NEWS: Buildings in the Hot Seat at State Hearing
From the Downtown Brooklyn Star:
http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=4502
Dateline : Thursday, September 14, 2006
By Nik Kovac
“They called me crazy when I took the job,” smiled Patricia Lancaster in a passing moment of joviality during two-plus hours of tense testimony. The Department of Buildings (DOB) commissioner was responding to some grudging praise from the state legislators who were grilling her in front of dozens of angry New York City residents.
“Some of the people in this room might get mad at me for saying this,” Queens Assemblyman Mark Weprin had said just before, “but you’re doing a good job.”
“He said that?” asked Mark’s brother, David Weprin, a City Councilman representing the same area of eastern Queens, incredulously. The Ledger/Star relayed that on the record comment from one brother to another, but, to be fair, perhaps it hadn’t been put in quite its proper context.
“Your agency is the one everybody loves to hate,” Mark Weprin had said before offering his kind words. “This is the biggest issue for my community: development and city planning.”
“I’ve been sitting here with your constituents at my back,” responded Lancaster, “and I don’t feel any knives yet.” She then made a theatrical show of feeling her own back, searching for puncture wounds.
Indeed, it’s hard to imagine an angrier group of residents than those affected during this recent building boom by the perceived incompetence and corruption of the DOB. In their eyes, architects and developers have been running rampant over neighborhoods across the city, building hastily and illegally, causing the deaths of construction workers and the condemnations of neighboring buildings, with little or no oversight from the city agency charged with doing just that.
“There was a perception,” admitted Lancaster, “that the Department of Buildings wasn’t home, that we would issue violations and not follow up.” Later on, she acknowledged the tenacity and awfulness of the current problems. “We think that some of the smaller contractors,” she testified, “have no idea that they have to shore up foundations when excavating, especially in Brooklyn, where you have lots of gravel foundations. You also have some developers doing it on purpose, because they want that building to collapse because they want to buy it, etc., etc.”
Weprin the councilman, like his brother the assemblyman, saw signs of progress under Lancaster’s four-year-old tenure. “The first order,” he said in the hallway outside the hearing, directly after submitting his formal testimony, “was to get rid of corruption, and she’s made a major effort in that direction.”
He also pointed to other positive indications, like the fact that she is more sympathetic to reform legislation from the Council than her predecessor, and that she acknowledged that only checking 20% percent of self-certified applications was not acceptable. “That’s an evolution,” he commented, “and that’s what you have to look for with these agencies.”
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol acknowledged as much, but didn’t take much solace from it. “You are to be commended for that,” he told Lancaster, before issuing a rather emphatic, “but…” His follow-up was dramatic: “Rome was burning and you didn’t notice until it was too late. Too many, especially in my district, have already been displaced.”
Indeed, Lentol has witnessed dozens of long-time residents forced out of their homes on orders from the DOB, when they have come to a construction site too late to prevent a developer from carelessly (or intentionally) digging too deep so that neighboring buildings lean and their foundations crack. Given today’s exponential real estate market, leaving the building often means leaving the neighborhood, which is exactly what unscrupulous developers are hoping for: get the working class out so that others who can afford the astronomically priced new condos can move in.
“As a matter of fact,” continued Lentol, “I missed an appointment with a very important person yesterday because I had to take a tour of this 88-year-old woman’s house [she had just called his office] myself.” That comment was a direct rebuke to Lancaster, who started her testimony by saying she would have to leave for a “previous engagement” at 11:30, even though the hearing didn’t start until after 10. “I know I’m making a long speech,” said Lentol at 11:28, while Lancaster squirmed in her seat and looked at her watch, “but I’ve thought about this issue extensively.”
As it turned out, Lentol wasn’t the only assembly member happy to watch Lancaster fidget, as they kept her busy answering questions until nearly an hour past her scheduled lunchtime plans.
“You had six or seven weeks notice,” chastised Assemblyman Jim Brennan, who chaired the hearing for over seven hours last Thursday, “so I certainly hope you stick around to answer a few of our questions… I intend to continue hearing testimony until at least five, and then, if necessary, we will hold an additional hearing in November.”
Indeed, once lunchtime turned into mid-afternoon, Lancaster was long gone as were Brennan’s assembly colleagues, but he continued to hear the dozens of residents from throughout the city with their tales of DOB woe.
Most of the testifiers were veterans of such public hearings, be they in front of the City Council, the Assembly, or the Board of Standards and Appeals. As such, their anger was focused, and the dialogue was largely constructive.