Problems with HPD?

Advocating For Voucher Tenants
Section 8 vouchers are supposed to protect low-income tenants. But ever since this program began for us in January 2005 tenants have had problems. Sometimes losing, without a hearing, the voucher a tenant depends on to stay in his or her home. Removal of a voucher without a hearing is against the law – but it has happened. While the Mayor’s Office talks about creating affordable housing, affordable housing is lost when low-income tenants lose their vouchers out of public view.

In March, LEOTA members and voucher tenants met with a representative from Borough President Scott Stringer’s office asking for assistance in solving voucher tenants’ problems with HPD. These problems have included missing and misplaced papers, misfiled applications, and miss-spelled names. To make matters worse tenants cannot reach anyone at HPD on the phone or get an appointment for a time certain. A tenant lucky enough to get an appointment can wait for hours – and then not be seen. Tenants who made mistakes on their applications had their vouchers cancelled before any hearing took place. There was no remedy accepted.

Borough President Stringer promised to call together our elected officials to ask HPD to stop treating voucher tenants so poorly and to generally improve voucher processing.

So what's been your experience with HPD?

Is Basketball City a Community Recreation Facility?

Memorandum Of Understanding (Excerpt)
Item 5 (in MOU) - "The remaining (northern) one-third of the Pier 36 pier shed, to comprise an inside area of approximately 64,000 square feet, will be permanently dedicated for use by the community as a community recreation facility as determined by the ad hoc committee..." To view the MOU click here.
Remember the ad hoc committee is accountable to YOU as they do not and should not have unilateral authority to make decisions on behalf of an entire community without broad based community support as determined by a fair and transparent process.

In 1997 the Ad Hoc Committee selected Basketball City, one of two responses to an RFP put out for an operator of the "Community Recreation Facility". Note: The RFP was drafted without broad community input; one public meeting was held prior to the RFP, and turnout was small according to Assemblyman Silver's office.

Ten years later, still with little notification to the community the Basketball City project is now moving forward. On May 29th Community Board 3 voted to approve the land use (ULURP) for Basketball City.

Basketball City, notes that it gives away a lot of free court use time to the community, and reluctant defenders of the plan on CB3 note, "that it's better than nothing"; these are among the strongest arguments for the placement of Basketball City.

Some pricing info about our Community Recreation Facility a.k.a. Basketball City:

• Annual Membership Courts - $99 per family / $50 per person


• Annual Membership Health Club* - $199 per family / $119 per person
  *these prices are conditional upon operating expenses
  
• Weekdays - $3 per session for Members / $10 per session for Non-Members


• Weekends - $4 per session for Members / $15 per session for Non-Members
  
• Community Membership holders will be given 30% court use time during non-peak hours on weekdays, all other times it will be 20%.
  
• Priority will be given to groups (i.e. public & private schools, not for profit orgs, etc.)
  
• Their will be a reduced fee for Seniors.
  
• BBC will preference in hiring to the Community.
  

These promises cannot be put in BBC's lease according to EDC (Economic Development Corporation) the quasi-government agency in charge of this project, besides they've only promised to keep these promises for two years.

BBC's primary customers are groups, like schools, community orgs, and corporations who book large blocks of time and account for the bulk of BBC profit margin. The community at large and it's needs are secondary. Ironic, since this is supposed to be a Community Recreation Facility.

What do you think?