not
upon its "willingness" to accept pub-
lic dollars.
Another of many factual errors is
the article's claim that Stuckey"bla-
tantly contradicted the facts" relating
to the hiring of lobbyists. PDC has
never hired a lobbyist to represent
our interests before any legislative
body. The article points to the hiring
of Thomas Langmanl a consultant
that PDC, along with other economic
development entities, retained to
represent our interest in Washington.
Langman's services were were made
available to the City of New York
through a federal employee loan pro-
gram which helps municipalities in-
teract more effectively with the fed-
eral bureaucracy. This interest, as it
relates to PDC, extended only to fed-
eral agencies such as the Economic
Development Administration. Again,
this simple confusion could have
been made clear had we been asked.
Had PDC been afforded the oppor-
tunity to respond to the various state-
ments made throughout the article,
or contacted to provide more infor-
mation regarding some of the issues
raised within the article, these inac-
curacies would not have appeared. It
amazes me that any responsible pub-
lication could print such one-sided
nonsense. But perhaps that extends
City Limits a courtesy it does not de-
serve.
Lee Silberstein
Vice President
Public Development Corp.
City Limits replies: Silberstein says
we didn't get the full story. In fact,
that's exactly what we did. Unlike
the phalanx of PDC employees who
only attended the council hearings
for Stuckey's testimony, we returned
the next day to hear testimony from
a number of other people - elected
officials, community board members
and others concerned about PDC pro-
jects. Their testimony gave a strik-
ingly different picture of PDC's
waterfront planning process.
Perhaps we were too glib in saying
public dollars make the deal. We
could have quoted from PDC's 1986
waterfront development report:
" . . . the expertise we will be able to
offer to the private sector includes
assistance in obtaining permits,
managing the public review process,
and gaining the cooperation of other
public agencies."
As for Langman, PDC's executive
committee meeting minutes of Oc-
tober 30, 1986 state that his respon-
sibilities include "representing the
city at meetings with government of-
ficials and congressional members."
Silberstein says Langman's services
were made available through a fed-
eral employee loan program. But
PDC's executive committee ap-
proved a $46,000 contract with
Langman fQr eight months, the tab
shared with the Financial Services
Corporation.
Misconstrued
To the Editor:
Bonnie' Brower's "The City Plans
for a Homeless Future" (November
1988) misstates the facts and mis-
construes the intentions of the city's
plan to relocate all homeless families
from hotels to permanent housing or
transitional facilities within the next
two years.
Brower condemns the priority that
homeless families will receive when
applying for housing authority units,
even though all federally subsidized
housing authorities must give home-
less families priority according to
new regulations.
Brower next accuses the city of
"slashing" the in rem apartment re-
habilitation program, through which
15,000 units have been provided to
homeless families since 1984. The
reason the city will be able to re-
habilitate 3,100 units for homeless
families this year, as compared to
4,000 last year, is because we have
already repaired nearly every vacant
unit in the city-owned stock of oc-
cupied buildings. The rehabilitation
program must increasingly rely on
gut rehabs of vacant buildings, a more
costly and time-consuming process,
which is why production will tem-
porarily drop during 1989. Brower
compounds her error by projecting a
similar decrease for 1990. In fact,
apartment production is expected to
return to the 4,000-unit level in 1990
as the program gets into full swing.
Brower correctly notes that the
transitional facilities will provide
homeless families with private units
complete with kitchens and bath-
rooms. She criticizes the expense of
these facilities, but does not explain
the reason for it. The cost is due to
provision of extensive on-site social,
medical and employment services -
services many families need to pre-
pare themselves for independent liv-
ing.
Brower claims that the transitional
facilities will be geographically iso-
lated, yet most of the sites are located
in the same areas where the majority
of homess families originated. These
neighborhoods will be an improve-
ment over the commercial areas
around the midtown Manhattan
hotels.
Brower incorrectly states that
families who relocate from the hotels
are given no choice of where they
may move. To the contrary, families
who are eligible for permenent hous-
ing may view up to three apartments,
and families who relocate to transi-
tional housing may choose between
facilities. Many families will be able
to return to their former com-
munities, space permitting.
Brower notes that homeless
families in transitional housing will
be subject to involuntary discharge,
but she does not explain the limited
grounds under which this may occur.
Families may be discharged for disre-
garding rules, abuse of drugs or al-
cohol, or refusal to look for perma-
nent housing. Discharged families
will be immediately transferred to
another facility, since New York City
provides shelter to all who want it.
The goal of the two-year plan is to
return families who have been home-
less for more than one year to perma-
nent housing while improving the
transitional housing system. The city
is also expanding its homelessness
prevention programs. Under an evic-
tion prevention program, for exam-
ple, social workers stationed in the
housing courts provide information
and back rent payments to families
who are in imminent danger of evic-
tion.
Brower concludes her article by re-
commending that city funds and vac-
ant property be targeted for homeless
housing, and I assure her that this is
already the case. Under the city's 10-
year, $5.1 billion housing plan, $800
million is earmarked for the home-
less and most of the 252,000 units
created or rehabed will be for the
homeless and those of low and mod-
erate income. Every vacant city-
owned building that can be rehabili-
tated will be rehabilitated by 1993,
and one-third of these units will be
provided to homeless families and
individuals.
Alberta B. Fuentes
Director
Mayor's Office for Homeless and
SRO Housing Services
Bonnie Brower replies: Alberta
Fuentes tries but fails to obscure the
truth that the Koch administration
avoids permanently rehousing the
homeless, and pursues policies that
continue to fuel the loss of affordable
housing.
This refusal explains the insane
duality of the city's lO-year housing
plan. The larger piece is a market-dri-
ven plan to use the bulk of city prop-
erty and funds to create thousands
of higher income housing units and
new real estate markets. The smaller
piece develops economically and ra-
cially segregated shelters and hous-
ing for the homeless and a few
thousand other poor families, in un-
derserved and geographically iso-
lated neighborhoods of least value to
the private market.
This two-city policy accounts for
the administration's willingness to
spend $100,000 per transitional shel-
ter unit excluding social services (ac-
cording to HRA spokespersons at an
October 27 City Council hearing),
cutbacks in production of permanent
units from 4,000 to 3,100 per year in-
cluding rehab of vacant buildings, ac-
cording to an HPD spokesperson at
the hearing); and refusal to spend the
$55,000-$60,000 per unit (according
to HPD in a Dec. 8 Times article) to
include some homeless families in
the Vacant Buildings Program re-
habs. It explains exclusion of the
homeless from five of the city's seven
new production programs; why the
poor will receive less thun one-quar-
ter of all the new housing pr.oduGfJd,
although they represent almost half'
of the city's population and have the
most urgent housing needs. And it
explains why homelessness is being
treated as a social pathology rather
than a housing and income problem,
and why residents are evicted for not
making their beds or seeing their
caseworkers.
Fuentes' assertion that "the city is
expanding its homelessness preven-
tion programs" is a joke. If the Koch
administration gave a damn about
stemming homelessness, it would:
provide free lawyers to all house-
holds facing eviction - not just
those in Brooklyn and the Bronx in
a critical but underfunded demonst-
ration project; pay the back rents of
everyone facing eviction, not just
those whose arrears aren't substan-
tially greater than their shelter allow-
ances and implement a limited rent
subsidy program to keep at-risk
families in their homes; do aggressive
code enforcement targeted to low in-
come buildings; foreclose on build-
ings the minute they were eligible;
and aggressively prosecute owners
for terror tactics before they burned
or emptied their buildings.
Above all, the city would recast its
tax abatement, rehab, zoning and
property disposition policies to save
existing low income housing while
keeping it affordable to low income
tenants.
Nothing illustrates the thrust of the
mayor's housing policies better than
the fact that over the 10 years of the
plan, we will be lucky to see 1,000
more low income units produced
than we are losing annually. At dec-
ade's end, we will be faced with a loss
of 120,000 low income units, and no
city property left to replace them.
Where will many of the former resi-
dents be? On the streets or in Koch's
and Fuentes' homeless shelters.O
Editor's note: City Limits wel-
comes letters from our readers. But
we ask that you try to keep your
letters to 300 words in length or
we may be forced to make drastic
cuts, unintentionally changing
what you meant to say.
WORKSHOP
TENANT ORGANIZER. To advise SRO tenants of their rights,
assist them in housing court & before city & state agencies,
develop tenants' assocs, conduct training sessions and join co-
alitions on SRO issues. Person should be assertive, expd in
tenant or community organizing, able to work with all types of
people, know housing laws and housing court procedures. Sal-
ary: pursuant to bargaining agreement. Resume: Anne R.
Teicher, Managing Attorney, East Side SRO Legal Services Pro-
ject, MFY Legal Services, 233 Grand St, NYC 10013. 966-7410.
CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANT. Supervise & train low income
homesteaders in all phases of construction. Bid-out contracts
for rehab work; contract administration; coordinate supervision
& requisitioning with architects; schedule work for 58-building,
180-unit project. Requirements: construction managagement
exp, knowledge of NYC building codes, Spanish speaking a +
~ a l a r y : mid-high 20s. Resume: Peter Wood, Mutual Housing
Association of New York, 300 Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn, NYC
11217. (718) 789-5960. 9 a.m.-noon.
RELOCATION SPECIALISTS. Help families and individuals re-
locate to permanent and transitional housing; general caseload
as well as specialties in PWA housing, employment/child care
& other support services. Qualifications: expd in housing, com-
munity organizing. Work with target populations necessary. Sal-
ary: to $20,000 with exc benefits. Available immed. Resume: M.
Winkler, The Partnership for the Homeless, 6 E. 30th St., NYC
10016.
Nowwe,neet

more ,nsurance
needs than ever
for groups
likevours.
Pre-Valentine's Day
Fundraising
PARTY
for
City Limits
$5 COVER, DANCING, FOOD, CASH BAR
FRIDAX FEB. 10, 6 P.M
4.() Prince St., 2nd floor
925-9820
Bring all your loved ones!
For 15 years we've insured tenant and community
groups all over New York City. Now, in our new,
larger headquarters we can offer more programs
and quicker service than ever before. Courteously.
Efficiently. And professionally.
Richards and Fenniman, Inc. has always provided
extremely competitive insurance programs based
on a careful evaluation of the special needs of our
customers. And because of the volume of business
we handle, we can often couple these programs
with low-cost financing, if required.
We 've been a leader from the start. And with our new
expanded services which now include life and bene-
fits insurance, we can do even more for you.
For information call:
Ingrid Kaminski, v.P.
(212) 267-8080.
RIch __ 8nd F ......... , Inc.
123 William Street, New York, New York 10038-3804
Your community housing insurance professionals
Helping The Homeless Help Themselves
More Affordable Housing For Homeless And Low-Income Households
THE PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE HOMELESS
presents
ACfION DAY '89
Another Cold Winter Lies Ahead
Join Us On January 28th
The New School for Social Research
66West 12th Street
Come and See What You Can Do
Together We Can Make a Difference
TOPICS
Homelessness And Discrimination:
Is There A Connection?
Housing For People With AIDS:
Where Are We Going?
Funding Opportunities ToAssist
The Homeless - An Update
Drop-In Centers: Their Function,
And Why We Need More of Them
Support Programs: Education,
Child and Health Care And
Legal Services
Assisting Families From
Homelessness To Housing
Affordable Housing Strategies,
Funding And Models
The Employed And Employable
Homeless
Ending The Welfare Hotels:
Will ItHappen?
A Danger ToWhom? - Mental
Disabilities, Drugs, Alcohol
And Crime
(No Fee, Lunch will be Provided. Due to Limited Seating, Reservations must be in by January 23, 1989)
REGISTRATION FORM
Name __
Address __
City State Zip _
Phone Affiliation _
oI will attend oI will not attend
Please detach and return to: The Partnership for the Homeless AN INTERFAITHORGANIZATION
6 East 30th Street Any questions? Call (212)684-3444
New York, NY10016

City Limits Magazine, January 1989 Issue

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

City Limits Magazine, January 1989 Issue

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

January 1989

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen