Bloomberg and some local politicians want to keep it industrial. — Photo by Diego Cupolo
The new Loft Law may have worked its way through the Assembly and Senate to the chagrin of the pro-industry lobby and many landlords, but it has one major opponent that could see the law extension vetoed by Governor Paterson: Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
In a letter to the governor today, Bloomberg laid out his opposition to the bill, which would extend the protections enshrined in the 1982 version to buildings around Brooklyn that have seen many residential conversions of commercial and industrial buildings since the last extension in 1987. Landlords of affected properties will be required to bring units up to code in all areas including the health, safety, and fire standards required of all residential units. Tenants will also be afforded protection from sudden eviction and commercial rent increases, which are unrestricted by law.
The mayor opposes the extension because it “would hurt our economy by driving manufacturers out of New York City, reducing the number of good-paying jobs available to New Yorkers at precisely the time we need them the most.” He also takes issue with what he considers lenient fines for the violation of zoning codes, calling for a 2500% hike in some cases.
City Hall would like to see a one-year extension of the existing bill for currently affected properties, and later a “thoughtful” reworking of the proposed expansion which would be more in line with what advocates of protecting industrial uses from market forces would prefer.
Bloomberg is joined by several local politicians in opposition, among them Bushwick and Williamsburg’s City Council member Diana Reyna and Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez — political nemeses of bill sponsor Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez and supporter State Senator Martin Malavé Dilan. Reyna and fellow Council member Brad Lander of the 39th District, along with Velázquez and colleague Congressman Jerrold Nadler, drafted their own letter to the governor in defense of New York City’s Industrial Business Zones, which they claim protects thousands of local jobs. Reyna is a well-known opponent of residential variances and rezonings of industrial space for residential use; in 2008 she successfully argued against a rezoning for 70 Wyckoff Avenue, a loft building converted illegally to residences but in a way consistent with housing code.
No word yet on what Governor Paterson plans to do.
Karl June 21st, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Responses to the “concerns” and misrepresentations voiced in both letters to Governor Paterson were posted today as open letters to the Governor on the New York Live Work Coalition’s site (http://newyorklivework.org):
http://bit.ly/dAngWv
http://bit.ly/ahwwOJ
Dresden June 21st, 2010 at 7:05 pm
It sounds a bit socialist / capitalist stand-off, but listen, the bill most-likely is filled with so much nuance and subtlety, it’s most-likely bad for nyc. I also don’t think people should be allowed to live in commercially zoned space, period. Rezone, raise rents, upgrade buildings – we live in such a stupid backward city with these laws.
Dresden June 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I didn’t mean wholesale rent increases, but really, to cover costs on upgrades – like sprinklers. They might be important.
Professional Alternative June 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
It’s a standoff between opposing groups of fascists. We’d all be better off if they purged each other.
Karl June 21st, 2010 at 8:44 pm
When tenants pay market rents and live with the approval of their landlords in their live work spaces they have kept building and entire neighborhoods viable and improved them. Legalizing makes capitalist sense: The landlords stand to profit from the selective re-zoning. Not to mention the fact that culture and arts is the 4th largest industry in the city.
This will pull in investments and jobs.
The vast majority of these tenants are running small manufacturing businesses and workshops. And they have succeeded where big industry has abandoned buildings and already exported jobs overseas.
Urbanism is not an exact science but a lot of data have been collected and published. I suggest to read them. Kind of interesting – and not a black and white capitalist vs whatever story.
Bottom line – this is one hell of a smart law that has the vast majority profit from it. Including the tax base of NYC.
TheFelonWind June 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 am
I find it seriously hard to believe that anyone who actually lives in Bushwick would be against this. Thriving industry? Oh you mean the Chinese dollar store warehouse that only occupies the ground floor of a FRIKKIN FOUR STORY BUILDING? Yeah we’re really crushing industry with our paper thin, self-made walls out here.
Manufacturer June 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
This law will legalize residences next door to cement plants, waste transfer stations, and large facilities like Boars Head. Believe it or not, people move in next door to facilities like these and than call 311 to complain about the noise or smell. Heavy industrial uses need a buffer. No one knows which buildings are being legalized by this law.
Paul June 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
@KARL – Well said
EJC June 22nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
“Reyna is a well-known opponent of residential variances and rezonings of industrial space for residential use; in 2008 she successfully argued against a rezoning for 70 Wyckoff Avenue”
Actually this may not be entirely accurate. The landlord made an arrangement with the DoB which allowed the tenants to remain in their apartments while the building was being made up to code. So this is happening while the tenants are still living there.
Luis Velazquez June 22nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
zoning is dumb
fed-up June 25th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Here’s the real problem. When a squatter converts one of these lofts illegally and against the owners wishes, they do it in the middle of the night, then leaves paying $400 a month to the owner and sublets for $1000 a month.
They do the work without permits and against every code, but the owner gets the violations and fines.
If it cures this, then I’m all for it. But as usual, nothing works in your favor. It only favors the city coffers with fines and tax money.