7/25/2019 FAC - Dave Powell - MIH Testimony - 2-9-16[1]

1/2

"#$%& '(#)'*$# +,-. $$'

/012+334565-789+.1:;

My name is Dave Powell and I am the Director of Organizing at the Fifth Avenue

Committee and at Neighbors Helping Neighbors, a HUD certified counseling affiliate ofthe Fifth Avenue Committee.

Founded in 1978, Fifth Avenue Committee is active in the Brooklyn neighborhoods ofGowanus, Park Slope, Boerum Hill, Sunset Park, Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, Red

Hook and beyond. My colleague, Jay Marcus, will be testifying subsequently about the

administrations Zoning for Quality and Affordabilty proposal from the perspective of the

affordable housing developer. I am here today as tenant organizer and advocate whoalong with my colleagues, fights to keep families in their homes through eviction

prevention case work, tenant association organizing and policy activism.

As a member organization of the Association for Neighborhood and HousingDevelopment (ANHD) and a CDC that is concerned not only with building truly

affordable housing but also with combating displacement we support the MIH reforms

suggested by ANHD, in particular:

The addition of a Deep Affordability option of 30% affordable housing at 30%

AMI;

A requirement that all MIH options include a set-aside of 15% of units at the 30%AMI level;

An elimination of the current Gentrification Option, the 30% set aside at 120%

AMI option.

At the current affordability levels, MIH misses the core of the housing crisis and even thecore of NYC's population. Nearly a third of New Yorkers fall below 40% AMI, and of

the more than 1.1 million households that are rent burdened, 83% or 938,000 are below

60% AMI. In many communities, the income levels required in the City's MIH proposalwould further gentrification, rather than help provide the affordable housing that local

residents need and that stabilizes communities.

Beyond tweaking the administrations proposal however, I am here to urge the Counciland Mayor to consider that no MIH program will be effective without a robust and

simultaneous eviction or anti-displacement prevention strategy. Tactics within this

strategy must include additional tenant protections that can be activated within the samezoning framework that the City seeks to alter with MIH, such as a citywide anti-

harassment special district.

Additional funds are also needed to defend families in our community and across the citywho are facing displacement. Like legal services, community-based tenant organizers

and advocates play a critical role in keeping families out of the shelter system and

keeping New Yorkers in New York. However I would be lying if I said that

7/25/2019 FAC - Dave Powell - MIH Testimony - 2-9-16[1]

2/2

"#$%& '(#)'*$# +,-. $$'

/012+334565-789+.1:;

additional funding for advocacy and organizing is an adequate response to the

displacement crisis that has firmly gripped New York City, particularly in light ofproposed density bonuses for market-rate development.

Our community has witnessed first hand what up-zoning without tenant protections can

do to a neighborhood; for an example of how NOT to re-zone an area, look no furtherthan 4

thAvenue in North and South Park Slope in the wake of the 2003 and 2007 re-

zonings. Both of these land use actions not only brought displacement throughgentrification but also the demolition of sound, rent stabilized housing.

A prime example of this was the destruction of 150 -158 4th

Avenue, five rent stabilizedbuildings that provided 40 units of deeply affordable housing to low- and moderate-

income families in our community. The increase in density was too tempting for thisunscrupulous landlord who viciously and persistently harassed every last tenant out ofthese buildings until they were empty. By 2009 these buildings were demolished and

today our community walks by a luxury development that receives a 421a tax break

where 40 of our beloved neighbors once lived. Just down the block is 140 4th

Avenue

where only two families are left to resist the constructive eviction and harassmenttechniques of the landlord, as he recklessly slaps two additional floors onto this 8 unit

building. Diagonally across the street is 78 St. Marks Place, another 8 unit building

where 2 households bravely fight against a landlord who first harassed tenants out, butnow has shifted gears and has applied to DHCR to demolish the building legally.

The danger and harassment endured by these 56 families only 4 of whom are still in ourcommunity today is a cautionary tale to other communities about the destructive forces

that are unleashed by increased density without additional protections. A policy of

Mandatory Inclusionary Housing would not have helped these families and it will nothelp the majority of families in other communities that are facing displacement pressures.

It is up to this body and to the Mayor to ensure a policy framework that defends our city

from the forces of real estate speculation, local and international - whose predatory

practices will unfortunately find fertile ground in any proposal that unleashes additionaldensity for market-rate development without additional tenant protections.

###