It's a sad day--or should I say week--in the history of alternative weeklies. But I can't say I didn't see it coming. First, awhile back, the Village Voice fired a good chunk of it's long-time staff; then, more recently, they eliminated the last remaining columns focusing on National politics. Last week they ran two feature articles, one a blatant scrap of chick lit about the dating problems of an ivy league princess, and the other a profile of a gay guy who plays sports and voted for George Bush not once, but twice! Talk about in-depth reporting. But the final nail in the coffin occurred this week when they ran an article by Kristen Lombardi slamming a man named for Daniel Peckham for having the temerity to insist upon holding onto his rent-regulated apartment in Chelsea despite that fact that the developer offered him a buyout of $75,000 if he would give up his rights. The developer, Larry Tauber, head of the Chelsea Partners corporation, is portrayed in the article as a supremely reasonable man, who wants nothing more than simply to gut the old Chelsea townhouse and convert it into luxury (non-rent regulated) rental units (actually I bet they'll be condos).
All I have to say for Daniel Peckham is, good for him! He refuses to compromise his principals for the almighty dollar. If only there were ten in this city for every one of him, then the type of greed-fueled speculation which is presently overrunning New York would be unthinkable. Developers are fond of crying, "property rights, property rights," as if that were some magic formula that justifies any moral enormity they can dream of in their fevered, twisted little minds. But you know, Mr. Developer, you can't just do whatever you want with a building that you ostensibly own. It's the people of this city, through the representatives they elect and the laws these representatives enact, that allow you to own and profit from these buildings in the first place. The price that you paid for the building was predicated upon the existing conditions at the time: the fact that the building was rent controlled, in a depressed area, etc. Most likely you were given tax breaks and all sorts of other subsidies--money that comes ultimately from the people--throughout the life of this building. You are not necessarily entitled to a windfall just because the prevailing real estate conditions have changed. You are still ultimately subject to the will of the people, so watch your ass and don't get too greedy. There are some things that shouldn't be subject to speculation, and people's lives are one of them.
The developers have already driven out the bulk of the working class in Manhattan, and now they're going after the middle class. The present real estate boom is fueled by lax mortgage standards, and it's probably all going to come crashing down eventually, and guess who will pay? It won't be the developers, that's for sure. It will be you and I, the taxpayers. So doesn't that give us a right to say whoa, wait a minute, before this house of cards comes tumbling down? It sure as hell does.
To get back to the facts of the Daniel Peckham case: Tauber has also offered to relocate him to a comparable apartment. All the other tenants of the townhouse have already accepted the buyout, which does indeed sound rather generous, and the Voice article acts like Peckham is an idiot and some kind of deranged gambler because he could end up without anything. And perhaps the most prudent course of action, from a strictly selfish point of view, would be to accept the offer and move out. But from the standpoint of the Chelsea community it's suicide: our neighborhood, once racially and economically diverse, is fast being turned into nothing more than a playground for the rich. And besides, quite simply, no matter what kind of money is being offered and no matter what his reasons, Peckham shouldn't have to move out if he doesn't want to. As much as the author of The Voice piece may pretend otherwise, this is not a question of imminent domain.
Although Peckham is interrogated at length as to his motives, the author apparently never thinks to grill Tauber to the same extent. Why do you imagine that Tauber is offering so much? What the Voice article conceals is that the stretch of 21st Street where Peckham lives is among the most sought after areas in the entire city, and Tauber stands to make obscenely many times the money he's shelling out to the tenants. Another thing that the article glosses over is that Tauber is taking advantage of a loophole that allows him to claim he's demolishing the building, while simply gutting it and then rebuilding the interior cheaply with paper thin walls to maximize floor space. So he's not even really doing the rich people who will subsequently populate this building any favors. He just wants to make a quick buck, and it's a damn shame that beautiful, historic buildings all over the city, but especially in Chelsea and Greenwich Village, are being abused in this way. It's just the latest in the long line of scams that slimy developers are constantly foisting upon the residents of this city, and, as we no longer have the Voice to do battle for us, it's about time for us to raise our own voices and demand that our lawmakers step in and close this loophole.
Ed Hamilton
www.hotelchelseablog.com