What "thfs" said/quoted. NYIRN isn't trying to get tenants kicked out.They're trying to document the level to which, and the places where, building owners are illegally converting to residential.

This info has multiple possible uses. One is to show the city how little manufacturing land there is left, because even the designated M-zones are being eroded. Also, the city selectively enforces the zoning and building codes. In this case, they're deliberately turning a blind eye. This is unfair to manufacturing businesses, and unfair to us, the citizens. As they said in the article, it's a matter of economic justice.

The owners buy buildings that are priced according to what they can be used for. M-zoned buildings cost much less than R-zoned buildings of the same size. At the low M-price, he/she makes a nice profit renting to industrial tenants [otherwise, why buy the building?] -- then kicks out those tenants, puts in illegal renters paying much more, and collects a windfall. They don't even put any money into the building in order to make that $.

Then they apply for a zoning variance on the basis of "economic hardship" because they have no tenants on the books. If they get a zoning variance or the area is rezoned, they get a huge windfall - based on public, and publicly paid-for, actions. [Who do you think is paying the salaries of the passive Dept of Bldgs and the agencies that zone and grant zoning variances? Us. Are they accountable? Do we get a say in things? Are we getting anything for our money? Hmm.] Then they kick out the illegal tenants.

The citizens of the city should somehow share in the benefits of these public actions. Some % of the money should go to help the forced-out tenants to relocate, to building affordable housing, to parks, or *something* that benefits the community, not only the private developer him or herself.

See?

What's NYIRN's agenda? From the Times article:

"From a political standpoint, nobody wants to be in the business of kicking out tenants," Mr. Friedman [of NYIRN] said. "Part of the city's challenge is, how do you come up with a solution that protects the tenants and penalizes the property owners?"

For now, the group's strategy is to press the city to fine building owners. In January, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg issued a 33-page industrial policy statement with measures like increasing fines for destruction of manufacturing space and promoting the 311 hotline number for reporting illegal conversions.

Is that clear?

I don't understand what the NYIRN's goals are in this action. Do they want the existing residences out, or are they merely trying to scare off other would-be converters?

Just because one views them as "heroic" doesn't exempt NYIRN from scrutiny. Sure, I can take issues up with my politicians, but so can NYIRN; they don't need to meddle with people's homes.

But I *am* a bitter crank! Originally from the midwest, to boot. You people just got my dander up, for gosh sake! Heavens to Betsy!

It's certainly true that we have an extreme housing shortage in this city. But - affordable housing *can* be built amidst a housing shortage, actually. There is usually some being built in NYC at any given moment.

What has to be done is to either find cheap land for it, or assign land to it, like the City does for parks and other uses. Or, a developer can get some kind of deal on taxes or financing by building a % of their development for affordable housing. [As it stands now, they get all sorts of such breaks for doing nothing whatsoever for the City.]

And then it has to be built without the usual (and usually tacky) "luxury" amenities, like granite countertops, Sub-Zero fridges, gym, blah blah blah.

I fail to see the fairness of taking away people's jobs, with which they support their families, so that other people can move into housing they can afford. If you don't have both, you don't have a city, no? And if all these people are unemployed, who's paying for their welfare, food stamps, health care, housing (if they lose theirs), etc., as well as the social costs that go along with mass joblessness and poverty? Us, that's who.

The local volunteers for the rezoning task force in Greenpoint/Williamsburg actually proposed a great way to both increase affordable housing space and preserve existing manufacturing businesses and spaces.

The idea was that building owners in mixed-use areas (not in the industrial park) would be asked to maintain the first floor for manufacturing, and then they could build housing on top, up to the height the zoning dictates. 40% of that would be affordable.

Everybody in the community liked this, from the avid industrial retentionists, to the adamant affordable housing advocates, to the fervent pro-development types. The Community Board voted unanimously in favor of it.

What did the City do? Deliberately ignore it until technicalities of the zoning process timeline rendered it disqualified ("out of scope" is the official phrase).

What makes housing affordable is not dictating a price. That only makes it SCARCE. What makes housing affordable is one of two things: an increase in supply or a decrease in demand. A decrease in demand I think we all agree would only come about if New York became so intolerable that people started leaving in droves: not a desirable outcome! That leaves: an increase in supply. You can't create much more housing in Manhattan; it is built out. That leaves the outer boroughs. Either a) condemn previously existing low-density housing and slap high rises in place--and I argue that displacing people's homes is a lot more disruptive than displacing businesses, b) take over what few parks and open spaces exist in the outer boroughs and build there (the so-called greenfields option-- also very unattractive), or c) rezone and retrofit existing industrial sites (the brownfields option). If anyone else can think of a way to decrease the cost of housing in New York City I'd be curious to hear it.

to "jaykayess"

Many of the small manufacturers feeling the squeeze farther west in Greenpoint and Williamsburg have been looking to move to the East Williamsburg industrial park and have failed to find space because most of the usable space is vacant.

The vacancy rate for the industrial park is 8%. Compare that to commercial vacancy rates in Midtown (7%) or Lower Manhattan (9.9%). Anyone who owns a building in that neighborhood that is vacant is almost definitely holding it off the market, possibly for conversion to residential use in the near future. Also buildings that may appear vacant are frequently occupied, as many companies prefer to appear that way in order to ward off thieves.

When I first was looking at moving to North Brooklyn, I went to look at a newly-converted loft near the Montrose L stop. The agent asked me if I "had any problem living in an illegal space" and then asked me and my roommate what we did (legal/criminal justice work) to make sure we weren't the type of people who would mind. Heh.

If you are playing Totally-NY-Prick Bingo, Maud's use of the "Yer from the Midwest" is in column 'I'. She forgot to call it out as such and I wanted to clarify.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to slander the NYIRN; it's just that I see so many half- or totally empty buildings, it's very hard for me to believe that there are small businesses clamoring for those spaces. It just doesn't make sense. Plus, those empty building make the neighborhood dangerous for the people living just a block or two away in the brownstones.

My building has several businesses and a not-for-profit, and it is the *only* building on our block that has trucks at the dock every workday. All the rest are either abandoned or being used for storage.

And to Maud: "Spoiled brats?" "People like you?" Don't undermine your own arguments by being so aggressive; you just come off sounding like a bitter crank.

Maud is right on. NYIRN is a great organization (with whom I've personally worked on several occasions) that is striving to keep NYC as the diverse (demographically and economically) city that so many of us claim to love. While manufactuirng will never play the huge economic role it played in the city back in the 1950's and earlier, there are many types of industrial businesses that sensically belong here. They complement the more lauded economic sectors like publishing and printing, arts and culture, the restaurant industry, and fashion and design. We may be in a "post-industrial" age, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to push all manufacturing off-shore.

My god, what a bunch of spoiled brats. Do you have any idea how indifferent you are to the non-college-educated, often non-English-speaking people of New York?

Do you actually have any idea what kinds of work are done in those buildings? "Manufacturing" isn't just 19th-century Dickensian garment factories: in Wbg, it's more likely to be architectural woodworking, specialty food, artisanal workshops making custom lamps, furniture, etc.

Did you read the article, about how many jobs are in that park? Did you think at all about the families who are depending on those paychecks? Do you realize most of those workers have benefits, whereas McJob-type service workers do not, and earn on average $10,000 less per year?

Industrial buildings often seem empty, but if you get up early, you'll see an astounding amount of activity going on. And some of them may have necessary storage on some of the floors. Also, landlords often kick out tenants and warehouse their buildings, in hopes of a zoning change.

NYIRN is a totally legit, even heroic organization. Maybe you could look up their website, and Google about their work, before you slander them. It doesn't make you seem savvily cynical to dis them, it only makes you look ignorant and uninformed. They are trying to protect those whom people like you don't even want to know exist, except as props, like when you tell people back home in the midwest how wonderfully diverse, how fably ethnic, NYC is.

What happens to people like you is, the industrial landlords let you in illegally, then apply for a zoning variance, and if they get it, they kick you out so that they can fix up the building and get higher-paying tenants in there. It has happened over and over again. Then you'll realize that you are just as vulnerable as these manufacturing workers, and just as "quaint" in the eyes of the lawyers and investment bankers who'll be moving into your now-luxury building.

The city needs affordable housing, yes indeed; I need it myself. But how about focusing your attention on all the politicians, like Gifford Miller, whose campaign war chests are stuffed with developer cash? Why should affordable housing and decent jobs for blue-collar people compete with each other? Think about it. The enemy is the luxury condo-fication of all of NYC, not the people who do the kind of work you don't want to do.

I stand corrected... standing on a sidewalk gawking into people's windows is not loitering. But, if you could convince the police that they are in disguise... :)

nice illustration, jen.

is loitering on a sidewalk really a crime?

I'd like the NYIRN to explain why there are so many vacant buildings in the industrial park.

If their goal is truly to bring manufacturing business to East Williamsburg, why are they looking so carefully at buildings already occupied as residences? The legal battle to get evictions, etc., seems to me to be a time consuming process.

Wouldn't it be more effective to scope out good _vacant_ buildings to bring potential businesses to see, to actually bring business to Brooklyn?

Maybe the NYIRN has another motive altogether? Perhaps the NYIRN is a front for, or working in collusion with, the big-money residential high-rise developers? These are the same developers who would love their waterfront property values to be driven up even more by the loss of the very attractive, edgy residences to the south.

If you see the NYIRN on your block, call the police. Loitering is a crime. Living in an industrial building is just a code violation.

Oh, I almost forgot: zoning maps avail. here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/bk_zonedex.html

I also live in this neighborhood. When I moved in, I was assured by the realtor that the space was "legal," but now I'm not so sure.

Honestly, I know from living there and walking around that the vast majority of these industrial building are empty from the second floor up. I don't see why we should be villanized for bringing money into a neighborhood that's sitting mostly fallow.

That was my building in one of the photos in the Times article! Not the best thing to see on Saturday when you have a hangover. Anyway, it's rediculous. Trying to preserve a manufacturing industry in the city in this age is quaint. The reason I live in the industrial park is because (ding ding ding) I can afford it. With the ridiculous nature of this housing market, it's only a matter of time before all the warehouses get converted to lofts. Meanwhile I'll be priced out and living in Bushwick proper.