Spirit of East Harlem Mural Defaced; Call for Community Action and Cultural Education Campaign*

During the early hours of June 13, one of El Barrio's s most famous outdoor artworks, the Spirit of East Harlem mural, was mysteriously defaced. The landmark painting has significant historical roots in Spanish Harlem and has served as a cultural attraction for thousands of students and tourists from around the country and the world.

Commissioned by Hope Community, Inc. in 1978, the four-story mural was created by Hank Prussing and featured local residents engaging in everyday activities. Artist Manny Vega, who’d served as Prussing's apprentice, restored the badly weathered painting in the mid-1990s.

Manny Vega’s internationally acclaimed Julia de Burgos mosaic on East 106th Street does not appear to have been defaced, nor have any works by artist James de la Vega.

East Harlem Preservation has reached out to local artists and cultural organizations to engage in a public forum to highlight the importance of preserving local artwork.

* [Although the Spirit of East Harlem mural WAS indeed vandalized, our original announcement incorrectly described the Graffiti Wall of Fame as having been defaced. Apologies for the confusion. Stay tuned for further updates.]

Costco and Food Stamps: A Good Neighbor Policy

Guest Editorial by Viveca Diaz
Why is Costco moving into non-middle income neighborhoods like East Harlem when they don’t accept food stamps? They want to live on the land of the people, but they don’t want people of the land who receive federal assistance to purchase food from their stores.

Box-box stores built in disadvantaged communities catering only to middle-income shoppers sure sounds like gentrification (not to mention segregation) to me.

Rather than snubbing lower-income residents in East Harlem, Costco should seize the opportunity to improve its corporate reputation by reversing its antiquated policy on food stamps.

In exchange for permission to make late-night deliveries, Costco is offering 2,000 free memberships to the East Harlem community. Seems like a great offer except for the fact that: (1) memberships are based on income, (2) the free memberships would only be good for two years and, (3) the free memberships will be based on a lottery system (to be overseen by supporters of this raw deal).

So let’s get this straight: Costco’s lease is for 30 years but neighborhood residents are only being offered a limited number of free two-year memberships? Seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it?

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the amount of food stamps an individual or families receives will be increased by up to 13%.

Given that none of those families fall into the middle-income bracket that make up the majority of Costco members, I suspect that the company will soon reconsider their food stamps policy.

Free Grass for the Working Class!

I grew up at 2030 Lexington Avenue, in a narrow, walk-up tenement owned by my grandfather. Today, when I stop by the community garden where our building once stood, I am filled with both hope and despair. I am saddened because even though the lot has been classified as a permanent “green” space, it remains undeveloped as an environmental haven because the Parks Department won’t support community gardens financially.

I have always been inspired by the incredible sense of community in East Harlem and by the neighborhood’s remarkable political and cultural heritage. Such influence helped compel me to advocate for the preservation of that legacy.

Several years ago, I began documenting all of the large-scale commercial and luxury housing development projects – simply because folks were not being informed about changes in their own community! The issues then broadened to include affordable housing and environmental justice.

Now, everyone always asks why I’m so interested in Randall’s Island. Well, in addition to addressing gentrification as an issue of displacement, I think it’s important that we also examine the parallel trend that is the privatization of public parkland in our own backyard – which is, of course, Randall’s Island and Central Park.

So, what does it look like when a neighborhood is no long ours? Well, certainly its name will be changed. It will also be that our children will not be able afford to live here any longer because the majority of housing that’s being built is at market rate.

But it will also be the case that our children can no longer access their playgrounds because our parkland has been sold off to the highest bidder – which is mostly private businesses that exclude our community by means of admission price and access.

Already, we have a 480-acre island where our community once held cultural festivals, picnics, and impromptu concerts but which we can no longer freely access because the public footbridge is closed five months out of the year, and the playground permits are overwhelmingly controlled by private schools and corporate sports teams, or because the mayor decides to hold a private soirée that prevents public access to almost one quarter of the island for almost two weeks each year.

While the “green” issue may not be at the forefront of the anti-displacement movement – and certainly permanent affordable housing should always be the priority – I hope you will remember that one of the solutions to the astronomical asthma and obesity rates that our children suffer because of all the surrounding traffic (three bridges and a major highway) – might be as simple as a walk in the park, rather than diets and an inhaler.

As one of my cultural mentors, Pedro Pietri, said, “free grass for the working class!”

Testimony Presented at Town Hall Meeting for Housing Justice, Marina Ortiz, Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Barrio Op Ed: Bargain Uptown Theatre!

The Mayor wants to cut a sweetheart deal with a multi million dollar corporation to give them a million dollar parcel of city-owned land in East Harlem for $1.00, even though that corporation can well afford to pay market rate for the property. I must admit to some astonishment over this deal. I am also very troubled by it.

I am both astonished and troubled because Bloomberg, since he became Mayor, has insisted on charging poor Latino Theatre Companies market rate prices for city owned spaces in the same community, and refused to even consider a lower rate. This is nothing short of scandalous. How can you insist on charging market rate rentals for Theatres in a poor Latino community when there is no market for Theatre rentals in that area!

This “Brilliant” fiscal policy charges Downtown rates for Uptown spaces with the net result being that there is no regular Theatre being produced in East Harlem which is a significant part of the Theatre Capitol of the world! This is crazy! As a Theatre Person with over 20 years of experience producing Theatre in New York, I must Protest! This is an outrage! Nobody has been able or willing to rent these spaces from the City during good times, it is the height of arrogance to think that someone will be able to rent them at market rates during the coming hard times.

Moreover, why are poor Latino Theatre Companies being treated so differently? Multi-Million Dollar Corporations get a “Freebie” at the same time that poor Latinos have to pay an “Arm and a Leg?” How does that remotely make sense? Is there some Bias at work here? As Shakespeare once said, something is rotten in the State of Denmark!

Forgive me for raising the question, but doesn't it make more sense for Bloomberg to charge the poor Latino Theatre Company a $1 for the Theatres and charge the Multi Million dollar Corporation Market Rate for the land? Am I crazy? Not for nothing, but what kind of Republican Bizzaro World do we live in; where there’s Welfare for the Rich, and Full-Fare for the poor? Isn't that what caused the World Wide economic crisis we all now face?

Even if you put aside the apparent racial implications of this deal, it is at the very least immoral, and unethical! Not only does it not make ethical sense, it makes no business sense either! The fact of the matter is that two operating Theatres in El Barrio can generate more money for the whole City, than any “Sweet Heart Land Deal” could possibly generate for the local community.

It is an accepted fiscal fact that an operating Theatre generates $4 for the local economy for every $1 spent IN that Theatre. Our El Barrio Theatres have almost 800 seats, so they can potentially generate (Check my math, $50 per X 800 seats = $40,000 X 4 days a week = $160,000 X 52 Weeks a year = $8,320,000 spent in the Theatre. Multiply that by the $4.00 spillover, it means) over 33 million for the local economy!!! Now, that kind of economic activity in a poor community, any poor community, makes sense for the whole City, no? How much money do you think this “Sweet Heart Land Deal” will generate for the City? Is it anywhere near 33 Million? I don‚t think so.

In conclusion, Mr. Mayor, if you want to give away City Owned Property in El Barrio for $1.00, give us our Theatres for a $1.00!

Eugene Rodriguez, Playwright/Director
Puerto Rican Intercultural Drama Ensemble (P.R.I.D.E.)

Healthy Food Disparities in Upper Manhattan

Click to Play

WE ACT Sustainability Coordinator James Subudhi addresses healthy food disparities in Upper Manhattan at UFCW Local 1500's "Building Blocks" Food Policy Conference on July 10, 2008. Produced by Hope Community, Inc.

Even Hollywood Understands Privatization

I know it's Hollywood and all, but I just wanted to share that John Cusack ("War, Inc.”) is my “American Idol” de jour as I admire his candid opinion on the degeneration of our collective civic priorities in an interview with Juan Gonzalez for Democracy Now (excerpted below):

JOHN CUSACK: ...You know, when we hear these words like “privatization,” you know, what does that mean? ... [I}t meant outsourcing what you would imagine to be the very core functions of government and the very thing that makes you a state, to turn that into a for-profit business. And we’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole now. So it’s strange and savage times.

TRANSCRIPT FROM “WAR, INC.”

BRAND HAUSER: I like [fill in the blank verb] people as much as the next guy, but I signed up to [fill in the blank verb] the bad ones. Health clinics, trade unionists, journalists, agricultural co-ops, Catholic liberation theologians, impoverished Colombian coffee farmers—these are the barbarians, the depraved opponents of civilization? We turn [fill in the blank neighborhood or nation] into a … graveyard. Whoever momentarily interrupts the accumulation of our wealth, we pulverize. I’m just not feeling good about that anymore, sir.

Randall's Island decision; public school children win!

Courtesy of Leonie Haimson
In an important victory for public school children, parents and community members have won their lawsuit to stop the city from leasing the sports fields on Randall's Island during after school hours to a consortium of 20 private schools for the next 20 years.

As Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich concluded, the amount of land being converted to new use - at least 12 ∏ acres -- far outstrips the 30,000 sq. ft. or 2/3 of an acre that defines a "major concession" according to the City Charter. Thus, this deal requires ULURP, a review process involving the Community Board, the Manhattan Borough President, and the City Council, which never happened in this case.

She rejected the city's argument that this deal was legal because the land would be converted to sports fields first - and then handed over to the private schools after the fact. As she wrote, "The court disagrees with strained interpretation of the Concession, an interpretation designed to evade ULURP review...Essentially respondents attempt to alter reality ...Allowing the City to avoid ULURP review by drafting terms to redefine when a concession has been granted would undermine ULURP's purpose of requiring community input on significant land use decisions regarding public land."

Here are statements from some of the plaintiffs and others involved in bringing this lawsuit:

Eugenia Simmons-Taylor, former president of the Presidents Council in D4 in East Harlem, which was the lead plaintiff: "This is a great victory for public school children as well as the community as a whole. I'm thrilled that we were able to stop this unjust deal before it went through. Now the community and our elected representatives will have a chance to have their say."

Matthew Washington, a member of the Community Board 11 in East Harlem and another plaintiff: "We're happy to have an opportunity to do the right thing for all the children in this city."

David Bloomfield, a member of the Citywide Council on High Schools, also a plaintiff: "The sad lesson of the Randall's Island litigation is that elites have no business making decisions for those with less money or influence. From the first, the city and the Randall's Island Sports Foundation should have included parents, schools, and the community at the negotiating table. Instead, the courts have been forced to ensure these rights and in so doing have made sure that there will be quality recreational facilities for all children."

Patrick Sullivan, the Manhattan appointee of the Panel for Educational Policy, who did the much of the initial research showing that this deal was illegal: "The public school parents and community activists of East Harlem have won a great victory on behalf of all the city's children. Public athletic fields must not be sold via special invitation to the well connected. The city must now put forward a plan for equitable access to the Randall's Island fields. "

Geoffrey Croft, President of NYC Park Advocates, "We are delighted at this outcome, but this deal never should have been allowed to go forward in the first place. I hope the city doesn't appeal the decision. It would be a waste of taxpayer money and would violate the important principle that public parks should be for the public and not for private interests."

Marina Ortiz, founder of East Harlem Preservation and another plaintiff: “I am elated that Judge Kornreich made a just and proper decision in annulling the illegal bid to construct new sports fields on Randall's Island. Now that their private steamship has been docked for due process, perhaps the Randall’s Island Sport Foundation will be more sensitive to the needs and concerns of local youth. I am confident that East Harlem and South Bronx residents will appreciate the opportunity to voice their needs and concerns, and I will work to ensure a more transparent and democratic process with regards to the disposition of public parkland in our communities.”

The case was argued pro bono by attorneys Norman Siegel and Alan Klinger, Faith Kaminsky Cohen and Christina Weis of Stroock, Stroock and Lavan.

We all owe them tremendous thanks. A summary from the NYLJ is below.

Judge Annuls Approval of New Fields on Randall's Island
New York Law Journal, January 31, 2008

Approval of a bid to construct new sports fields and revamp 36 existing fields on Randall's Island has been annulled by a state judge. Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of Manhattan held that concessions granted by the city's Franchise Concession Review Committee to the Randall's Island Sports Foundation and a group of 20 private schools was not properly reviewed under the New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The agreement provides for the city to allocate more than $65 million for field improvements and grants the foundation permission to use and maintain the fields and the schools annual permits for 20 years to use two-thirds of the fields during after-school peak hours. The concession period would begin when 75 percent of the playing fields are substantially complete. Section 374 of the city charter provides that a "major concession" must be reviewed under the review procedure. Justice Kornreich (See Profile) rejected the city's argument that the new fields, on 12.5 acres, fall under an existing use exemption to the review procedure because construction on the land will be substantially completed and "in use" at the onset of the concession period.

District 4 Presidents' Council v. Franchise and Concession Review Judgment Committee, 108327/07, will be published Tuesday. - Noeleen G. Walder

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp