
Suddenly, Vito Lopez wants to help “newcomers.” — Photos by Aaron Short
State Assemblyman and Brooklyn Democratic Boss Vito J. Lopez and RBSCC, the social-service organization allied with him, are extending a hand to yet another demographic — the “newcomers” Lopez heretofore shunned, but who in the wake of a City Council race are now seen as politically important. Is this an attempt to stay relevant, and will it work?
Don’t let the name fool you. The Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council (RBSCC) has its hands in a lot of different places, from economic development and streetscape improvements, providing seniors with hot meals during the holidays, and youth services, to developing new low-income housing throughout North Brooklyn, and of course, volunteering off the clock on local political campaigns.
But the organization’s bread and butter is housing services, including assisting tenants paying higher-than-legal rent or being harassed by their landlords.
And so it went at a tenant rights workshop, which was conducted in the cozy basement den at Northeast Kingdom Monday night, where fifteen people gathered in an intimate setting to learn more about housing law from about half a dozen housing attorneys and organizers.
RBSCC was not mentioned on any of the flyers or emails that went out to the community; instead the focus was on the name "Bushwick Housing and Legal Assistance," a division within Ridgewood Bushwick. Housing Director Angela Battaglia explained the services the non-profit offered and the reasons behind targeting workshops toward new Bushwick residents.
|
"We have found several people coming to our office, newcomers who are being taken advantage of," said Battaglia. "We’re trying to bring people together to fight for your rights for you."
Dressed in a cream blazer with black piping and lapels, Battaglia made personal appeals to the individuals who attended, asking their names and addresses, while Sally Robinson, a new attorney with RBSCC, stuck to the basics of rent stabilization laws and tenant’s rights.
"There’s a difference between improvements and repairs," said Robinson, referring to Major Capital Improvements, one legal reason landlords may raise the rent on a unit. "In general, getting apartments painted every two to three years, fixing the stove or the fridge, dealing with infestations, these are repairs that the landlord must pay on his own dime" without raising the rent.
For buildings with six units or more, built before 1974, the laws of rent stabilization apply, chiefly among them that landlords cannot raise the rent more than a percentage decided upon each year by the Rent Guidelines Board, a city authority. RBSCC organizers maintain Bushwick rents are higher than they should be almost across the board, based on these modest yearly adjustments to previously very low rent amounts. The flier posted for the event claimed that $1200 might be an illegal rate for a two-bedroom apartment.
"Bushwick is a sexy place and the landlords know that. Every time one of you moves out, landlords get a 17 to 20 percent vacancy allowance," said Battaglia, referring to a between-tenant price hike allowed by rent regulations. Once legal rent reaches $2000, a unit may be removed from rent regulation.
Robinson and the other attorneys urged tenants who believe they are paying too much in rent to visit the Dept. of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the state housing department, to determine their building’s rental history. If the rents have been rising beyond the rates allowed by the Rent Guidelines Board, Robinson encouraged tenants to visit the RBSCC offices at 217 Wyckoff Avenue for a free consultation (all of RBSCC’s housing services are free). If the landlord is harassing tenants in the building and threatening eviction, RBSCC lawyers promised to help with legal representation.
Throughout the evening, it became clear that RBSCC organizers and attorneys had a deep knowledge of the neighborhood’s building stock and landlord-tenant law.
"Our office is there, they’re smart, they’re good, and they fight to the death for you," said Battaglia.
Near the end of the workshop, one participant asked how RBSCC received its funding. Battaglia mentioned several grants, state and city agencies, including the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Department of Homeless Services, and discretionary funding from City Council members.
As the attorneys and organizers eagerly dispensed advice throughout the evening, one question lingered. What does RBSCC have to gain?
Just before the City Council primary showdown between Diana Reyna and Maritza Davila, a number of Bushwick residents living in loft buildings found a letter slipped under their door addressed to them and signed by State Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez. The letter urged registered voters to support Davila in the primary while reminding them that Lopez continued to fight for tenant rights in Albany.
Davila lost by a mere 251 votes, but the impact of the newcomers’ voting bloc, which Arts in Bushwick’s Laura Braslow labeled the "creative community" and detailed in a September BushwickBK column, was not lost on Lopez or RBSCC, the organization founded by the assemblyman in 1973 and to which he remains inexorably tied.
In January 2010, Lopez hired Serena Blanchard, the new Kings County Democrats Executive Director, to reach out to "hipsters," as Lopez specifically labeled the demographic in a City Hall News cover profile. One month later, Robinson was given a new title at RBSCC to reach out to Bushwick’s relative newcomers. (Blanchard attended the tenant workshop at Northeast Kingdom but did not participate beyond introducing herself at the end.)
RBSCC’s other constituencies — the elderly, low-income families — participate in the organization and Lopez’s unofficially affiliated political machine in an obvious, if convoluted, quid pro quo system. This process is well-documented by Professor Nicole Marwell in her book Bargaining for Brooklyn. It’s not clear if "fighting to the death" to help a handful of "newcomers" shave money off their rent is a winning move for the multigenerational community-based organization.
Arts in Bushwick’s Braslow maintains that the recent election proved to local politicos like Lopez and Reyna the value of this new community as a voting bloc. She posits that Lopez assumes that the "hipsters" will respond to his and RBSCC’s overtures just like other groups; it’s just a matter of identifying what the new demographic needs.
"This is the way machine politics is played in NYC today," added Braslow, "and Vito and Ridgewood Bushwick are some of the best at it in the city."
The lessons of the hard-fought political campaign of 2009 may be playing out in the policy realm, as two political leaders seek to appeal to a constituency that is worried about rising rents and finding affordable live/work spaces in Bushwick.
As it happens, Lopez’s record on loft dwellers in illegally-converted warehouses is better than Council member Diana Reyna’s. Reyna has made overtures to young people in Bushwick during campaign season and afterward regarding health care, but ultimately is more concerned with protecting the industrial business zone — and her main (ethnic) constituency’s job base – than accomodating loft-dwellers. Lopez, as Assembly Housing Chair, may be in a better position to help loft tenants by extending loft laws provisions. The Loft Law governs the conversion of manufacturing properties to residential use, and extends legal protections for tenants to these properties.
A workshop concerning loft dwellers has been scheduled for mid-March (location TBD) and Robinson hopes to repeat the tenant workshop to reach out to other local residents who suspect their rent is too high.






Nino March 9th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I remember this guy, Didnt “Lopez” have an Italian name ?
He’s right about the hipster coming in from yahoo-land banging fists constantly wanting to force change on the people that have lived here for generations.
The hipsters and trust fund babys should buy Staten Island and quit tying to piss on Archie Bunker, Fred Sanford and Chico.
There is to much friction with these new people. I spoken to some, it seems they pick alot of this BS up in colleges (all run by liberals)and assume it’s going to be accepted overnight here.
They don’t understand New Yorkers and the culture that’s remained unchanged for generations. If they would just respect that and quit walking around looking and acting like a bunch of Berkley idiots it would be a start.
careful March 9th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Look at that slob.
Katie March 9th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Great, so here we have two attorneys, and others, trying to help members of the community, and what is this wesbite’s response? Rank cynicism.
Essentially the same negative article every time that Assemblyman Lopez is involved, this time with a different spin on it. No mention of how the Assemblyman fights for tenants, for affordable housing, etc. No mention about how tenants need that help. Nice.
I mean, you write that this was essentially a workshop for fifteen people on how to assert their rights as NYC tenants, but somehow try to work it into some grand conspiracy. Couldn’t it be the case that these attorneys have seen that alot of new people in the community don’t know their rights and are also being taken advantage of? Maybe they feel that once these newcomers become more educated about their rights, that everyone in the community might benefit?
As someone that is familiar with challenging alleged apartment improvements (not MCIs Aaron but IAIs- Individual Apartment Improvements) I know that the reduction in rent can sometimes be as much as 50%. Some of these apartments renting for $1,800, should actually be renting for $900, in as much as the last tenant had a registered rent of somewhere around $600, and the landlord put in only enough to raise the rent by $300. That’s alot of money.
Your article trivializes the situation faced by tenants in Bushwick and the rest of Brooklyn. Your article trivializes the kind of large scale abuse and, in as much as they are filing improper registrations with the State DHCR agency, fraud that Brooklyn slumlords are engaging in.
Nast March 9th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Free Vito!!!!!
Jeremy Sapienza March 9th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Katie aka “sup” is back to defend “her” patron Vito Lopez. You only post here to attack Diana Reyna or defend Maritza Davila, Vito Lopez, or RBSCC. The exquisite detail with which you discuss housing policy in your comments makes it clear that you likely work for RBSCC for a living — you couldn’t possibly know the laws’ ins and outs as you do if you weren’t a professional, because they are designed to be understood by nobody but lawyers and the interest groups who write them and advocate for them.
Political machines don’t do something for nothing. The main actors may tell themselves they love people and truly believe they are fighting for their constituents’ best interests, but in the process they happen to gain power and wealth. This is not a coincidence. Given this, it makes sense to question why Lopez et al are suddenly looking to help a demographic to which they previously gave the finger. Christian charity? Yeah, ok. How about a lost election.
That said, as the editor of this piece who did a lot of research (I’m the one who added the MCI bit — if you say I got it wrong, that’s just testament to how opaque rent regulations really are, or maybe you’ll contend I’m just stupid), I think this piece is fair. It’s a plain statement of facts, with the questioning of motives that any real political analysis would delve into.
Anyway, I’m scratching my head at the part about not mentioning the Assemblyman’s pro-tenant efforts, when it’s mentioned just a few paragraphs before the comment box. Depending on your point of view, Reyna is shown as someone who is anti-loft-tenant while Lopez is specifically singled out as pro-loft-tenant.
Katie March 10th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Jeremy, once again you have shown your contempt for tenant’s rights. You have repeatedly written posts for this otherwise valuable blog where you refer to poor tenants as stupid and lazy. This probably has something to do with your position as what you call an “anarcho-capitalist”, which I guess means that you consider yourself a libertarian of sorts, right? Which means that you essentially oppose any regulation of business, including landlords?
Well, the laws that exist to protect tenant’s aren’t that hard to figure out, but sometimes people have a hard time understanding them because of the misinformation that landlords, and the websites that receive money from them, spread about these laws. The fact is that many new tenants in North Brooklyn are being robbed by their landlords, since their landlords are overcharging them hundreds of dollars a month. I don’t know about you, but that means something.
As for my affiliation, it’s a bigger world than you think. Alot of people understand these issues, and alot of people support the work of RBSCC, it’s staff, and Assemblyman Lopez.
Mario Rizzo March 10th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Politicians need complex laws to engender dependence on the part of the people on them, their associates and a whole class of lawyers-social workers to help people work through the system. The real object of all this is to prevent housing improvements and thus higher rents and thus to keep the current voters in the community here and the new, informed, and independent people out. This is conservativism in the literal sense of the word.
What has “anarchism” got to do with this? It is like the right-wingers yelling “commie”!!!!
Katie March 10th, 2010 at 8:02 am
Mario, I disagree. The laws currently allow for increase rents after improvements, I was referring to landlords that get greedy and look to increase the rent far beyond what the costs of improvement and the law will allow. Unfortunately it happens far too often, mostly because people don’t know what their rights are. This reality isn’t really complex at all.
As for anarcho-capitalism, I was referring to Jeremy Sapienza. In the past, he himself has defined himself this way, and he himself has argued that any government regulation of business was wrong. Google Sapienza and see for yourself. He even created his own wiki page to celebrate himself. Or just look at other articles on this website where Bushwick tenants are involved. Always taking the landlord’s side. Like I said, maybe Jeremy just doesn’t want to upset his advertisers/clients?
turk March 10th, 2010 at 9:16 am
I suggest Katie simply start her own blog. It’s not that complicated either. Why jump on a blogger for perceived bias? It’s a BLOG!
Jeremy Sapienza March 10th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“Katie,” I have not shown any contempt for tenants rights by pointing out that Lopez and RBSCC have motives other than the great kindness of their hearts for “fighting to the death” for people they consider transient, temporary residents of this neighborhood.
I am a student of economics and THAT informs my views. Rent regulation is nothing but a disaster for cities, which is why they have almost all gotten rid of it. Those very few who have it left are the only ones with chronic housing problems.
This is very much beside the point that I don’t begrudge people their artificially low rents, as you take what you can get in life. But they get what they pay for — usually terrible landlords who only rarely maintain their properties and treat their tenants like wards instead of the customers they are. Obviously as a local I have many many friends who live in rent-stabilized apartments and they end up having to repeatedly call the landlord to fix minor things, to merely put poison in the basement and clean up literal heaps of rat shit, to deal with security issues, or put the heat on. And still half the time they end up spending their own money and calling their own contractors to deal with the issues. Is that worth a couple hundred dollars off market rent? Maybe, that’s their choice. I’m no great advocate of the Bushwick slumlord. But I know what kind of person is drawn to a business with such minuscule profit margins, and it’s not a good Samaritan. This isn’t ideology, “Katie,” it’s practical economics.
Much of what you write about me is false. Please do not propagate lies, and do argue on the facts, not tangential googlings, as I cannot do the same for a pseudonymous commenter. Thank you.
Jeremy Sapienza March 10th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Actually this sounds weird, but Katie would you please email me? I have been looking for a tenant advocate who knows the law to answer a couple of questions for me about an upcoming rent-regulation law adjustment. Unfortunately, everyone I have talked to has been a flake or a moron, and if I go with the quotes and such that I have I’ll look like I set the story up to make the tenant rights people look like idiots, when that is not my intention.
Mario Rizzo March 10th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“I was referring to landlords that get greedy and look to increase the rent far beyond what the costs of improvement and the law will allow.”
Why should I assume that what the law will allow is better for society as a whole that what the market will allow? First, NYC has been mired in rent regulastion since WWII with no end in sight. Overwhelmingly, American cities do not have rent stabilization or control. Second, why not extend your analysis to food prices? Isn’t food as important as housing? Third, this is all to “benefit” current residents at the expense of new people who want to move in. The current residents are in a position to vote for Mr. Vito but the potential residents are not.
Look beyond the narrow confines of NYC. See how other major cities prosper, even have large housing stocks — all without the “fair regulation” that people need experts to guide them through.
As long NYC regulates the profitability of the housing industry we shall continue to have the “shortage” of housing people complain about.
I do not view this as simply a matter of opinion anymore than I view the existence of gravity a matter of opinion. Many of the views of housing lawyers and local politicians are part of the fog of ignorance spread by self-interested paries.
Andrew March 10th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Mario’s right, the people who argue for rent control are either ignorant or self-interested (and sometimes, shockingly, both). I’ve made my peace with rent regulations, though. Now that I only buy non-regulated housing (usually buildings containing five units or less), I can charge market rents, which are way higher than they should be due to all these idiot controls in the regulated part of the market. How’s that for being a greedy landlord?
Matt March 10th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
lol @ Nino.
“Read the damn article? Nahhhh. I’m just gunna spout my bullshit boring rehash of every post I make.”
LauraB March 10th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
BTW, in case anyone was wondering, last I heard the actual meeting referenced in the article will be held on Monday, 3/22 at 7:30pm (I think) at the new bar on the corner of St. Nicholas and Troutman. Sorry I don’t have the exact address.
vertigo March 10th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Lopez is the sleaziest thing I’ve seen yet, and if it wasn’t for my raging liberal sense of values he would have scared me into becoming a Republican long ago just to get away from him.
What he’s done to Reyna is beyond the pale, and how he holds a grip on this city through entrenched power is amazing. Every couple of years, all of our city’s corrupt politicians get regurgitated by scandal and a new bunch step in. They stay corrupt because we don’t keep our eyes open, or we throw up our hands and say we can’t change it. When Vito Lopez finally goes into that dark night, let’s shine some light into the situation and get rid of the procedural horse trading Lopez uses so the next system works for the people instead of the power brokers who currently run the city.
Anyone who wants to know what he does, I’m not going to push any one incident down your throat. I invite you to search for “Vito Lopez” in google and google news and see for yourself.
Sally Robinson March 11th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Help preserve affordable housing in Bushwick
Re: Lopez, RBSCC reach out to ‘hipsters,’ Short Story, March 10
I am glad that this article acknowledged some of the breadth and depth of services that RBSCC has offered to this community for nearly 30 years. The organization is by far the largest social services organization in Bushwick. It is not any stretch of the truth to say that RBSCC was a strong helping hand in the development of Bushwick after the tumult of the 70′s into a livable and desirable neighborhood. Now, RBSCC is doing what it has always done–assessing and monitoring the changing needs of the community in order to continue to provide a comprehensive system of services to all of the residents of Bushwick who are in need of them.
It’s important to recognize how our new program benefits the entire Bushwick community. By educating newer residents not to accept higher rents, we maintain affordable rental prices for the rest of the community. When a certain type of aggressive landlord begins to get the idea that newer tenants will pay drastically higher rental amounts, well above the legal amount, we have seen that this type of landlord will go through exceptional lengths to get his/her remaining older tenants out of his building to make way for profits.
These landlords have adopted extremely aggressive eviction tactics such as, among other things, suing tenants over and over again for no reason; repeatedly or continuously shutting off essential services such as heat and hot water; refusing to do repairs; intentionally harassing them in many forms; and attempting to illegally raise their rents or other costs.
We believe that if RBSCC can educate enough of the newer residents who may have come from areas of NYC where the rent is generally much higher, that buildings of 6 units or more generally have rent increase limits, we can stem the phenomenon where affordable housing units are eradicated from the community’s housing market by the overly-aggressive landlords seeking the higher rent. By enforcing their/our own rights, the newer residents create a stronger protective community framework for the rest of the community. And get lower rent!
Rights enforcements must be a community-wide effort, and our new project is just one tiny part of that overall goal.
Loft-dwellers who have questions about their housing situation are encouraged to come to our next meeting:
Monday, March 22nd, 7:30pm
The Bodega
24 St. Nicholas Avenue at Starr Street
**refreshments served after the presentation**
For info, contact me, Sally Robinson, at (718) 366-3800, ext. 118 or srobinson at rbscc.org
We hope to see many of you there!
-Sally Robinson,
Community Organizer/Staff Attorney, RBSCC
And “Newer” Bushwick Resident (moved in Jan., ’07)
Andrew March 12th, 2010 at 9:56 am
So aggressive landlords get the idea that tenants will pay higher rents? Where do they get that idea from? That’s right: market signals. Supply and demand. There’s a fellow named Adam Smith who wrote this up in a book about 235 years ago.
For the past two years, rents have, in fact, been going down, again due to market signals. Tenants have been getting the idea that they should be paying lower rents–and often, they’ve been getting them.
So how would you describe the landlords who have been giving rent decreases? Passive? And what about the tenants–are they aggressive? (giggle)
Sally Robinson March 15th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Correction for the address of the event–the cross-street is Troutman, not Starr!
Mike April 6th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
As usual, rent regulation is misunderstood. Only about 36% of residential spaces in NYC are truly free market, the rest are rent stabilized or regulated in some way. Guess why unregulated apts are so expensive in NYC? Artificially limited supply. That’s the first problem.
The second problem is that the typical 6 family building in bushwick costs about 20-25k a year to operate. With the low rents due to rent control,a landlord can easily lose money after mortgage/emergency repairs let alone afford capital improvements. The landlord has little incentive to renovate occupied apartments.
People have this fantasy view of rent regulation as helping the poor in fighting evil landlords but it is really the source of many of the problems that it is supposed to solve. Furthermore, these buildings are private property and they are being controlled and devalued by the government and by tenants. If you want to raise rents city wide and increase blight in poor communities, rent stabilization is your answer.
Mike April 6th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I just couldn’t help but respond again to Katie…
Greedy? The economics of the situation are extremely clear: you cannot afford to operate a building in NYC for $800/unit and make a profit. Landlords often raise rent whenever possible to compensate for other units that see no cashflow. That is why there are “slums” and “slumlords”. The main people who are going to be able to profit from rent stabilized building in an area like bushwick are going to be the most cut throat and demanding landlords or people who are so apathetic after losing court battle after court battle with tenants who don’t pay their low rents or who damage property. The typical reaction from someone like you is to say that they had the choice to buy the building and if they don’t like it, they should sell it. Guess what, they do sell it and it goes to someone who is more cut throat than they are and where does that leave you?
You are talking about taking possession of someone else’s property and then demanding that they charge you an arbitrary and unrealistically low amount of money for it. You then demand that they incur the costs of maintaining it and then call them greedy because they try to find a way out of it.
It is analogous to walking into a store and demanding that the cost of an item should be so low that the owner loses money. How long will that store be maintained or in business? What if the city said that 4 days out of the week, you had to lend your macbook to other people on your block because they probably can’t afford one but it is their god given right to have access to one?