Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Manhattanville Realities
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 20, 2007
While faculty panelists and student hunger strikers may be commended for their idealism and public spirit, it should also be noted that their demands are not necessarily appreciated by those who actually live in the Morningside Heights and Manhattanville area, and whose opinions of Columbia’s proposed expansion are shaped by their actual experience of these neighborhoods. Much of Columbia’s redevelopment area is dirty, derelict, and forbidding. Columbia’s plans would go far toward creating a revitalized and attractive resource for employment, study, and recreation.
Affordable housing is an undoubted necessity. However, provision of this benefit is the business of government, which presumably could long since have exercised its power of eminent domain to subsidize such construction. The fact that outcry on this subject is now being raised in the context of Columbia’s action strikes many of us as disingenuous, to say the least.
Columbia is as much a part of the larger community as any other institution or commercial enterprise. Its desire to expand is the consequence of growth and change, not the encroachment of a feudal oppressor. The ideological commitments of its students and faculty are an expected feature of academic life. But it should not be assumed that we who are area residents need them to articulate and champion our welfare.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 11)
Post a Comment
Columbia is not responsible for all the displacement in the area. The State Legislator's inability to raise the $2,000 cap for rent-stabilized apartments to keep housing affordable is probably as responsible if not more so for private landowners in the area to keep apartments empty, waiting for students and new residents to move into the area.
However, it should be noted that the change that we are seeing does not have to happen. We all have a vested interest in promoting mixed-income neighborhoods and making sure that Manhattan does not become the exclusive domain of the upper middle class and the rich.
The reality also is that Columbia is not just an entity. Although private, it is an educational institution that has a responsibility to its neighbors to share resources. How much is what the community negotiations are about -- ultimately, its about not just what Columbia promises, but if it actually can make good on those promises. The expansion is just too big to just let blind faith decide.
"We all have a vested interest in promoting mixed-income neighborhoods and making sure that Manhattan does not become the exclusive domain of the upper middle class and the rich."
Or you could just get the hell out.
In response to someone who asks: "How did the area get blighted?"
It was 'Affordable Housing' and other housing assistance programs.
Buildings go to hell because fixing them costs money - but non-market-based rents cut into that. And, if you're willing to look at the facts objectively, you can't deny that poor people are more likely to commit crimes. These housings programs are not a good idea.
How did the area get blighted? Not until Columibia bought most of the properties, left them vacant, aandoned, and deteriorating did this happen. That is a cowardly, dirty pool way of getting a blight designation for eminent doman. Add not making tenant repairs and breaking leases so that tenants feel they have to move or get evicted, adds to blight increase. By the way, where was Columbia's expansion plan when the community drove out ampant crime and drugs? Also, I encouraged protesters to take a realistic, yet resolute approach in dealing with Bollinger, et al. JThos, Member, Castle Coalition & Institute for Justice
While I appreciate that not EVERYONE in Manhattanville thinks of Columbia as a "feudal oppressor," there is a great deal of skepticism about the University's plans and how they will affect the community at large. I'm glad that one of the people posting a comment to this board lives in Harlem and "can't wait for that area to be developed by Columbia," because clearly some people feel that way, but their approval does not outweigh the serious DISAPPROVAL of many other residents. Instead of getting into a "well I know these people in Harlem and they say x, y, z" argument, which is circular because everyone can find someone who agrees with them, just take a look at the plan's numbers: 5,035 people living within a 1/4 mile of the expansion area live in unregulated housing, which means they are, according to the Environmental Impact Statment, vulnerable to secondary displacement. I don't believe that even a resident of the area has the authority to say this doesn't matter to community members as a whole--it just means it doesn't matter to you.
Now, about affordable housing: Columbia's $20 million fund will create only a fraction of the necessary units to offset this displacement, and furthermore, even with this allocation the devil is in the details--this housing would be created primarily for those making up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI); however, AMI is calculated in such a way (using the median income for the METROPOLITAN area, not the 5 boroughs, so it includes wealthy suburbs like Westchester) that these numbers would be skewed upward and the majority of units would end up serving households that are moderate and middle income, NOT extremely low, low and moderate income, which is the profile of those who are vulnerable to displacement in this area. Forty-one percent of CD9 households are rent-burdened, and more importantly, 23% pay more than 50% of income toward rent. This means that there is absolutely no leeway for rents to rise in this area: if rents go up, people who are already struggling to pay will be displaced.
It is important to remember that this is not just some alarmist cry without backup evidence: this displacement has already begun to occurr. It is widely understood that because of Columbia's announcement of its expansion proposal, the 3333 Broadway complex opted out of the Mitchell-Lama affordable housing program, and people have begun to be priced out already as a result.
So my message is this: not everyone hates Columbia and thinks it's evil, very true. But this doesn't mean the community members who DO express concern are crazy or even in the minority. People will always have different views, but looking at Columbia's proposal it is clear that this plan will be bad for most current residents and those who express support may be unrepresentative of wider community opinion.
This is NYC and all neighborhoods change eventually, often making them unaffordable for those who used to live there. It is not Columbia's responsibility to solve the financial issues of those who feel they have a god-given right to live in the neighborhood of their choice, regardless of how long they have lived there. I used to live downtown, however now I cannot afford to do so. I accept that as a fact of living in NYC. Unfortunately those in the community surrounding the proposed expansion feel entitled to live in the area and that they should be immune to the impact of market forces. The real world does not work that way.
Finally, more reasonable people are speaking their minds on the issue.
Still - I take issue with the supposed 'necessity' of affordable housing.
It is obviously not necessary, but I'll overlook the poor word choice. But I wonder: Why would anyone be in favor of mandating below-market rent rates? There are plenty of "affordable" market-rate places to live throughout the boroughs of NYC - I don't know why people think so much regulatory interference with rent prices is a good thing.
Finally a voice of reason. I live in the W. 130s and I can't wait for that area to be developed by Columbia.
Couldnt have said it better myself.
Thank you for representing my views.
Well said. At the risk of sounding naive, I can't understand why people are so afraid to admit the obvious. The area is blighted. Most people wouldn't walk there at night.
Post new comment