March 20, 2002
Hon. Michael Bloomberg
Mayor, City of New York
City Hall
New
York, NY 10007
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
The draft Fiscal Year 2003 Budget you have recently put forward proposes to impose fees for permits from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and to make a significant cut to the LPC’s budget. On behalf of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, the largest membership organization in Greenwich Village, I urge you to reconsider these proposals. LPC permit fees and agency budget cuts would have an extremely deleterious impact upon Greenwich Village and countless other communities throughout New York City, including those which currently enjoy landmark protections as well as those which seek them. The proposals would seriously diminish our ability to protect the historically, architecturally, and culturally significant buildings which are a cornerstone of New York’s economic and cultural appeal and vitality.
Compliance with landmarks law requires broad voluntary support for its provisions. The imposition of fees for LPC permits will diminish this support and deter property owners from seeking permits. Small residential property owners, who do not qualify for federal tax breaks for owning landmarked property and whose profit margins may be quite modest, will be most impacted by this provision. By creating an additional special burden for maintaining properties of historic, architectural, or cultural importance to the entire city, we send the absolutely wrong message. Because several categories of LPC permits do not require Department of Buildings approval, property owners have no reason to seek these permits in the first place other than voluntary compliance or fear of penalty. The imposition of penalties is dependent upon the violation being reported by the public and the LPC’s single compliance officer (who covers 22,000 landmarked properties citywide) inspecting the property and serving the violation. With permits costing owners money as well as time, increased non-compliance will jam the currently overtaxed system with violation complaints requiring inspections, taking away from other necessary and urgent work which the Commission should be doing.
Additionally, collecting, tracking, and administering the fees will create a new category of costs for the agency, further burdening the already understaffed agency. It would make much more sense to consider increasing penalties for LPC violations as a revenue generator for the agency. Property owners who ignore the law rather than those seeking to follow it should more appropriately bear any new fiscal burden for the agency.
The proposal is particularly ill-conceived in light of the proposed cuts to the LPC’s budget, which would also be a terrible mistake. In 1992 the LPC’s budget was $3.4 million to support a staff of 56 to regulate 19,000 buildings. Under the proposed 2003 budget, that figure would drop to less than $3.2 million to support a staff of only 44 – 21% less staff to regulate 20% more buildings. During this same time, the number of applications which the agency processes has increased by over 63%.
LPC budget cuts over the last 10 years have already resulted in longer waiting time for permits, discouraging property owner compliance; delayed inspections for violations, allowing more irreparable damage to landmarked structures; longer waiting times for proposed landmark and historic district designations, allowing more mutilation and destruction of potential landmarks; and an increased dependence upon communities and advocates to provide the extensive research and documentation necessary to advance landmark designations, work which had previously been done by the LPC. This is largely because the LPC has not had a survey department since 1993, and its research staff consists of four full-time employees, down from ten in 1992 and the lowest level in the agency’s history. While this affects all communities, poorer communities and those with less experience pursuing landmark designation are particularly hard hit by this lack of resources on the part of the LPC. And although the staff and members of the LPC are extremely hard working, dedicated to the cause of preservation, and doing the most with the resources available to them, the proposed budget cuts will only accelerate this problematic trend.
Clearly New York City faces difficult budget decisions right now and must work to preserve essential services for our collective health and well-being. However, the changes being proposed to the LPC’s budget will result in miniscule immediate savings but could severely compromise the agency’s effectiveness and undermine a system which has proven to strengthen our city’s fabric on a multitude of levels*. A Landmarks Preservation Commission with the resources to do its job and maintain a high level of cooperation from property owners contributes greatly to the city’s financial stability and civic pride. The proposed compromises to the system will strongly impact communities like Greenwich Village, whose character and sense of community are interwoven with its physical fabric and historic integrity. Like the Village, countless neighborhoods and iconic structures throughout New York will be put at risk by these proposed budget changes. I thus strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals.
Sincerely,
Andrew Berman
Executive Director
*A January 2002 Independent Budget Office study has shown that, in spite of the restrictions it may place on development, landmarking more often than not results in increased property values.
March 22, 2002
Hon. A. Gifford Miller
Speaker, New York City Council
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Dear Speaker Miller:
The draft Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Mayor Bloomberg recently put forward proposes to impose fees for permits from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and to make a significant cut to the LPC’s budget. On behalf of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, the largest membership organization in Greenwich Village, I urge you to oppose these proposals. LPC permit fees and agency budget cuts would have an extremely deleterious impact upon Greenwich Village and countless other communities throughout New York City, including those which currently enjoy landmark protections as well as those which seek them. The proposals would seriously diminish our ability to protect the historically, architecturally, and culturally significant buildings which are a cornerstone of New York’s economic and cultural appeal and vitality.
Compliance with landmarks law requires broad voluntary support for its provisions. The imposition of fees for LPC permits will diminish this support and deter property owners from seeking permits. Small residential property owners, who do not qualify for federal tax breaks for owning landmarked property and whose profit margins may be quite modest, will be most impacted by this provision. By creating an additional special burden for maintaining properties of historic, architectural, or cultural importance to the entire city, we send the absolutely wrong message. Because several categories of LPC permits do not require Department of Buildings approval, property owners have no reason to seek these permits in the first place other than voluntary compliance or fear of penalty. The imposition of penalties is dependent upon the violation being reported by the public and the LPC’s single compliance officer (who covers 22,000 landmarked properties citywide) inspecting the property and serving the violation. With permits costing owners money as well as time, increased non-compliance will jam the currently overtaxed system with violation complaints requiring inspections, taking away from other necessary and urgent work which the Commission should be doing.
Additionally, collecting, tracking, and administering the fees will create a new category of costs for the agency, further burdening the already understaffed agency. It would make much more sense to consider increasing penalties for LPC violations as a revenue generator for the agency. Property owners who ignore the law rather than those seeking to follow it should more appropriately bear any new fiscal burden for the agency.
The proposal is particularly ill-conceived in light of the proposed cuts to the LPC’s budget, which would also be a terrible mistake. In 1992 the LPC’s budget was $3.4 million to support a staff of 56 to regulate 19,000 buildings. Under the proposed 2003 budget, that figure would drop to less than $3.2 million to support a staff of only 44 – 21% less staff to regulate 20% more buildings. During this same time, the number of applications which the agency processes has increased by over 63%.
LPC budget cuts over the last 10 years have already resulted in longer waiting time for permits, discouraging property owner compliance; delayed inspections for violations, allowing more irreparable damage to landmarked structures; longer waiting times for proposed landmark and historic district designations, allowing more mutilation and destruction of potential landmarks; and an increased dependence upon communities and advocates to provide the extensive research and documentation necessary to advance landmark designations, work which had previously been done by the LPC. This is largely because the LPC has not had a survey department since 1993, and its research staff consists of four full-time employees, down from ten in 1992 and the lowest level in the agency’s history. While this affects all communities, poorer communities and those with less experience pursuing landmark designation are particularly hard hit by this lack of resources on the part of the LPC. And although the staff and members of the LPC are extremely hard working, dedicated to the cause of preservation, and doing the most with the resources available to them, the proposed budget cuts will only accelerate this problematic trend.
Clearly New York City faces difficult budget decisions right now and must work to preserve essential services for our collective health and well-being. However, the changes being proposed to the LPC’s budget will result in miniscule immediate savings but could severely compromise the agency’s effectiveness and undermine a system which has proven to strengthen our city’s fabric on a multitude of levels*. A Landmarks Preservation Commission with the resources to do its job and maintain a high level of cooperation from property owners contributes greatly to the city’s financial stability and civic pride. The proposed compromises to the system will strongly impact communities like Greenwich Village, whose character and sense of community are interwoven with its physical fabric and historic integrity. Like the Village, countless neighborhoods and iconic structures throughout New York will be put at risk by these proposed budget changes. I thus strongly urge you to oppose these proposals.
Sincerely,
Andrew Berman
Executive Director
*A January 2002 Independent Budget Office study has shown that, in spite of the restrictions it may place on development, landmarking more often than not results in increased property values.
Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the proposed budget of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. My name is Andrew Berman and I am the Executive Director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, an organization founded in 1980 to preserve and protect the unique architectural and cultural heritage of Greenwich Village. I am here today to testify against the proposed imposition of fees for permits from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), and against the proposed cuts to the LPC’s budget. These proposals would be damaging not only to Greenwich Village but to communities throughout New York City. Rather than increasing revenue for the city, they would increase costs and decrease the effectiveness of the agency, and would disproportionately burden poorer communities of the city requiring the assistance of the LPC.
The imposition of fees for LPC permits has been proposed many times in the past as a revenue generator and has always been rejected. The reason is simple: it would impose an added fee on a property owner seeking to do the right thing and secure LPC review for proposed building changes which other owners do not have to pay. The success of landmarks and historic district preservation is dependent in large part upon the willingness of owners to consult with and seek approval from the LPC for changes to their properties. Charging them for the privilege of going through this extra layer of approval will only increase the incentive to ignore this requirement. Enforcement of these provisions is already extremely difficult as the LPC compliance unit is already severely overburdened, a situation which would only be worsened by the proposed budget cuts. Because many of these permits do not require Department of Buildings approval (such as window replacements, exterior paint jobs, etc.), there would be little incentive for property owners to go to the LPC for these permits when it will now cost them additional money as well as time.
Currently, in spite of the benefit that the city as a whole reaps from landmark preservation, owners get no direct tax or other benefit from the city for owning or maintaining a designated property. Imposition of a fee for LPC permits would only increase owner opposition to landmark designation and increase non-compliance with the law. It would make the job even more difficult for communities and the LPC to convince property owners to support designation for
their properties and to abide by its terms, and it would transfer even more of the burden for maintaining a piece of our city’s history onto an individual owner’s shoulders. Small residential property owners, who do not qualify for federal tax breaks for owning landmarked property and whose profit margins may be quite small, will be most impacted by this provision. For designated historic district neighborhoods like Greenwich Village, where there are hundreds of individual small property owners, as well as designated residential districts in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, the impact would be significant. Non-compliance with landmarks law will undoubtedly increase, eroding neighborhood character, destroying key historic elements, and diminishing the ability of the remaining preservation-minded property owners and community members to preserve the collective historic qualities of their landmark districts.
Permit charges would also require LPC to collect, track and administer these fees, when they are understaffed to do the mandated duties already required of them. This, along with the increased need for enforcement and adjudication of violations fees would create, will ultimately result in increased costs and decreased revenue for the city. The LPC’s work already indirectly generates revenue through increased property values and improved stewardship of historic properties. Permit fees would hamper this. If there is in fact a need to increase revenue directly generated by the LPC, increasing the penalties for LPC violations might be more appropriately considered. This would shift the burden of revenue generation to those who ignore the law, and would increase the incentive for compliance, which is still too easily sidestepped by some unwilling property owners.
The proposed cuts to the LPC’s budget would similarly be penny wise and pound foolish. More than 22,000 buildings are regulated by the LPC, and the agency is also charged with identifying new structures and districts of architectural, historic, or cultural value worthy of preservation. Both sets of duties require intensive staff time for research and review, as well as consultation and communication with affected property owners and communities. Landmark designation has proven a successful tool to preserve and stabilize communities, and, in spite of the restrictions it often places on development, according to an analysis by the Independent Budget Office, it more often than not results in increased property values. The LPC’s work has been an effective means of preserving landmarks and neighborhoods which contribute greatly to the city as sources of tourism, business and residential investment, and cultural renown.
In spite of this, the LPC’s tiny budget has been slashed over the last ten years, and further reductions are being proposed. Ten years ago the LPC had a budget of $3.4 million and a staff of 56 to regulate approximately 19,000 buildings. The proposed 2003 budget would bring that figure down to less than $3.2 million and reduce staff counts to 44, or 21% less staff to regulate almost 20% more buildings. The number of applications which the agency must process has increased by more than 63% in that time.
Reductions in the LPC’s budget have had several debilitating effects. Property owners must wait longer for permits, again discouraging them from seeking LPC approval or consultation. There is now only one compliance inspection officer for the entire department covering over 22,000 properties. Consideration of designations takes increasingly long, which in some very high profile cases has resulted in the loss of important structures before the LPC acted. In fact, with the increasing lag time between the proposal of historic districts and their qualifying for calendaring by the LPC (the point at which they are protected from inappropriate alterations), advocates and communities are faced with the Catch-22 that the pursuit of designation may serve as a signal to uncooperative property owners to alter or demolish their properties in order to prevent landmarking. In recent years, this has occurred with several sites and properties in Greenwich Village which were proposed for inclusion in historic districts being considered by the LPC.
This situation is largely the result of the severe reduction in the LPC’s survey and research departments over the last 10 years; the survey department, in fact, has been defunct since 1993, and the research staff is down to four full time employees from 10 in 1992, the lowest number in the department’s history. As a result, the burden of providing the research and documentation necessary in order to designate and regulate historic districts has increasingly fallen upon the public, with the impacted communities and advocates themselves performing the painstaking documentation required or, if they are able, hiring a historian to do so for them. This creates a great burden for any community, but is especially difficult for poorer communities or those with less experience pursuing designations. Even in Greenwich Village, a relatively affluent community with much experience in this area, the requirement has slowed progress on needed designations, resulting in the loss of significant buildings and discouraging the pursuit of appropriate protections for historic areas.
Staff reductions at LPC also mean that inspections of historic properties and the service of violations takes much longer and often comes too late to prevent inappropriate work. All of this is the case in spite of the fact that the LPC’s staff and members are extremely hard-working, dedicated to the cause of preservation, and clearly do the most with the resources they have at their disposal. However, further cuts will only continue to compromise their abilities.
In the end, the proposed fee impositions and budget cuts will diminish the effectiveness of an extremely important and successful program which has helped preserve our city’s history and fabric as well as increase investment, tourism, and community cohesion and pride. These are results which now, perhaps more than ever, we should be seeking to sustain rather than undermine. Clearly the City Council will need to make tough choices this year and no doubt there are agencies whose services speak more directly to basic sustenance and survival needs in our city. However, I would urge you to consider how relatively small the LPC’s budget is and even smaller the purported savings from these proposals. Compare this to the ways in which the work done by the LPC serves New York -- increasing tax revenues and property values, encouraging the employment of skilled labor for rehabilitation and restorative work, preserving our city’s distinctive history and sense of place -- and it becomes clear that the city’s economic and cultural welfare will best be served by rejecting these proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.