DOCSLIB.ORG

Foreclosure Activity in New York City, and the Neighborhood Impacts of Foreclosures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foreclosure Activity in New York City, and the Neighborhood Impacts of Foreclosures Foreclosure Activity in New York City, and the Neighborhood Impacts of Foreclosures Testimony of Vicki Been Elihu Root Professor of Law Director, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy New York University Before New York City Council Committee on Community Development Albert Vann, Chair January 22, 2009 Chairman Vann and all the members of the Committee, I am honored to be here today to share with you some of our research on the state of foreclosures in New York City and the effects of mortgage foreclosures on the surrounding community. .My name is Vicki Been, and I am the Elihu Root Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and director of the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. The Furman Center is a joint research center of NYU’s School of Law and its Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. Founded in 1995, the Center brings the talents of our law faculty and our urban economics faculty, along with the talents and energy of phenomenal students from all parts of New York University, to bear on urban problems. We are one of the nation’s leading academic research centers devoted to the public policy aspects of land use, real estate development and housing. Few urban problems have been more vexing, or more threatening, than the huge numbers of mortgage foreclosures plaguing our communities. To understand better where foreclosures are happening and how they are impacting our communities, the Furman Center has undertaken Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Testimony for New York City Council’s Committee on Community Development January 22, 2009, Page 2 several studies to examine the patterns of New York City foreclosures and the external costs they impose. I will describe our research on both these issues in turn. Foreclosure Activity in New York City: The Furman Center has data on foreclosure filings in New York City since 1993. Foreclosure activity was relatively stable (and relatively low) in the first years of the 2000s. But in 2006, as the subprime mortgage crisis was beginning to unfold, we saw a sizable increase in the number of foreclosure filings, and have seen sharp increases year-to-year since then, reaching up to 15,000 foreclosure filings in 2007, and nearly 13,000 in the first three quarters of 2008. Foreclosures in New York are very concentrated, with the most foreclosure activity taking place in areas that have seen high rates of subprime lending and in largely minority communities. Among the ten community districts with the highest rates of foreclosure in 2007, seven also were among the ten community districts with the highest rates of subprime lending in 2006. In nine of those neighborhoods, the population is at least 86% non-white. Queens and Brooklyn have been hit the hardest. In 2007, those two boroughs accounted for 78% of the City’s foreclosure filings. And within those boroughs, certain neighborhoods are being affected much more than others. Take Jamaica, for example; in 2007, Jamaica was home to 31% of the foreclosure filings in Queens, even though it makes up only 9% of the borough’s housing units. Or in Brooklyn, East New York had three and a half times the number of foreclosure filings as the entire borough of Manhattan. Looking just at the number of foreclosure filings can sometimes be misleading, because each community district features a different composition of housing types. In order to make fairer comparisons across neighborhoods, we also look at the rate of foreclosure filings per 1000 1-4 family properties. These rates reveal similar disparities; in 2007, Bedford Stuyvesant had a Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Testimony for New York City Council’s Committee on Community Development January 22, 2009, Page 3 rate of 65.3 foreclosure filings per 1000 1-4 family properties, more than three times the citywide average of 20.2.1 Unlike many parts of the country, where condo foreclosures are more common, in New York City the vast majority (about 91%) of foreclosure filings are on one-to-four family properties. Moreover, 60% of all foreclosure filings are on 2-4 family buildings or 5+ buildings, resulting in many innocent renter households being affected by the foreclosure crisis. The Furman Center estimates that in 2007, at least 15,000 renter households were living in buildings that entered foreclosures.2 The Effects Foreclosures Have on the Value of Neighboring Properties: Foreclosures obviously harm those who are losing their homes, as well as their creditors. But if foreclosures also harm third parties such as neighbors, the broader community, and tenants, the justification for government intervention in the crisis becomes even more compelling. To assess the external effects foreclosures have on neighbors and the broader community, we examined the impact that the filing of a foreclosure notice has on the sales prices of nearby properties. We evaluated these impacts at different distances and over different periods of time. We take into account unobserved characteristics of the neighborhood, as well as broader economic conditions. Our model accordingly does a better job of controlling for the various neighborhood characteristics that may affect both sales prices and the likelihood that a foreclosure will occur nearby, which allows us to isolate the impacts foreclosure starts have on prices from the impacts of other market conditions. 1 Appendix A provides the numbers and rates of foreclosure as well as rankings of the community districts, a map of citywide foreclosure activity, and correlations between foreclosure filings and community district characteristics. 2 This analysis is included in Appendix B. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Testimony for New York City Council’s Committee on Community Development January 22, 2009, Page 4 Before I share our results, it is useful to review the various hypotheses about why foreclosures may have a negative impact on surrounding housing prices. First, property owners who are in default on their mortgages may be less likely to maintain or upgrade their properties, either because they have less incentive to maintain property they may lose, or because the mortgage default results from financial problems that also constrain the property owners from taking appropriate care of their homes. Properties may start to appear rundown as a result, which may make the surrounding homes less desirable. Second, after completion of foreclosure proceedings and eviction of the delinquent borrower, the property may sit vacant and suffer further physical decline. Vacant properties are likely to depress surrounding property values because they contribute to neighborhood blight, may attract vandalism and crime, and more generally signal that the neighborhood is not stable. Even if the vacant properties are well maintained and do not attract criminal or other undesirable activities, they add to the local supply of available units, and under the law of supply and demand, will thus depress property values. Third, distressed properties sold either at foreclosure auctions or pre-foreclosure sales may be more likely to be sold to investors and become renter-occupied, which may lead to lower levels of maintenance even after the properties are re-occupied. Finally, properties with distressed loans are likely to sell at a discount – both at pre-foreclosure sales and at foreclosure auctions – thus affecting the price of “comparables” used to estimate neighboring property values. If foreclosures are clustered by neighborhood, the magnitude of these negative effects is likely to increase. Further, the size of these effects is likely to differ according to the strength of the housing market. Foreclosed properties are more likely to remain vacant for longer periods in stable or declining housing markets than in appreciating markets. Our research shows that foreclosures have a depressing effect on nearby sales. Properties near recent foreclosure starts on average sell at lower prices than comparable properties in the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Testimony for New York City Council’s Committee on Community Development January 22, 2009, Page 5 same neighborhoods that are not near foreclosure starts. As expected, the size of the price impact generally increases with the number of nearby foreclosure starts, although the marginal impact of each additional foreclosure decreases once there is a concentration of foreclosures in a neighborhood. Specifically, we find that: The sales prices of homes within 250 feet of at least one property for which a lis pendens had been filed in the prior 18 months were 0.8 percent lower than the prices of similar properties in the same neighborhood but not within 250 feet of any recent foreclosure start, all else equal. The depressing effects of foreclosure starts on property values appear to linger beyond the time period when we might expect the foreclosure to be resolved; being within 250 feet of foreclosure starts that occurred more than 18 months before the sale is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in sale price. Sales prices appear to be sensitive to foreclosure starts that occur at up to 1000 feet away from the property, but the size of the impact decreases with increased distance, and shows some evidence of a threshold effect. Sales prices of homes between 250 and 500 feet of three or more properties for which a lis pendens had been filed in the past 18 months were 1.4 percent lower than the prices of comparable properties with no foreclosure starts within that distance. However, being within 250-500 feet of 1-2 recent foreclosure starts was not associated with a drop in sales prices. Similarly, when looking at the effects of foreclosure starts between 500 and 1000 feet away, we found that homes proximity to 6 or more foreclosure starts in the previous 18 months was associated with a 2.8 percent Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy Testimony for New York City Council’s Committee on Community Development January 22, 2009, Page 6 decrease in sales price, but found no significant impact of fewer than 6 foreclosure starts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What More Do We Need to Know About How to Prevent and Mitigate Displacement of Low- and Moderate-Income Households from Gentrifying Neighborhoods?
    What More Do We Need to Know about How to Prevent and Mitigate Displacement of Low- and Moderate-Income Households from Gentrifying Neighborhoods? VICKI BEEN1 New York University he extent to which gentrification results in the displacement of low- and moderate-income households from neighborhoods undergoing signifi- cant change is still the subject of study and debate among urban policy researchers.2 Recent evidence suggests that, at least in areas outside low- vacancy “superstar cities”3 with intense gentrification, renters who likely Tare the most vulnerable to displacement generally do not move away from gentrifying neighborhoods at higher rates than such households move from nongentrifying areas.4 Elected officials, housing advocates, and the public, on the other hand, have no doubt that gentrification can and does cause displacement.5 There are a number of reasons the research findings on displacement may be less accu- rate or complete than reports from affected neighborhoods. First, there is considerable disagreement, especially early in the process, about which neighborhoods actually are gentrifying. Second, data tracking people’s moves to and from neighborhoods is limited because of concerns about the confidentiality of tax, social service, and other governmental data files that follow individuals over time, and because private sources of linked data, such as credit reporting bureau files, are incomplete in a variety of ways (some households don’t have credit files, for example). Third, even if residents of gentrifying neighborhoods may move no more often from gentrifying neighborhoods than similar households in other areas, they may move for different reasons. Residents of non-gentrifying neighborhoods may more often move voluntarily — seeking better neighborhoods or jobs, for example — while residents of gentrifying neighborhoods may more often move involuntarily, wanting to stay in the neighborhood but unable to afford it.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Board No. 8 Calvary Community Church 1575 St. John's
    Community Board No. 8 Calvary Community Church 1575 St. John’s Place Brooklyn, NY 11213 May 10, 2012 Members Present Members Absent Akosua Albritton Kim Albert Glinda Andrews Viloa Bing Desmond Atkins Dr. Flize Bryan LeeAnn Banks Angelina Pinto Princess Benn-James Cy Richardson Samantha Bernadine Patricia Scantlebury Julia Boyd William Suggs Gail Branch-Muhammad Deborah Young Helen Coley Renaye Cuyler Elected Officials Present James Ellis Diama Foster Councilman Al Vann, 36th Council District Ede Fox Shirley Patterson, 43rd Assembly District Leader Fred Frazier Nizjoni Granville Elected Official’s Representatives Curtis Harris Doris Heriveaux J. Markowicz, Assemblywoman Robinson’s Office XeerXeema Jordan Charles Jackson, Congresswoman Clarke’s Office Shalawn Langhorne Simone Hawkins, Councilwoman James’s Office Priscilla Maddox Jim Vogel, Senator Montgomery’s Office Robert Matthews Kwasi Mensah Liaisons Present Adelaide Miller Dr. Frederick Monderson Sophia Jones, Bklyn Boro Pres. Office Atim oton Andrea Phillips-Merriman, Brooklyn Alton Pierce Neighborhood Improvement Association Robert Puca Mary Reed CB Staff Present Marlene Saunders Stacey Sheffey Michelle George, District Manager Meredith Staton Julia Neale, Community Associate Audrey Taitt-Hall Valerie Hodges-Mitchell, Comm. Service Aide Launa Thomas-Bullock Gregory Todd Ethel Tyus Yves Vilus Sharon Wedderburn Robert Witherwax Vilma Zuniga FOREST CITY RATNER COMPANIES – Ms. Ashley Cotton BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER – Mr. David Anderson Ms. Cotton announced that there will be 2000 jobs created by the Barclays Arena opening. FCRC has launched an outreach initiative to fill the positions, and has agreed to seek to hire residents from Community Boards 2, 3, 6, 8 and graduates of the BUILD training program, as well as NYCHA residents.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHEDULE for MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO CITY of NEW YORK Saturday, February 01, 2014
    SCHEDULE FOR MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO CITY OF NEW YORK Saturday, February 01, 2014 9:40 - 10:10 AM COMMUNICATIONS CALL Staff: Monica Klein 10:15 - 10:45 AM TOBOGGAN RUN Location: Drop off: In front of 575 7th avenue Attendees: (t)Commissioner Roger Goodell , (t)Senator Charles E. Schumer, First Lady, Dante de Blasio Press Staff: Wiley Norvell 11:00 - 11:30 AM SUPERBOWL BOULEVARD FIELD GOAL KICK Location: Superbowl Boulevard, Broadway bewtween 45th & 46th Streets Attendees: Dante de Blasio 1:50 - 3:00 PM SUPER BOWL XLVIII HANDOFF CEREMONY Location: Roman Numerals Stage Drop Off: 7th avenue b/w 42nd and 43rd street Attendees: (t) Governor Christie; (t) Governor Cuomo; Governor Brewer(Arizona); Woody Johnson, NY/NJ Super Bowl Host Committee Co-Chair & NY Jets Owner; Jonathan Tisch, NY/NJ Super Bowl Host Committee Co-Chair & NY Giants Owner ; Al Kelly, NY/NJ Super Bowl Host Committee President and CEO (Emcee); Michael Bidwill, Arizona Cardinals Owner; David Rousseau, Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee; Jay Parry, Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee CEO Press Staff: Wiley Norvell, Marti Adams 3:00 - 3:30 PM DEPART BOWL XLVIII HANDOFF CEREMONY EN ROUTE RESIDENCE Drive Time: 30 mins Car : BdB, DdB, Follow: Javon SCHEDULE FOR MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO CITY OF NEW YORK Sunday, February 02, 2014 7:00 - 7:45 AM STATEN ISLAND GROUNDHOG DAY CEREMONY Location: Staten Island Zoo 614 Broadway, Staten Island, NY Attendees: Audience: 700 people On Stage: Comptroller Scott Stringer (t); Council Member Vincent Gentile; Reginald Magwood, NYS Park Director, representing
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Parking Requirements, Transit Proximity and Development in New York City
    McDonnell, Madar & Been 1 Minimum Parking Requirements, Transit Proximity and Development in New York City Simon McDonnell* Josiah Madar Vicki Been Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy New York University 110 West 3rd Street Room 209F New York 10012 *Corresponding Author ABSTRACT New York City policymakers are planning for a city of over 9 million residents by 2030, a large increase from today. A central goal of City officials is to accommodate this increase while simultaneously improving the City’s overall environmental performance, addressing externalities arising from traffic congestion and providing increased access to affordable housing. The requirement in the City’s zoning code that new residential construction be accompanied by a minimum number of off-street parking spaces, however, may conflict with this goal. Critics argue that parking requirements bundle the cost of unnecessary new parking with new housing, not only increasing the cost of housing, but also reducing the density at which it can be built. Facilitating car ownership by requiring parking may also lead to increases in auto-related externalities. In this research, we combine a theoretical discussion of parking requirements in New York City with a quantitative analysis of how they relate to transit and development opportunity. Using lot-level data and GIS we estimate two measures of the parking requirement for each lot and at a City, borough and neighborhood level. Our results indicate that the per unit parking requirement is, on average, lower in areas near rail transit stations, consistent with the City’s development goals. However, we also find that the required number of spaces per square foot of land area is higher, on average, in these areas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at the History of the Legislators of Color NEW YORK STATE BLACK, PUERTO RICAN, HISPANIC and ASIAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS
    New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus 1917-2014 A Look at the History of the Legislators of Color NEW YORK STATE BLACK, PUERTO RICAN, HISPANIC AND ASIAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS 1917-2014 A Look At The History of The Legislature 23 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus would like to express a special appreciation to everyone who contributed time, materials and language to this journal. Without their assistance and commitment this would not have been possible. Nicole Jordan, Executive Director Raul Espinal, Legislative Coordinator Nicole Weir, Legislative Intern Adrienne L. Johnson, Office of Assemblywoman Annette Robinson New York Red Book The 1977 Black and Puerto Rican Caucus Journal New York State Library Schomburg Research Center for Black Culture New York State Assembly Editorial Services Amsterdam News 2 DEDICATION: Dear Friends, It is with honor that I present to you this up-to-date chronicle of men and women of color who have served in the New York State Legislature. This book reflects the challenges that resolute men and women of color have addressed and the progress that we have helped New Yorkers achieve over the decades. Since this book was first published in 1977, new legislators of color have arrived in the Senate and Assembly to continue to change the color and improve the function of New York State government. In its 48 years of existence, I am proud to note that the Caucus has grown not only in size but in its diversity. Originally a group that primarily represented the Black population of New York City, the Caucus is now composed of members from across the State representing an even more diverse people.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Rights in New York City: 1982–2006
    VOTING RIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY: 1982–2006 JUAN CARTAGENA* I. INTRODUCTION TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT At the time of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the continuation of Section 5 coverage to three counties in New York City, the city was at a major crossroads regarding faithful compliance with the mandates of the Act. Just one year earlier in the largest city in the United States, the largest municipal election apparatus in the country was brought to a screeching halt when the federal courts enjoined the Septem- ber mayoral primaries—two days before Election Day—because the city failed to obtain preclearance of new (and discriminatory) city council lines and election district changes.1 The cost of closing down the election was enormous, and a lesson was painfully learned: minority voters knew how to get back to court, the courts would not stand by idly in the face of obvious Section 5 noncompliance and business-as-usual politics would no longer be the same. Weeks later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not only of- ficially deny preclearance to the city council plan, but would find that its egregious disregard of the burgeoning African-American and Latino voting strength in the city had a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory ef- fect.2 In this context, the 1982 extension of Section 5 to parts of New York City should not have seemed so anomalous to a country that continued to * General Counsel, Community Service Society. Esmeralda Simmons of the Center for Law and Social Justice, Medgar Evers College, Margaret Fung of the Asian American Legal Defense and Educa- tion Fund, Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund assisted in editing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-1: in the Matter of Campaign for One New York and United for Affordable NYC
    2016-1: In the Matter of Campaign for One New York and United for Affordable NYC July 6, 2016 The New York City Campaign Finance Board (the “Board” or “CFB”) issues this determination concerning a complaint received on February 22, 2016 from Common Cause/NY (“the Complaint”). The issue presented is whether a candidate, Bill de Blasio (“Mr. de Blasio”), and his 2017 campaign for Mayor (the “2017 Campaign”) have violated the Campaign Finance Act (“the Act”) and Board Rules by establishing and cooperating closely with Campaign for One New York (“C41NY”) and United for Affordable NYC (“UFANYC”). The Board’s central mandate is to protect the integrity of the Act and administer the Campaign Finance Program (“the Program”). The effectiveness of the Program depends on the Act’s contribution and expenditure limits, which restrict the potential influence of large special interest donors. The Board is concerned about candidates engaging in cooperation with outside organizations that have made expenditures on issue advocacy communications promoting the candidate, especially organizations that raise contributions that would be otherwise impermissible under the Act. Such cooperative activity raises the question of whether these organizations are making expenditures in connection with a covered election. The Board simultaneously issues Advisory Opinion 2016-1 to provide further guidance in this area of the law. The Advisory Opinion provides a basis for the Board to review the issue presented by the Complaint, and establishes a set of factors the Board will consider to determine whether coordinated expenditures were made in connection with a covered election. The Board has determined that C41NY is not independent of the 2017 Campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Restaurant Etakn Ititgosu P
    20160222-NEWS--0001-NAT-CCI-CN_-- 2/19/2016 8:41 PM Page 1 CRAINS ® FEBRUARY 22-28, 2016 | PRICE $3.00 NEW YORK BUSINESS GHOST RESTAURANT Order online, but don’t try to show up for a meal PAGE 13 ALSO Closing Rikers [in 5 steps] P. 6 MEATPACKING DISTRICT GROWS UP P.8 THE LIST: NEW YORK’S TOP VC FIRMS P. 11 VOL. XXXII, NO. 8 WWW.CRAINSNEWYORK.COM 08 5 NEWSPAPER 71486 01068 0 Presents The Inaugural Heritage Healthcare Innovation Awards 2016 Innovation. Commitment. Community. Join us in celebrating the healthcare leaders in the New York metropolitan community*. This May, Heritage Provider Network honors the exceptional leaders, pioneers, and trailblazers in New York healthcare in the fi rst ever Heritage Healthcare Innovation Awards. These prestigious awards recognize the best of today’s healthcare clinicians, administrators and researchers who are pioneering new modes of diagnosis, treatment and care delivery, and also impacting long-term aff ordability. Their commitment provides our communities, and our society at large, better access to more cost-eff ective and higher quality care. Finalists will be honored at a luncheon in NYC on May 16. Winners will be awarded in the following categories: Heritage Innovation in Healthcare Delivery Heritage Healthcare Leadership Award: Award: Recognizing an innovator in the Recognizing a leader in the New York area who has development of new modes of diagnosis, treatment made a signifi cant impact in their healthcare fi eld. and care who actively improves access to services This forward-thinker has forever changed the way and improves the overall quality of healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Board No. 8 Berean Missionary Baptist Church 1641 Bergen Street Brooklyn, NY 11213
    Community Board No. 8 Berean Missionary Baptist Church 1641 Bergen Street Brooklyn, NY 11213 May 13, 2010 Members Present Members Excused Kim Albert Akosua Albritton Glinda Andrews Helen Coley Edo Banach Robert Matthews Viola Bing Clarine Miller Gail Branch-Muhammad Marlene Saunders Dr. Flize Bryan Audrey Taitt-Hall Diana Foster Ede Fox Members Absent Fred Frazier Nizjoni Granville Julia Boyd Doris Heriveaux Teri Coaxum Princess James Renaye Cuyler Xeerxeema Jordan Jesse Hamilton Shalawn Langhorne Shirley Lee Priscilla Maddox Marie Louis Kwasi Mensah Hasoni Pratts Adelaide Miller Patricia Scantlbury Dr. Fred Monderson Atim Oton Elected Officials Present Robert Puca Mary Reed Albert Vann, 36th Council District Meredith Staton Ola Alabi, Dist. Leader- 57th A.D William Suggs Launa Thomas-Bullock Elected Official’s Reps. Gregory Todd Ethel Tyus Maurice Roberts, Senator Adams Yves Vilus Carl Luciano, Councilman Vann Sharon Wedderburn Jervonne Singletary, Assemblyman Camara Douglas Williams Kristia Beabrun, Congresswoman Clarke Robert Witherwax A. Davis, Councilwoman James Vilma Zuniga CB Staff Present Liaisons Present Michelle George, District Manager Gwen Sumter, Brooklyn Children’s Museum Valerie Hodges-Mitchell Lt. Mark Secular, 77th Precinct The regular meeting of Community Board 8 was called to order at 7:15 PM by Ms. Nizjoni Granville, Chairperson. Acceptance of Minutes – The minutes of the last Community Board meeting were accepted as written. Correspondence – CB 8 newsletter and other material were distributed. Ms. Granville welcomed everyone to the monthly meeting of Community Board 8. She invited Ms. Kristia Beaubrun from Congresswoman Clarke’s office to make a presentation regarding Academy Night. Ms. Beaubrun thanked the board for allowing her an opportunity to share information regarding Academy night.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL 2012 GRASSROOTS PRESERVATION AWARDS and P R E S E RVAT I O N PA RT Y
    HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL 2012 GRASSROOTS PRESERVATION AWARDS and P R E S E RVAT I O N PA RT Y Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 6pm South Street Seaport Museum 12 Fulton Street Between Front and South Streets South Street Seaport Historic District Manhattan PROGRAM 2012 Grassroots Preservation Awards and Annual Preservation Party Tuesday, June 5, 2012 Welcome Presentation of Awards Coalition to Save Manufacturers Hanover Trust The Green-Wood Cemetery Parkway Village Historical Society West End Preservation Society Friend in High Places Council Member Albert Vann 36th District, Brooklyn Friend from the Media DNAinfo Mickey Murphy Award Susan Henshaw Jones Closing Remarks 3 Grassroots Preservation Awards Successful historic preservation efforts in New York City require a collaboration among many parties, including the public, government agencies and the private sector. Without popular support even the most well-intentioned and farsighted public policy cannot be implemented, and without governmental guidance even the most organized and well-funded private efforts are doomed to fail. With these awards HDC seeks to recognize, honor and encourage public participation in the preservation process. These are the individuals and organizations that, with their time, effort and support, move the preservation collaboration forward. By working with, encouraging and cajoling public decision-makers, these grassroots preservationists form the foundation of all our work. In 2000, HDC gave the first annual Grassroots Preservation Awards to recognize such outstanding efforts. In addition, the awards include three special categories. The Friend in High Places and Friend from the Media Awards honor and acknowledge the dedication and support of elected officials and the press for encouraging the cause of historic preservation throughout the city.
    [Show full text]
  • ROBERT CORNEGY Is a Hardworking First Responder Who Is Dedicated to Serving the Needs of Our Community Twenty-Four Hours a Day, Seven Days a Week
    A Message from New York City’s Frontline Workers VOTE CORNEGY Democrat for the 36th Council District | Bed-Stuy & Crown Heights Supported by: Parent Coordinators | Social Service Employees | Uniform Traffic & Sanitation Agents Uniformed EMTs & Paramedics, FDNY | Uniformed EMS Officers, FDNY | Transit Workers Just like us city workers, ROBERT CORNEGY is a hardworking first responder who is dedicated to serving the needs of our community twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. We published this newsletter to spread the word on why Mr. Cornegy deserves to be our next Councilman. We hope that you will join us in voting for CORNEGY in the Democratic Primary on Tuesday, September 10th! Robert CORNEGY — Fighting for Healthcare for Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights Residents! Last December, Interfaith Medical Center filed for bankruptcy due to decades of financial difficulties related to hospital management and decreases in state and federal aid for Medicaid and Medicare. In July, it was announced that the hospital will close on August 26th, but on that day, the Department of Health decided to delay closure until mid-September. This recent development is due to the work Robert Cornegy has done in the fight to save Interfaith. Robert Cornegy, the Vice-Chair of the Health and Social Services Committee of Community Board 3, started the Campaign to Save Interfaith last fall when he first heard about its plans to close. Cornegy was instrumental in the creation of the Interfaith Community Advisory Board, which is spearheading the effort to engage the community in the process of saving our hospital. Cornegy united churches, public housing residents, elected officials, and healthcare workers to speak out on the importance of Interfaith Medical Center to not only Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights, but also to all of Central Brooklyn.
    [Show full text]
  • De Blasio Deposition
    Case 1:15-cv-05236-LTS-KHP Document 749 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x SHAUNA NOEL and EMMANUELLA SENAT, Plaintiffs, -against- 15-CV-5236 (LTS) (KHP) CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S MAY 8, 2019 OPINION AND ORDER (ECF 745) Craig Gurian Anti-Discrimination Center, Inc. 250 Park Avenue, Suite 7097 New York, New York 10177 (212) 537-5824 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs Mariann Meier Wang Cuti Hecker Wang LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2603 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 1:15-cv-05236-LTS-KHP Document 749 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 POINT I THIS COURT’S DECEMBER 2018 DECISION ON PRIVILEGE ISSUES, RELEVANCE, AND MOTIVATION CONTRADICTS THE UNDERLYING MAGISTRATE JUDGE OPINION DENYING THE DEPOSITION AND
    [Show full text]