Business & Residents Alliance of East Harlem vs. East River Plaza, et al. Round 2

Oral arguments were held September 27th in a case brought against the East River Plaza project in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in lower Manhattan.

The federal lawsuit was first launched in 2003 by the Business and Residents Alliance of East Harlem (BARA) against various defendants, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation (UMEZ), the New York Empowerment Zone and the project developers, TIAGO Holdings.

BARA had previously argued that demolition of the old Washburn Wire Factory, formerly located along the F.D.R. Drive, from 116th Street to 119th Street, violated Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which mandates that projects that receive federal expenditures and are eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places be reviewed by federal, state preservation offices and local citizens to determine whether the proposed shopping mall will have any impact on historic resources.

There is no jury panel present during a federal appeal; arguments by the attorneys were instead brought before a three judge panel. A strong case against the $200 million dollar, 1 million-square-foot retail shopping center and parking garage was made by attorney Kevin J. Farrelly, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, while the defendant agencies and developers were represented by a team of lawyers who argued against the requirements of Section 106. The judges, after hearing the oral arguments and having read all the legal briefs render a decision by late October or early November.

Lead plaintiffs in the case include a variety of East Harlem residents, homeowners, property owners and small business owners among them Raymond Plumey, AIA, a local architect, preservationist and city planner. “It’s too early to tell how the court’s decision will go,” said Plumey of the proceedings. “Our argument is that federal expenditures are being used without proper federal historic resource review and, as such, the process has been circumvented.” Other plaintiffs in the appeal are John Kozler, Irene Smith and Pascuale Palmieri. Other plaintiffs in the original federal district court claim included Gloria Quinines, Thomas Donovan and Charles Iulo.

Although the Washburn Wire Factory was demolished in 2002, Plumey explains why the argument still holds weight. “It doesn’t matter whether the building is still standing. Plus, there are other historic resources in the neighborhood that might also be negatively impacted. We have a number of other sensitive properties within a close proximity to this site . There’s the former Benjamin Franklin High School,, the Farenga Funeral Parlor on 116th Street, Thomas Jefferson Park and a former Con Edison building on First Avenue, which are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. There’s also an archeological site on 119th Street near the FDR Drive, considered a sensitive site by the City and State presevaion offices, that is the former fishing village of the Wecksquaesgek Indian Tribe.”

“My concern as a resident and businessperson is that we are losing our architectural and cultural history,” he added. “With proposed mega projects such as the Marriott Hotel and Uptown NY, both on 125th Street, East Harlem won’t be the same unless we repair and preserve our existing community. I’m not opposed to economic development in general, only to projects that are out of context and eradicate our neighborhood’s history. Developers in Soho and TriBeCa don’t eradicate the history of those neighborhoods, and the same respect should be accorded to our neighborhood.”

Background on East River Plaza

The former Washburn Wire Factory Factory had been vacant since 1982. In 1996, the Blumenfeld Development Group Ltd. (BDG) acquired the site for $3.1 million at a federal auction. BDG then sought backing from UMEZ and NYEZ with plans to develop it as East River Plaza, a shopping center with Costco and Home Depot serving as anchor tenants. In May 2004, BDG formed a partnership with Forest City Ratner Companies, developers of the controversial Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project, which will accommodate a new Nets Basketball stadium.

The East River Plaza project has already weathered a number of other lawsuits involving property owners forced to relinquish their land to make way for the mall. One of those displaced through “eminent domain” condemnation was William Minic, who for over 20 years ran a cabinetmaking shop on East 117th Street which was demolished in 2004 to accommodate the project’s planned 1,200 car parking garage.

Text from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

“The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.”

De la Vega Trades East Harlem for East Village

Artist James de la Vega is not doing badly these days. With a brand-new East Village storefront and crowds of affluent shoppers drifting in every day, the former East Harlem icon is thrilled with his new gallery.

Although rents along the retail corridor of St. Mark’s Place range from $6,000 to $12,000 per month, de la Vega says the increased foot traffic is well worth the new, considerably higher, overhead.

Despite a recent campaign against gentrification and displacement in East Harlem, the artist sees no conflict in having moved to the trendy, downtown location. “I strive to live by example how to grow beyond the limitations created by our own fears,” he said. “I have no regrets about moving.”

Even so, the sidewalks along the artist’s former storefront on the corner of Lexington Avenue and 104th Street were filled with posters last summer—charging his former landlord, Hope Community, with “bullying poor people out of the neighborhood.”

Famous for his inspirational street murals and upbeat, East Harlem-oriented t-shirts, the 32-year-old Cornell University graduate first gained notoriety in 2003 when he was arrested for painting on the wall of a Bronx building without the owner’s permission. In 2004, he ran as a write-in candidate for state senator to protest his arrest and conviction.

Earlier this year, de la Vega lost the right to renew his five-year lease at the rate of approximately $575 per month when, according to Hope Community, the artist failed to comply with a previously agreed-upon agreement that included full financial disclosure and monthly art donations.

Balking at paying the standard commercial rate of $3,000 per month, the artist and his followers instead embarked on a smear campaign with storefront signs and press releases claiming that the local development agency was “committing a crime against the neighborhood [through a] vicious game of money.”

“Hope Community is the biggest culprit in gentrifying the neighborhood,” read one de la Vega placard–charges which Executive Director Bill Jacoby publicly disputed.

Despite the agency’s offer to assist him in finding another spot in the area, de la Vega instead continued his media relations campaign bemoaning the loss of his sweetheart deal. The “struggling” artist quickly became the media’s darling as they quoted him in dozens of articles on gentrification and electoral politics in East Harlem.

De la Vega’s campaign eventually backfired, however, when he began lashing out against Latino elected officials and political aspirants—blaming them for the “cultural genocide of East Harlem.” His parting shot left an especially bitter aftertaste when he painted his storefront gate with what many perceived to be insulting slogans urging local residents not to vote for any Hispanic candidate and to vote “Bloomberg for Mayor” instead.

“De la Vega speaks for no one but himself,” says one local resident. “I can maybe agree with his statement that local officials are ‘puppets clowning around … hoping for a piece of the pie,’ but his bizarre statement that ‘East Harlem deserves to be taken away’ certainly did not win him any sympathy points here in el Barrio.”

When asked, the artist defended his rationale in a press release. “I do not want to get involved in the petty politics that presently make up the dynamics of the Latino community, there is no victory there,” he wrote. “By exploring a wider audience, I will continue to deliver the same message given birth in the streets of Spanish Harlem.

“I want to forge a new path that takes our people to a spiritual place where we can see beyond the borders imposed by poverty, where we make a place for ourselves in the world. I am sad to leave behind the children who are growing up under these oppressive conditions. For 12 years we brought a magic to the streets, and they will be robbed of this gift.”

Still, it remains to be seen if East Harlem has seen the last of James de la Vega or whether anyone will actually care that he is gone.