►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
E
Okay,
recording
is
happening
all
right,
let's
get
started
so
welcome
to
the
september
15th
meeting
of
the
planning
and
economic
development
committee.
Let's
see
first
on
the
agenda,
are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda?
F
E
I
mean
I,
I
would
have
to
know
more
about
why
that
was
put
on
on
the
agenda
as
an
action
item
that
was
actually
a
late
addition.
Luis
is
coming
on.
Now
I
hadn't
I
that
was
actually
an
amended
that
wasn't.
F
Right,
it
was
added
late,
thursday,
late
tuesday
afternoon,
which
is
a
very
weighty
and
large
item,
and,
given
the
late
introduction,
it's
difficult
to
have
a
foundation
of
knowledge
to
be
able
to
vote
on
it
or
not.
That's
why
I
would
like
to
suggest
moving
it
to
a
discussion
item
and
bring
it
back
next
month.
C
G
It's
definitely
something
that
could
wait
as
long
as
do
you
think
it's
necessary.
You
know
like.
I
really
think
this
is
it's
very
important
for
you
to
feel
comfortable
with
information,
so
it
is
ready
to
go,
but
it's
not
ready
from
your
perspective.
So
that's.
That's
probably
all
I
need
to
hear.
E
C
D
I
I
also
received
this
as
the
rest
of
us
did
late
yesterday
afternoon,
and
I
emailed
back
today
this
afternoon
saying
that
I
would
prefer
this
being
moved
to
a
discussion
item
rather
than
a
sending
on
to
council
tonight.
I
I
just
feel
I
want
to
be
prepared
to
vote
on
something
that
we're
sending
on
to
council
and
I
don't
feel
that
tonight.
E
All
right:
let's,
let's
move
it,
we'll
move
it
to
discussion
and
and
then,
if
we're
in
favor,
we
can
bring
it
back
next
month
and
vote
on
it.
B
And
okay,
the
first
speaker
is
theresa
alt.
Is
she
in
the
waiting
room,
lisa.
B
A
C
H
Okay,
good,
you
can
hear
me
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
getting
any
interference
from
other
things:
good,
okay,
yes,
I'm
theresa,
alt,
206,
eddie
street
college
town,
I'm
addressing
the
draft
city
of
what
hello.
Yes,
you
can't
hear
me
no.
H
I
H
H
H
I
noted
typo
paragraph
258,
16
necessity
for
good
cause
refers
to
section
16,
but
it
should
say
section
17
and
on
down
in
that
section,
17,
a
1
small,
roman
four
there's
a
quote:
significant
market
changes
relevant
to
the
subject
unit
as
a
valid
reason
for
raising
rent.
I
was
discussing
this
with
a
landlord.
I
said
this
should
be
stricken
from
the
law.
It
should
not
be
grounds
for
eviction.
This
is
just
gentrification,
they
said,
but
the
property
tax
will
go
way
up
based
on
nearby
sales
and
the
landlord
won't
be
able
to
pay
it.
H
B
Oh
you're
right
he
he
is
here
for
the
pud
expansions
and
I
that
those
were
the
only
two
that
we
had
that
signed
up
to
speak.
C
E
A
C
All
right
derek,
can
you,
can
you
hear
us?
I
can
yes
so
the
floor
is
yours,
yeah.
J
Thanks
everyone,
I
appreciate
it.
I
I
really
have
no
prepared
remarks.
I
I
briefly
earlier
today
I'm
seeing
messages
I
want
to
make
sure
they
weren't
directed
to
me
earlier
today.
I
looked
at
the
discussion
at
the
last
meeting.
I
am
the
managing
member
of
the
cuba
gardens
apartments
up
there
on
west
hill.
I
understand
that
we're
looking
to
vote
potentially
on
the
pud
expansion.
J
I
am
an
out
of
towner,
I'm
from
you
know.
I
went
to
school
at
cornell,
but
I
I
have
recently
learned
the
and
the
reputation
that
west
hill
has
you
know
didn't
have
before
you
know,
certainly
being
a
property
owner
up.
J
There
has
put
us
first
hand,
you
know
in
the
middle
of
what's
going
on,
I
think
we're
working
very
hard
to
change
that
we're
improving
the
property,
we're
spending
a
lot
of
money,
it's
a
slow
process
for
sure,
but
but
I
do
think
that
you
know
one
of
the
number
one
ways
to
overcome.
A
J
Families
can
live
in,
you
know,
people
can
be
proud
to,
you,
know,
come
home
to
and
that
doesn't
currently
exist
in
at
least
a
multiple
dwelling
fashion
on
west
hill.
So
we
have
some
excess
land.
We
would
like
to
build
new
units.
E
So
I
think,
that's
our
only
speaker
on
the
public
hearing,
so
I'll
look
for
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing
moved
by
laura
seconded
by
donna
all
in
favor
and
that
carries
you
hannah
before
we
get
onto
the
presentations.
I
wanted
to
give
an
opportunity
for
privilege
of
the
floor
just
committee
members
to
respond
if
they
so
desire.
K
One
is
that
our
neighborhood
listserv
recently
had
renewed
activity
about
the
problem
of
short-term
rentals
in
residential
areas
of
the
city.
So
I'm
and
I'm
I'm
hoping
that
sometime
within
the
next
year,
this
can
be
addressed
again
by
this
committee
and
by
common
council
the
issue
of
drafting
short-term
legislation
to
regulate
short-term
rentals
in
the
city.
I
I
still
think
that's
very
important
and
I
understand
completely
why
it
was
put
off
to
the
side
in
march
of
2020.
K
So
that's
one
item.
The
other
item
is
that,
sometime
over
the
summer,
we
received
several
emails
regarding
what
we
call
the
homeless
encampments
casually
called
the
jungle
from
neighbors
or
or
property
owners
who
live
near
them,
and
I
don't
know
what
to
tell
them.
I
would
I
understand
that
there
had
been
a
task
force
to
look
at
possible
solutions
to
the
issue,
and
I'm
just
hoping
that
somebody
who
was
on
the
task
force
or
somebody
who's
knowledgeable
about
what's
being
done
for
long-range
planning,
might
be
able
to
respond
to
people
who
are
inquiring.
E
Thanks
donna,
the
short-term
rental,
I
did
get
your
email
and
I'm
sorry
I
haven't
responded
yet
I
think
we'd
have
I'd,
have
to
circle
back
with
joanne
just
to
see
if
we
have
enough
space
on
the
agenda
to
take
that
up
before
the
end
of
the
year.
I'm
not
sure
like
where
I
know
tom
was
working
on
that
issue
and
if
that's
something
we'd
be
able
to
take
out
soon.
B
Yeah,
we
have
been
talking
about
it
because
we
have
gotten
oh
you're,
not
the
only
one
down
and
we've
gotten
other
expressions
of
concern
and
just
ask
you
where
we
are
with
that,
so
we
probably
won't
get
to
it
till
the
probably
the
first
of
the
year
tom
is
going
to
pick
it
back
up
again,
but
we're
trying
to
get
through
and
finalize
all
of
the
conference
center
activities
before
we
pick
it
up,
but
we
are
going
to
pick
it
up
again.
E
And
on
the
the
task
force
for
the
homeless
game,
I
mean
I
know
that
joanne
was
also
in
those
meetings,
but
I
think
that
the
challenge
for
the
city
is
that
I
mean
there's
really
two
sort
of
strategies,
big
strategies
we
could
pursue.
We
could
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
pick
everybody
on
city
property.
E
I
don't
think
there's
an
appetite
to
do
that
for
humanitarian
and
political
reasons.
The
other
strategy
would
be
to
say
we're
going
to
legalize
encampments
on
city
property,
but
when
you
do
that,
there's
a
whole
host
of
legal
complications,
you
know
with
have
to
do
with
building
codes
and
fire
codes
and
the
rest,
and
so
when
we
met
we
kind
of
ran
into
this
roadblock
and
trying
to
figure
out
like
which
of
these
two
ways
we
were
going
to
go.
E
I
think
there
was
an
interest
in
trying
to
set
up
some
some
kind
of
a
more
compassionate
or
more
humanitarian
response
down
there,
working
with
local
human
service
providers
to
get
outreach
workers
down
there
and
get
services
there.
But
I
realized
I
realized
and
I've
been
getting
the
same
emails
that
it
really
has
escalated
in
the
last
month
or
two
and
we
are
seeing
more
encampments
and
I'm
starting
to
see
more
encampments,
that
in
the
old
jungle
right
behind
agway
and
that
kind
of
area.
E
So
I
definitely
think
this
is
something
that
we
need
to
take
up
again
and
really
figure
out
a
comprehensive
response,
because
I
realize
you
know
it's
it's
an
issue
for
the
people
that
are
living
there.
Obviously,
and
it's
also
an
issue
for
surrounding
businesses
and
for
people
that
are
living
there.
So
I
appreciate
you
bringing
that
up
and
I'm
joanna
savante.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
more
to
add
to
that.
L
I
think
you
summed
up
the
situation
well,
I
I
allow
me
and
nels
to
follow
up
with
liddy
who
runs
the
continuum
of
care.
You
know
this
really
is.
It
is
a
city
issue,
because
it's
city,
property,
there's,
also
railroad
property
back
there,
but
city
property,
but
it
is
not
within
our
means
to
solve
it.
L
E
We've
got
so
next
up
on
the
agenda.
We
have
two
presentations,
one
from
law,
new
york
and
one
from
the
ethnic
attendance
union
is
keith
here,
keith
mccaffrey,
oh
yes,
there!
He
is.
E
So
originally,
I
think
when
this
was
proposed
to
have
you
come
in
and
present
here
it
was
to
talk
about
the
the
new
york
state,
housing
law
that
was
passed
in
2019,
but
we
realized
that
that's
like
a
pretty
lengthy
presentation
and
discussion.
It
might
not
fit
in
the
confines
of
15
minutes
and
I
also
think
duckson
who's
on
the
common
council
sent
around
a
video
of
the
presentation
that
you've
done.
So
I
think
that
was
helpful
for
people
to
see.
So
I
thought
really
tonight.
E
Maybe
we
have
two
big
resolutions
on
the
agenda
tonight
that
have
to
do
with
tenant
protection
and
eviction
prevention.
One
is
the
good
cause,
eviction
legislation
and
the
other
is
the
right
to
counsel
legislation.
E
So
maybe
maybe
this
could
be
an
opportunity
for
you
to
give
your
sort
of
opinion
on
those
or
for
the
committee
to
ask
you
questions
just
kind
of
get
to
to
get
more
information
about
these
two
pieces
of
legislation
we're
potentially
interested
in
moving
forward.
So
with
that
I
don't
know
cynthia.
Does
that
sound?
I
know
that
you
were
the
one
who
has
invited
keith
originally,
so
does
that
sound?
Fair.
F
Sorry,
yes,
yes
thank
you
and
keith.
I
did
send
some
questions
ahead
of
time
again
pertaining
to
the
two
resolutions
that
are
in
front
of
us.
F
So
if
you
don't
mind
giving
sort
of
a
brief
background
on
the
the
current
environment
that
you're
seeing
around
evictions,
what
how
difficult
and
time-consuming
the
process
is
for
both
landlords
and
and
also
for
tenants
what
resources
are
available
to
them
and
what
types
of
evictions
you
are
seeing
most
often,
and
also
to
provide
a
little
background
with,
in
light
of
the
right
to
council
proposal,
what
you
might
see
as
the
benefits
and
and
disadvantages
of
of
either
program.
M
Sure,
thanks
so
much
cynthia
and
steph
and
everyone
else
who's
on
the
call
thanks
so
much
for
inviting
me
and
asking
me
to
participate.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
what
I
am
allowed
and
not
allowed
to
do.
First
at
the
beginning,
so
legal
assistance
of
western
new
york
is
a
a
not-for-profit
law
firm.
We
have.
We
serve
a
14-county
area
from
seven
offices.
We
have
about
160
staff
over
that
area.
We
have
an
office
in
ithaca,
that's
been
here
about
50
years
that
serves
tompkins
and
tioga
counties.
M
I
became
the
managing
attorney
of
that
office
on
august
1st
when
greg
thomas,
who
had
been
here
for
45
years
retired,
so
I'm
I'm
sort
of
new
to
practicing
in
ithaca.
Although
I've
lived
here
12
years,
I've
and
I've
worked
for
law
new
york
for
most
of
the
last
35
years.
Most
of
that
time
was
in
geneva,
representing
tenants
in
the
five
rural
counties
around
the
geneva
area.
So
I
have
lots
of
experience
representing
folks
law.
New
york
gets
a
lot
of
funding
from
the
federal
government
from
the
legal
services
corporation.
M
They
have
very
strict
federal
rules
about
lobbying.
We
are
not
allowed
to
lobby
on
behalf
of
a
particular
city,
ordinance
or
or
law
or
resolution,
so
I
can
answer
questions
I
can
provide
background.
I
can
talk
about
what
we
see
and
those
kinds
of
things.
I
can
answer
questions
about
the
law,
but
I
can't
really
give
you
an
opinion
on.
Yes,
you
should
pass
this
resolution
or
no.
You
should
not
pass
this
resolution
so
happy
to
answer
questions
in
terms
of
what
we're
seeing
currently
it
has
been.
M
So
a
lot
of
what
we've
seen
is
not
what
would
be
standard.
As
you
know,
and
as
you
began
as
seth
began.
This
discussion
with
there
were
a
lot
of
amendments
to
new
york,
landlord
tenant
law
in
2019
changed.
M
You
know
the
length
of
time
for
various
parts
of
the
eviction
process
strengthened
a
lot
of
defendants,
a
lot
of
defenses
that
tenants
may
have
in
eviction,
but
we
haven't
really
had
an
opportunity
to
to
implement
those
or
see
how
courts
are
going
to
interpret
those
new
rules,
some
of
them
that
the
sort
of
systematic
stuff
about
how
much
time
people
get
in
a
notice
or
how
much
time
they
have
to
respond
to
court
papers.
M
Those
things
are
in
place,
but
a
lot
of
the
stuff
about
more
difficult,
more
complex
parts
of
the
statute.
We
haven't
had
much
experience,
seeing
how
courts
interpret
it
yet.
So
that's
sort
of
a
very
interesting
kind
of
background.
M
At
that
time,
the
state
came
out
with
this
emergency
rental
assistance
program
and
two
one
one
is
doing
a
fabulous
job
of
helping
both
tenants
and
landlords
apply
for
those
benefits
and
get
those
applications
processed,
and
I
was
at
a
meeting
yesterday
where,
with
local
dss-
and
we
went
over
the
most
recent
reports
from
otda
the
state
agency
that
showed
that
the
money
is
starting
to
flow
there's
over
80
people
now
in
topkins,
county
who've
been
granted
emergency
rental
benefits
under
this
program
over
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
that's
going
to
hopefully
grow
and
deal
with
some
of
these
background
issues.
M
Historically,
most
of
the
evictions
that
we
see
are
for
people
who
are
behind
in
rent
and-
and
I
need
to
point
out
that
our
clients
are
the
lowest
income.
People
in
the
county,
so
folks
are
eligible
for
our
services.
If
their
household
income
is
below
125
percent
of
pop
the
federal
poverty
level,
we
can
also
assist
people
up
to
200
percent
of
the
federal
poverty
level.
M
So
just
to
give
you
an
idea
what
that
is
for
a
one-person
household,
that's
a
little
under
26
000
a
year
for
a
household
of
three,
that's
under
forty
four
thousand
dollars
a
year.
So
those
those
are
the
people
who
are
coming
to
us
threatened
with
the
loss
of
housing
and
anybody
who
calls
our
office
within
those
income
guidelines
in
our
counties,
that's
threatened
with
the
loss
of
housing.
M
What
we're
seeing
is
people
who
owe
a
lot
of
rent
people
who
are
on
section
eight,
maybe
in
behind
on
rent
or
people
who
are
running
privately,
are
behind
in
the
rent
and
the
biggest
complaint.
They
have
our
biggest
issue.
They
have
well
there's
two
ish
biggest
one
in
terms
of
of
their
rental
situation.
Is
they
cannot
find
and
cannot
find
another
place
to
live
anywhere
in
the
county,
particularly
in
the
city.
There
is
just
such
a
huge
lack
of
housing
that
is
affordable
for
folks
who
are
at
that
income,
those
income
levels.
M
M
I
got
my
hair
cut
recently
and
the
person
who
cut
my
hair
said
she
lives
about
an
hour
away
near
courtland,
all
her
friends
who
work
in
the
city
also
live
in
that
area.
Nobody
who
she
knows
that's
working
in
the
restaurants
and
service
industry
in
ithaca
is
really
living
here.
So
the
folks
that
we
see
who
are
living
here
generally
have
a
section
8
voucher
where
they
may
be
living
in
a
room
inside
a
house
and
paying
you
know,
800
or
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
just
for
a
bedroom,
sometimes
even
more.
M
M
For
that
reason
or
the
landlord,
they
have
a
month-to-month
agreement,
the
landlord's
claiming
they're
fed
up
with
them
for
some
reason
and
just
wants
to
end
the
agreement
and
the
victim,
but
we
certainly
see
a
lot
of
those
but
fewer,
though
of
those
than
non-payment
evictions,
and
when
we
talk
about
what
happens
in
court,
there's
a
big
difference
between
city
court
in
ithaca
and
then
the
town
of
village
courts
surrounding
and
what
has
happened
in
the
city
in
terms
of
the
lack
of
housing,
that's
affordable
and
the
increase
in
rents
for
the
housing.
M
Our
court
system
is
set
up
so
that
town
and
village
court
justices
are
elected
locally
by
the
people
in
their
town
and
village.
There's
no
requirement
that
they
have
any
legal
background
to
to
hold
those
positions.
So
some
of
the
town
of
village
justices
are
actually
attorneys.
Who've
been
elected.
Many
of
them
are
not
attorneys
and
don't
have
a
legal
background.
They
get
some
training
from
the
state
when
they
get
elected.
M
So
as
we
see
an
increase
in
the
technical
components
of
the
landlord-tenant
law,
with
the
amendments
in
2019,
a
tenant
who's
unrepresented
has
virtually
no
opportunity
to
raise
those
issues
they
do
if
they
have
like
city
court
with
a
judge
who's.
An
attorney
who's
got
a
legal
background
and
can
maybe
help
them
through
that.
But
the
the
arguments
are
pretty
technical
and
require
the
presentation
of
proof,
and
you
really
just
cannot
do
that
without
an
attorney.
M
Carl
fuhrer
did
a
study
in
in
2018
on
what
happened
in
ithaca
city
court
with
evictions,
and
this
was
part
and
laura's
familiar
with
this.
As
part
part
of
the
anti-displacement
learning
network
grant
that
the
city
received
that
million-dollar
grant
and
what
carl
found
was
that
over
90
of
landlords
had
legal
representation
in
court
and
fewer
than
three
percent
of
tenants
had
legal
representation
in
court.
So
there's
just
a
massive
gap
between
landlords
and
tenant
in
terms
of
of
representation.
M
M
M
E
Thanks
keith,
I
appreciate
that
that
overview.
I
did
have
a
quick
question
when
you're
saying
that
the
bulk
of
the
cases
you
see
are
for
non-payment
of
rent.
Could
you
put
like
a
percentage
on
that
and
just
say
like
I,
don't
know
what
percentage
of
all
the
cases
are:
non-payment
or.
M
Be
either
like
a
lease
violation
or
which
turns
into
a
hold
over
eviction,
proceeding
after
the
notice
to
terminating
the
lease
or
or
a
termination
of
a
month-to-month
agreement
and
the
person
is
holding
over.
So
I
don't
want
to
say
that
those
statistics
in
any
way
reflect
what
is
happening
in
the
city,
court
or
town
of
village
courts.
Those
are
just
the
people
who
are
contacting
us
for
help.
E
Thanks
are
there
any
other
questions
or
comments,
laura.
D
Thanks
and
thanks
very
much
keith
for
being
here
tonight,
your
background
that
you
presenting
to
us
is
very
helpful.
Is
there
a
way
that
the
you
mentioned,
80
people
in
tompkins
county
granted
benefits
through
e-wrap?
D
D
M
Years
great
question
and
something
that
that
we've
been
trying
to
get
information
about
for
years.
So,
first
on
the
on
the
e-wrap,
I
believe
the
information
is
broken
down
county
and
and
within
the
county
anyway.
Otda
on
their
website
has
a
page
for
e-wrap
and
there's
a
link
on
that
page
to
reports
and
they're
now
doing
monthly
reports.
M
And
that's
what
I
took
a
quick
look
at
yesterday.
I'm
not
positive.
It
gave
the
city
numbers,
but
I
thought
it
did.
M
So
that's
a
place
to
look
in
terms
of
the
court
statistics.
We've
never
been
able
to
get
numbers
from
the
office
of
court
administration.
I
know
the
town
and
village
courts
do
not
are
not
required
to
report
on
that
information
to
the
state
as
far
as
as
far
as
I
know
so,
the
state
doesn't
have
those
records.
M
City
courts
are
part
of
the
office
of
court
administration
and
they
may
have
reporting
requirements,
but
I
think
officer,
court
administration
keeps
that
information.
Pretty
close,
I
haven't
tried
to
get
it
with
freedom
of
information,
act,
type
of
request
or
anything.
E
M
Yeah
that
would
be
helpful.
There
are
also
you
should
be
aware
of
this.
There
was
we're
in
the
sixth
judicial
district
in
terms
of
the
office
of
court
administration,
and
they
have
an
access
to
justice,
housing
subcommittee
that
was
looking
at
creating
what
they
called
a
skip
court.
So
that
was
a
special,
coveted
intervention
part
that
would
have
taken
all
the
town
and
village
court
eviction
cases
and
combined
them
into
one
county
court
level.
M
Court
that
would
hear
those
cases
and
judge
wallace
was
going
to
be
assigned
to
hear
all
those
town
and
village
eviction
court
cases.
As
advocates.
M
We
were
very
excited
about
that
possibility,
because
that
gives
us
an
ability
to
rely
on
consistency
from
just
having
one
judge
that
we're
appearing
in
front
of
all
the
time
on
these
cases
and
and
when
we
have
that
type
of
consistency
we
can,
we
can
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
predict
what
the
outcome
is
going
to
be
with
some
degree
of
certainty,
and
that
gives
us
the
information.
M
We
need
to
have
a
well-informed
negotiation
with
the
landlord's
attorney
about
what
the
outcome
of
a
case
should
be,
so
that
helps
prevent
people
from
winding
up
with
evictions
that
whole
effort
got
scuttled,
because
we
were
told
that
the
administrative
staff
at
the
six
judicial
district-
they
didn't-
have
enough
people
to
actually
run
that
program.
So
it
didn't
work.
It
exists
in
the
seventh
judicial
district,
which
is
rochester
down
to
bath
that
sort
of
stretch,
but
it's
expiring
there.
M
That
would
be
great
if
the
state
you
know
there's
been
talk
about
the
state,
maybe
considering
implementing
something
like
that
on
a
statewide
level.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
our
clients.
D
D
M
N
Since
since
kovid
and
the
the
laws
about
not
having
to
pay
rent
during
covid
have
the
eviction
situations
for
renters
change
in
the
in
the
amounts
of
money
that
they
owe
have
have,
those
amounts
become
unmanageable
for
a
lot
of
people
because
they
haven't
paid
rent
in
so
long
and
is
what's
the
solution
to
that.
I
know.
N
M
So
yeah
it,
I
can
only
speak
to
what
we're
seeing
in
terms
of
the
clients
who
contact
us,
which
are
folks
who
aren't
really
bad,
shaping
or
being
pretty
seriously
threatened
with
eviction,
as
opposed
to
people
who
found
other
solutions
to
their
problem,
whatever
that
may
be
so,
yes,
the
amounts
that
people
are
much
greater
than
I've
ever
seen.
At
the
same
time,
the
amount
of
rent
that
people
are
being
asked
to
pay
and
the
percentage
of
of
rent
compared
to
their
total
household
income
is
much
greater
than
I've
ever
seen.
M
I
mean
when
I
was
working
in
in
geneva.
I
never
saw
almost
never
saw
anybody
who
had
over
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
in
rent
as
a
rental
expense.
Here,
pretty
much
all
my
clients
do
so
the
percentage
of
income
that
people
are
paying
for
the
rent
is
unmanageable.
It's
way
over
the
recommended
30
of
household
incomes.
But
yes,
since
kovitz
started,
people
have
have.
M
You
know,
there's
a
moratorium
on
evictions,
but
it
hasn't
stopped
people's
liability
for
rent
right.
So
people
are
liable
for
this
rent
that
they're
not
paying,
because
for
whatever
reason
they
have,
they
have
not
paid
it
or
been
unable
to
pay
it,
and
so
those
arrears
have
built
up
and
some
folks
have
relied
on
the
moratorium
and
figured
you
know
they
can
take
care
of
the
extent
they
have
any
money
coming
in
can
take
care
of
other
bills.
M
First
now
our
clients
historically
are
dealing
with
one
financial
emergency
after
another.
So
you
know
if
we
look
at
a
great
example
of
this.
Is
people
who
are
having
problems
getting
their
landlords
to
make
repairs
so
they're
trying
to
get
the
landlord
to
make
repairs
the
landlord
won't
cooperate.
They
get
frustrated
with
the
landlord
and
they
say
I'm
not
going
to
pay
the
rent
anymore.
M
If
you
don't
make
the
repairs
and
then
they
contact
us-
and
we
always
tell
them
if
you
want
the
court
to
take
this
case
seriously,
when
the
landlord
tries
to
evict
you
for
non-payment
of
rent,
you
have
to
set
aside
the
rent
and
then
we
go
into
court
and
we
tell
the
judge
your
honor
here's
the
rent
money.
This
is
a
serious
case,
tell
the
landlord
to
make
the
repairs
and
then
decide
how
much
of
this
money
should
go
to
the
landlord.
It's
almost
impossible
for
our
clients
to
be
able
to
save
that
rent
line.
M
They
have
too
many
other
emergencies.
They
just
have
to
use
that
money
to
fix
their
car
to
get
to
work,
buy
clothes
for
their
kids
whatever,
and
then
they
figure
that
housing
emergency
they
will
put
off
to
another
day
when
they
absolutely
have
to
deal
with
it
and
then
try
to
get
help
to
move
to
another
place.
M
It
requires
both
the
tenant
submitting
an
application
and
the
landlord
sort
of
consenting
to
that
or
the
landlord
submitting
an
application
and
attendant
consenting
to
it.
They
have
to
agree
on
the
arrears
that
are
owed,
and
then
there
are
conditions
placed
on
what
happens
after
that.
Payment
is
made.
M
J
M
Law
but
the
law
specifically
says
that
if
a
landlord
refuses
to
participate
in
that
and
the
tenant
is
eligible,
that's
a
defense-
the
tenant
can
raise
in
court.
They
can't
be
evicted
for
not
paying
the
rent
that
erap
would
have
paid.
The
landlord
may
be
able
to
get
a
judgment
against
them
for
that
money,
but
they
can't
be
evicted
for
that.
If
iraq
was
willing
to
pay.
D
Keith,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
mentioned
this,
but
there
is
the
possibility
of
tenants
receiving
12
months
of
support
for
arrears
through
e-wrap
and
the
potential
for
three
months
of
prospective.
D
But
your
point
in
response
to
george's
question
is
that
tenants,
anxiety
is
high
by
the
mounting
rent
they
have
accrued
and
because
we've
seen
e-wrap
roll
out
being
so
clunky
so
slow.
I
think
that
perhaps
is
one
of
the
greatest
reasons
for
the
moratorium
being
extended
to
january
15,
so
that
there
can
be
greater
work
on
distributing
dispersing
those
erupt
funds.
M
Yes
and
that
anxiety,
that
increased
anxiety
is
both
on
the
tenant
side
and
on
the
landlord
side.
There
are
a
lot
of
landlords,
particularly
you
know
the
ones
with
just
a
few
units
or
one
unit
who
are
very
very
frustrated
by
this
process
and
not
in
the
fact
that
they're
not
getting
any
income
from
any
of
their
tenants.
And
you
know
that
has
resulted
in
some
illegal
evictions
by
by
someone
else.
M
Essentially,
yes,
either
one
can
file
the
application,
but
the
other.
The
other
party
is
going
to
have
to
submit
basically
an
agreement
that
the
amount
that
has
been
talked
about
as
arrears
is
the
correct
amount
and
that
they're
willing
to
accept
payment.
Just
the
landlord.
L
M
I
don't
I
you
know:
we've
had
clients
who
say
their
landlord
won't
participate.
You
know,
as
I
said
before,
that
may
be
a
defense
if
an
eviction
proceeding
get
ultimately
gets
commenced
about
that,
but
2-1-1
is,
is
there
their
housing?
Navigators
are
really
doing
a
lot
of
work
on
this
on
this
they're,
reaching
out
to
landlords
explaining
the
process
to
them.
A
lot
of
landlords
are
afraid
they
won't
be
able
to
evict
this
tenant,
even
if
they
don't
pay
the
rent
and
that's
not
the
law
at
all.
M
E
B
F
M
Well
that
it
like
depends
on
whether
you
have
a
lawyer
or
not
for
one
thing:
if
you're
a
tenant
without
an
attorney,
it
becomes
very
difficult
to
respond
to
an
eviction
for
cause
or
for
any
eviction,
of
course,
but
particularly
an
eviction
for
cause,
because,
generally,
what
a
landlord
will
do
is
cite
several
reasons
leading
up
to
the
cause,
and
if
you
want
to
defend
yourself,
you
want
to
address
each
of
those
reasons,
and
you
may
need
witnesses
or
documents
to
do
that.
It's
hard
to
introduce
all
that
without
an
attorney
from
a
landlord
perspective.
M
I
I
would
say
that
you
know
if
a
tenant
is
renting
month
to
month.
The
easiest
way
for
a
landlord
currently
to
terminate
that
tenant
and
a
victim
is
to
just
give
them
the
proper
notice
to
terminate
their
month-to-month
agreement.
So
if
somebody's
been
there
a
year
or
less,
it's
a
30-day
notice.
If
they've
been
there
between
one
and
two
years,
it's
a
60-day
notice
and
if
they've
been
there
more
than
two
years,
it's
a
90-day
notice.
You
don't
have
to
give
any
reason
to
the
tenant
at
the
end
of
that
period.
M
If
the
tenant
is
still
there,
you
commence
an
eviction.
Proceeding
you
just
have
to
show.
You
gave
the
property
proper
notice,
the
defense
the
tenant
can
raise
in
those
kind
of
cases
as
well
yeah.
You
can
evict
me
for
no
reason,
but
you
can't
evict
me
for
an
illegal
reason,
like
you
can't
evict
me,
because
I
complain
to
code
enforcement
or
you
in
retaliation
for
that
or
you
can't
evict
me
because
I'm
a
member
of
the
ethic
attendance
union
or
or
some
other
you
know
advantage.
M
You've
tried
to
take
of
protecting
your
rights,
but
those
defenses
again
are
hard
to
raise
without
an
attorney
and
so
going
from
that
kind
of
a
month-to-month
rental
situation
to
having
to
prove
cause
adds
a
burden
on
the
landlord
and
they're
gonna
have
to
present
proof
to
whatever
standard
is
set
in
in
the
ordinance
or
statute
to
comply.
M
And
get
the
court
to
agree
that
they've
met
their
burden
of
proof
and
in
defending
an
action
like
that,
it
would
be
arguing,
they
haven't,
met
their
burden
of
proof
and
in
fact
the
allegations
they've
made
are
not
credible
or
there
are
other
factors
that
need
to
be
considered.
E
E
F
M
E
B
O
There's
also
another
we
were
originally
gonna
have
three
people.
We
have
two
people
and
the
other
person
taylor
is
in
the
waiting
room
right
now.
B
Screen
sure
I
think
we
can,
let's
see
maybe
lisa,
let's
see
multiple
participants,
okay.
Hopefully
this
will
work.
O
O
I
can
share
yeah
well,
we'll
just
give
a
quick
introduction.
I
don't
know
me,
I'm
genevieve
I've
kind
of
been
doing
like
legislative
coordinating
for
the
tenants
union
for
a
bit
now,
and
I've
also
worked
on
our,
which
is
the
thing
we're
going
to
be
showing
some
data
on
I'll
get
into
why
it's
hard
to
quantify
later,
but
on
our
tenant
issues
and
organizing
hotline,
which
is
where
people
contact
the
tenants
union
when
they're
having
problems
in
in
some
form
or
another
and
there's
lots
of
channels
through
which
that
happens.
O
But
it
involves,
in
addition
to
like
answering
questions
about
people's
rights.
It's
also
like
involves
showing
up
to
people's
houses
like
helping
them.
Negotiate
with
landlords,
write
letters
explaining
the
law
to
their
landlords
very,
very
often,
and
or
just
like
at
least
citing
it
not
exactly
giving
legal
advice
or
anything
but
just
being
like
these
are
our
rights
and
also
just
like
trying
to
help
navigate
negotiations
for
things
like
rent
reductions,
repair
issues
and
so
on
and.
I
P
Yeah,
I'm
taylor.
I've
been
working
on
the
helpline
for
a
little
over
a
year.
Now
you
know,
as
jen
was
just
describing
helping
people
navigate
negotiations
with
their
landlord.
P
You
know,
providing
I
don't
know
it's
not
really
legal
advice,
but
certainly
consulting
with
people
about
what
their
rights
are,
and
also
I've
been
coordinating.
Some
of
our
campaigns
around
particular
developments
that
are
facing
development
and
helping
the
tenants
that
are
currently
living
there
with
that,
including
the
north
side
project.
O
Yeah,
so
I
think
that
what
we'll
do
first
is
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
what,
through
the
at
least
quantifiable
channels,
that
we
get
cases
coming
in
through
what
we've
seen
in
2021
and
what
the
breakdown
of
that
has
been.
And
this
will
this
sort
of
overlaps
into
some
of
the
questions
that
you'll
have
for
keith.
But
it's
we'll
make
a
connection
to
the
right
to
renew
leases
as
we
do
it.
But
that's.
Let
me
try
to
screen
share
that
there's.
P
So
within
like
the
last
year,
so
this
is
the
data
that
we've
collected
between
our
for
like
web
intake
forms
and
our
phone
line,
so
people
reaching
out
to
us
requesting
help,
and
so
I
mean
this
is
a
breakdown
of
just
the
broad
categories,
of
the
reason
that
people
are
contacting
us.
And
you
know
it's.
The
the
most
common
reasons
are
deposit
issues,
repairs,
landlord
harassment
and
displacement
and
displacement
being
pretty
significantly
the
most
common
reason
that
people
contact
us.
P
O
Oh
and
something
that
I'll
note
about
just
this
chart
is-
and
I
put
a
little
note
about
it
on
the
bottom
but
like
this
is
so
we
have
lots
of
ways
that
people
contact
the
tenants
union,
the
phone
line
and
the
web
form
are
like
the
ones
that
have
like
quantifiable
data
in
them,
and,
I
would
say
it
represents,
maybe
like
half
or
so
of
the
cases
that
we
deal
with
the
rest
of
them.
O
P
Yeah-
and
I
think
something
that's
really
important-
is
the
breakdown
of
the
displacement
cases,
namely
that
about
72
percent
are
explicitly
related
to
non-renewal
in
some
form
or
another.
I
think
we
were
counting
instances
where
tenants.
P
A
fear
of
not
having
renewal
as
one
of
their
concerns,
but
I
think
what
this
makes
clear
is
that
this
is
very
much
a
real
threat
for
people
in
ithaca
right
now,
and
I
think
it's
easy
to
get
caught
up
in
hypotheticals
of
whether
or
not
a
piece
of
legislation
like
this
would
create
some.
You
know
potential
for
abuse
of.
P
You
know
like
a
tenant
taking
advantage
of
the
legislation,
and
I
I
would
challenge
everybody
to
really
focus
on
what
is
really
being
supported
by
the
data
which,
in
this
case,
is
that
this
is
just
a
very
prevalent
problem
that
is
happening
to
a
lot
of
people
in
ithaca,
and
this
is
something
that
is
impacting
a
number
of
residents
yeah.
I
think.
O
P
O
Is
that
there's
like
in
in
parsing
out
like
what
does
a
case
is
a
case
or
a
repair
case?
O
Is
it
a
displacement
case
whatever
I
want
to
emphasize
that
really
often,
these
things
go
hand
in
hand,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
cases
where
somebody
is
worried
about
asserting
their
rights
around
repairs
or
something
like
that,
because
they
have
a
lease
renewal
coming
up
and
they
know
that
there's
a
strong
possibility
that,
if
their
landlord
views
them
as
a
problem
tenant
because
of
them
requesting
repairs
or
whatever
that
they
will
just
simply
not
renew
their
v
at
least
and
do
a
no-cause
eviction
as
a
result
of
that,
and
so
that's
there's
that's
why
displacement
is
so
common.
O
Whatever
am
I
going
to
be
labeled
as
a
problem
tenant
by
my
landlord
and
then
be
subject
to
a
no-cause
non-renewal
which,
as
I'm
sure
keith,
could
I
think
keith
actually
touched
on
this
in
in
his
presentation?
Is
that
theoretically,
there
are
defenses
for
retaliation,
but
the
problem
right
now
is
that
the
burden
of
proof
for
that
is
entirely
on.
The
tenant,
requires
legal
representation
and
like
knowledge
of
the
laws
and
the
systems
and
everything
so
yeah.
O
It's
and
looking
at
this
data
and
like
because
taylor
was
the
one
who
slogged
through
a
lot
of
it.
I
was
actually
surprised
at
how
much
of
our
like
displacement
cases
are
about
non-renewal,
specifically.
P
Yeah,
I
I
was
as
well,
and
I
think
something
I
will
add
on
to
that
is
like
something
I
saw
a
lot
of
was
people
who
have
disabilities
being
afraid
to
ask
for
accommodation
because
of
fear
of
a
comet
like
retaliation
through
non-renewal,
and
that
kind
of
ties
into
two
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
P
First,
being
I
mean
they're
two
different
experiences:
I've
had
speaking
to
tenants.
The
first
is
at
the
northside
complex.
I
think
most
people
on
this
call
are
probably
familiar
with
it,
but
it's
an
affordable
housing
complex.
That's
been
slated
for
redevelopment
everybody's
going
to
be
kicked
out,
whole
thing's
going
to
be
torn
down
and
rebuilt,
and
this
past
weekend
I
spoke
to
an
elderly
black
woman
who
has
lived
in
that
community
for
50
years
almost,
and
you
know
she
could
detail
for
me,
like
every
renovation.
P
That's
happened
to
those
buildings
and
the
changes
that
each
director
of
the
housing
authority
has
made
to
that
community.
She's
raised
her
children
there,
her
mother
lived
there
for
decades
before
she
even
moved
in,
and
so
I
mean
like
it's
part
of
her
family.
P
The
thing
that
she
kept
repeating
to
me
over
and
over
again
was
that
you
know
that
this
is
just
her
home
and
I
I
I
genuinely
don't
think
that
anybody
would
be
capable
of
looking
her
in
the
eye
and
telling
her
that
that
claim
to
like
her
feeling
of
ownership
of
this
place
is
illegitimate.
Even
though
I
mean
she
doesn't
legally
own
it.
She
doesn't
financially
own
that
property.
P
It
is
undeniably
her
home
just
as
much
as
you
know.
A
homeowner's
home
feels
like
home.
P
Another
person
who
I've
spoken
to
is
over
at
chestnut,
which
not
an
affordable
housing
development,
but
it
is
generally
low
income,
and
it
is
one
of
the
few
areas
that
the
black
people
in
ithaca
have
or
exist
in
a
substantial
portion,
most
areas
they
have
been
pushed
out
through
gentrification,
and
that
is
current
like
that
is
also
a
location.
P
That's
been
slated
for
redevelopment
and
I've
spoken
to
a
tenant
directly
there
who,
because
of
a
disability,
he
has
isn't
able
to
drive,
he's
dependent
on
like
access
to
public
transit.
For
you
know
every
aspect
of
his
life.
You
know
accessing
the
doctor
going
to
work
and
really
he
he
cannot
afford
anything
more
expensive
than
chestnut.
P
He
has
never
done
anything
to
provoke
eviction,
he's
paid
his
rent
on
time.
He
has
been
respectful
of
his
neighbors
and
never
done
significant
damage
to
the.
I
P
And
he
has
received
a
non-renewal
notice.
Can.
O
I
can
I
just
quickly
interject
about
that,
because
actually,
because
I'm
one
of
the
folks
who
does
the
eviction
court
watching
and
like
data
collecting
and
stuff
two
weeks
ago,
this
tenant
was
in
eviction
court,
because
his
landlord's
trying
to
non-renewal
victim
and
refuses
to
accept
e-wrap
funding
that
for
like
renter
ears
that
this
guy
has
specifically
because
he
wants
to
retain
the
ability
to
evict
this
guy
and
and
if
you
accept
e-wrap
funding,
you
can't
do
a
non-renewal
eviction
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
and
like
yeah.
O
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
that
this
is
like
a
guy
who's
ending
up
in
eviction
court
and
as
being
and
I'll
note
that
the
attorney
that
was
representing
the
landlord
was
like
a
substitute
for
a
substitute
from
like
rochester,
syracuse
or
something,
and
that
man
was
so
confused.
Why
the
landlord
wasn't
accepting
your
app.
He
was
like
yeah
I'm
here
to
talk
about
the
arrears.
Oh
you
applied
for
erav.
Oh,
that
should
be
no
problem,
then
I'll
make
sure
they've
seen
your
application.
We're
like!
No.
You
don't
understand
like
this.
O
There's
a
whole
other
thing
going
on
here,
because
this
guy's
trying
to
assert
his
rights
he's
spoken
to
the
news
about
the
conditions
of
chestnut
like
they
want
him
out
for
an
entirely
different
reason.
Sorry
go
ahead.
Taylor.
P
No,
I
mean,
I
think,
that
that
was
a
really
great
point,
and
you
know
I
bring
up
these
two
cases
because
they
are
representative
of
what
I
have
seen
in
the
time
that
I've
been
helping
people
and
it
you
know
it's
it's
easy
to
imagine
ways
that
people
could
abuse
this
legislation,
but
the
facts
on
the
ground
are
just
that:
there
are
elderly
people.
There
are
disabled
people
in
this
town
who
are
currently
being
displaced
specifically
by
efforts
to
develop
properties
with,
and
you
know,
really
gentrify.
You
know
like
explicitly.
P
The
new
properties
will
be
more
expensive
in
the
case
of
chestnut.
That's
not
so
much
the
case
for
north
side,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
these
people
who
are
incredibly
vulnerable
are
at
high
risk
of
becoming
homeless,
and
I,
I
think,
kind
of
central
to
this
legislation
is
you
know
each
each
reason
that
we
add
to
the
bill
that
you
know
that
people
can
use
to
evict.
P
Somebody
is
a
reason
that
somebody
will
eventually
be
made
homeless,
and
I
think
it's
just
as
important
to
justify
those
reasons
as
to
prevent
somebody
from
taking
advantage
of
the
system
unfairly.
O
So
a
lot
of
the
discussion
around
this
bill
has
centered
on
the
specific
details
of
what
are
the
good
causes
going
to
be
enumerated
within
it,
and
I
just
wanted
to
share
some
updates
on
the
situation
which
actually
one
of
them
is
that
laura
in
the
past
and
discussion
of
this,
you
had
raised
concerns
about
landlord
retaliation
through
harassment
and
a
one
of
so
there's
several
municipalities
in
the
hudson
valley
region
that
are
working
on
good
cause
legislation.
O
One
of
them
has
in
their
bill
that
they've
recently
added
is
a
eviction
exemption
in
case
of
landlord
harassment,
so
that
that,
like
harassment,
isn't
a
viable
path
for
landlords
to
establish
cause
to
evict.
Somebody
is
like,
through
you
know,
unnecessary,
like
surveillance
and
things
like
that.
That's
there's
something
about
it
that,
like
tripped
up
some
like
constitutional
lawyers,
who've
been
looking
at
all
the
different
municipalities,
statewide
good
cause
laws,
and
so
it's
not
in
our
version
yet
because
we
want
to
get
the
green
light
from
them.
O
That,
like
this,
isn't
going
to
be
grounds
to
strike
the
rest
of
the
build
down,
but
that
that's
one
potential
way
to
address
it
and
just
on
the
larger
issue,
because
this
is
what
several
legislators
have
brought
up
about.
This
is
concerns
about
retaliation
from
landlords
as
a
class
not
on
an
individual
basis
tenant
to
tenant.
But
what
will
happen
to
the
housing
market,
for
example,
as
a
result
of
tenants
having
these
rights?
And
I
I'm
gonna
paint
like
a
big
worldview
thing
here.
But
what
this
bill
fundamentally
is.
O
If
anything
they're
going
to
be
better
off
and
that's
why
so,
many
municipalities
are
working
on
this
legislation
right
now.
Another
detail
that
has
come
up
is
the
redevelopment
and
building
sale
as
good
cause
for
eviction,
and
this
is
a
point
that,
based
on
all
the
canvassing
that
we've
done,
the
tenants
assembly
that
we
did
a
little
over
a
month
ago
is
around
a
month
and
a
half
ago.
Now.
O
Is
that
that's
the
thing
that
tenants
are
least
willing
to
concede
on
is
the
eviction
for
redevelopment,
and
the
question
that's
come
up
is:
how
are
we
gonna
do
the
redevelopment?
People
are
gonna,
leave
the
houses,
and
I
can
promise
you
as
somebody
who's
worked
on
our
hotline
that,
like
it,
nobody
first
of
all
nobody's
who's,
dealing
with
like
a
situation
where
the
landlord
doesn't
want
them.
There
really
wants
to
live
there
like
if
your
landlord
is
being
an
to
you.
O
You
want
to
leave
it's
just
that
the
housing
market
in
ithaca
is
so
like
squeezed
right
now
and
is
so
limited
that
it's
hard
to
find
a
new
place
and
like
taylor,
can
tell
the
story
better
than
me,
but
there's
a
tenant
that
we
worked
with,
who
she's
an
elderly
woman.
She
has
a
disability,
she
was
receiving
literally
the
worst
case
of
landmark
harassment.
We've
ever
seen
like
he
would
shut
off
her
water
and
electricity
as
punishment.
He
would
bang
on
her
doors
all
hours
of
the
night.
He
would
throw
food
at
her
house.
O
He
would
break
into
her
house
yeah.
He
stole
her
cat
like
it.
She
this
woman
kept
jugs
of
big
giant
jugs
of
water
around
her
house,
because
she
never
knew
when
she
was
gonna
next
be
without
water,
and
this
was
a
situation
where
she
was
facing
a
lease
non-renewal
and
he
wanted
her
to
get
out
and
she
was
trying
to
find
new
housing
that
would
a
take
her
section.
Eight
b
meet
her
disability
accommodation
needs
as
somebody
who's
unable
to
climb
stairs
and
things
like
that
and
have
access.
O
You
know
to
public
transportation,
to
get
stores
and
things
because
she
doesn't
have
a
car
and
she
eventually
found
a
place.
It
was
three
months
after
her
landlord
wanted
her
out,
and
that
was
three
months
of
just
horrific
harassment
and
abuse
experiences
that
could
have
been
avoided
if
he
didn't
feel
entitled
to
reclaim
that
space
because
of
the
least
non-renewal
situation
like
what.
O
O
It's
just
that
it
takes
time
to
find
that
housing
and
each
person's
needs
are
different
and
that's
why
we're
extremely
interested
in
retaining
the
right
for
tenants
to
negotiate
the
terms
of
leaving
housing,
whether
that's
for
some
cash
for
keys,
whether
that's
for
others,
guaranteed
alternative
housing
that
meets
their
disability
accommodations
if
tenants
need
to
be
able
to
negotiate
and
in
the
case
of
housing,
complexes
need
to
be
able
to
negotiate
together
and
stand
up
for
each
other
together,
and
this,
like
the
this
reflection
of
tenants
needs,
is
being
reflected
in
how
other
municipalities
are
dealing
with
their
good
cause.
O
Eviction
bills
rochester
has
dropped
the
building,
sale
and
redevelopment
as
cause
for
eviction
from
their
bill.
Everything
in
the
hudson
valley,
kingston
syracuse.
None
of
these
places
have
building
sale
or
redevelopment
as
good
cause
for
eviction,
and
I
know
people
are
super
married
to
the
albany
bill,
but
that
was
just
the
first
thing
that
got
through
the
door
in
an
area
that
has
a
really
strong
real
estate
lobby
and
ithaca
among
other
municipalities,
are
in
a
great
place
to
pass
more
progressive
legislation
that
doesn't
create
situations
like
seth.
O
What
you
talked
about
on
twitter
this
week,
where
we
approve
a
new
development-
that's
going
to
add
more
units,
make
more
housing
in
our
community,
but
then
families
are
needlessly
displaced
as
a
result
of
it.
This
would
allow
us
to
do
that
development
without
having
those
displacement
results
and
that
that
clause
is
really
important
to
us.
E
D
Yeah
thanks
and
thanks
jen
of
even
thanks
taylor.
I
was
glad
genevieve
that
we
had
one
conversation.
Sorry,
our
wires
got
crossed
on
the
last
time
that
we
had
hoped
to
touch
base
yeah.
D
Here
the
stories
that
you
and
taylor
have
shared
with
us
and
the
information
keith
shared
with
us.
These
are
heart-wrenching
stories
it.
I
have
a
question
about
how
legal
advice
and
legal
representation
would
rebalance
some
of
the
power
imbalance
that
you're
referring
to
it
see.
It
does
seem
to
me
that
retaliatory
non-renewal
legislation
would
be
helpful
in
protecting
tenants
rights
so
that
someone
could
not
be
could
go
to
court
to
sue
a
landlord
over
retaliation,
the
kind
of
which
you
were
just
just
describing.
O
I
I
can
answer
that.
It's
so
there's
two
there's
two
important
points
here.
First,
is
that
the
vast
vast
vast
majority
of
these
cases
never
make
it
to
court
because
even
appearing
on
an
eviction
court
docket
is
like
hurts
your
chances
of
getting
a
rental
in
other
places.
Much
less
getting
an
eviction
judgment
issued
against
you,
plus
court
is
a
very
scary
place
and
going
to
court
to
get
evicted
is
incredibly
scary,
as
keith
can
also
probably
test.
O
In
the
first
place,
and
additionally,
there
are
way
more
tenants
getting
evicted
than
there
are
landlords
evicting
people,
you
know,
because
landlords
own
multiple
properties
have
multiple
tenants,
etc,
and
it
just
makes
much
more
sense
to
put
the
burden
of
the
proof
for
that
eviction
on
the
landlord,
rather
than
putting
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
tenant
to
prove
that
like
they're
innocent,
like
it,
makes
much
more
sense
and
reflected
in
other
legal
constructs
that
the
person
who's
like
accusing
the
tenant
of
an
offense,
that's
worthy
of
eviction
should
be
the
one
who
bears
the
responsibility
for
proving
that
that
person
deserves
that
punishment
and
not
the
other
way
around.
O
That's
true,
for
you
know,
administration,
resource
allocation
reasons,
and
it's
also
just
the
right
way
to
treat.
People
is
presume
that
they're
innocent
and,
if
somebody's
going
to
accuse
them
of
something
with
the
severe
punishment
and
making
them
homeless
that
they,
the
landlord,
should
be
the
one
who
has
to
come
and
prove
that
and
in
the
case
of
non-renewal,
there's
zero
requirement
for
proof
now
for
other
forms
of
fiction.
Yeah
you
gotta
come
to
court.
O
You
gotta
make
an
argument
for
non-renewal,
there's
it's
known
as
a
no-cause
eviction,
because
there
there
is
no
need
to
prove
anything
and,
I
think,
there's
a
tandem
relationship,
and
this
is
something
that
the
folks
at
the
cornell
housing
law
clinic
can
talk
a
lot
about.
There's
a
tandem
relationship
between
good
cause
and
right
to
counsel,
where
good
cause
is
what
gets
most
of
these
cases
under
the
purview
of
the
court
in
the
first
place
and
right
to
counsel
is
what
makes
sure
that
people
are
protected
once
they
get
there.
O
But
right
now,
non-renewal
is
a
completely
extra
judicial
process
and
the
burden
is
on
the
tenant
to
take
it
to
court
and
challenge
it,
which,
let's
be
real.
Most
people
just
are
never
gonna
do
especially
low-income
folks
who
have
had
negative
run-ins
with
courts
in
the
past,
so
they're
both
important,
but
you
can't
really
have
one
without
the
other.
In
my
opinion,.
M
A
lot
of
our
clients
have
a
section
8
voucher
if
they're
and
that's
how
they
afford
to
live
in
the
city
if
they
get
evicted.
If
there's
a
court
order
for
their
eviction,
they
most
likely
will
lose
their
section
8
benefits
as
a
result
of
that
that
is
an
immense
financial
impact
on
that
household.
That
voucher
is
worth
gold.
M
M
Right
so
you
know
when
somebody
comes
to
us:
they
have
a
section
8
voucher,
it's
a
holdover
eviction,
so
it's
a
non-cause
eviction
and
court's
been
commenced.
It's
let's
try
to
negotiate
a
move
out
date
and
let's
enter
an
agreement
and
with
the
court
that
you're
not
admitting
you've
done
anything
wrong.
The
landlord's
not
claiming
you've
done
anything
wrong.
You've
just
agreed
to
move
out
on
your
own
voluntarily.
M
So
it's
it's
trying
to
settle
the
case
and
get
the
person
the
time
they
need
to
get
moved
to
another
location,
keeping
their
section
8
and
not
be
homeless
in
between
and
the
huge
problem
that
exists
right
now
is
there's
no
place
for
the
person
to
go.
They
can't
find
somebody
else
who
will
take
their
section
8
voucher,
because
there's
so
little
housing
available.
So
you
know
if
we
wanted
to
negotiate
60
days
to
move
and
and
put
that
on
the
record
in
court.
M
E
E
I'll
just
say,
I
really
appreciate
all
of
you
coming
tonight.
Keith
and
genevieve
and
taylor
appreciate
the
conversations
conversation
I
actually
have.
O
Just
one
more
comment:
yep,
because
I'm
looking
through
this
version
of
the
bill
now,
which
we
had
not
seen
before
this
meeting
and.
O
Yeah,
most
of
it
looks
pretty
good.
The
the
one
thing
that
we
would
object
to
that's
in
it
is
.6
on
causes
for
eviction,
which
is
the
tenant,
has
unreasonably
refused
the
landlord
access
to
the
housing
accommodation
and
the
reason
that
we
would
feel
really
strongly
about
that
and
taylor.
You
can
probably
give
an
example
of
this.
Is
that,
like
this,
the
landlord
access
to
tenants
housing
is
like
so
widely
abused
to
to
intimidate
and
harass
people,
and
I'm
sure
keith
could
probably
attest
to
that
too.
O
We
have
a
tenant
right
now,
whose
landlord
just
sends
their
son
through
the
apartment,
with
a
big
giant
dog,
just
to
do
an
inspection
and
scare
the
tenant
like
it's,
that
a
clause
like
that
will
be
abused
to
penalize
tenants
for
standing
up
for
themselves
from
harassment
and
yeah.
It's
I
mean
taylor,
how
much
of
the
harassment
cases
involve
landlords
abusing
entry
rules.
P
I
mean
pretty
much
every
single
one
and
I
mean
like
they
break
the
rules
that
exist
to
be
clear
like
all
the
time
and
I
think
adding
additional
protections
for
not
protections.
Even
I
don't
think
that's
a
the
correct
wording,
adding
additional
reasons
that
the
landlord
has
legal
access
to
enter
and
harass.
Tenants,
I
think,
would
yeah
substantially
like
impair
people's
ability
to
you
know,
protect
their
own
privacy.
F
Yeah,
thank
you.
So,
on
this
point
keith,
can
you
clarify
it's
my
understanding
that
in
it
is
law,
I
believe
that
a
landlord,
if
given
adequate
notice,
has
the
right
to
access
the
property
correct.
F
Right,
so
if,
if
that
right
of
the
landlord
is
codified
in
the
state
law,
I
presume
that
it
would
be
then
incumbent
on
the
landlord
to
demonstrate
that
the
tenant
has
unreasonably
refused
access,
and
then
there
would
be
a
back
and
forth
about
a
tenant
being
able
to
say
someone's
bringing
their
dog
in
they're
harassing
me,
landlord
being
able
to
say
you
know,
but
so
that
would
be
something
that
would
have
to
be
defended
in
court.
If
that
were
the
cause
given
for
non-renewal
or
eviction.
Is
that
correct.
M
Yes,
certainly
if
that,
if
that's
an
exception
to
a
good
cause,
eviction
requirement,
the
landlord
would
have
to
allege
and
prove
that
that
occurred
and
the
tenant
would
have
to
prove
that
they
didn't
unreasonably
withhold
notice,
it's
very
difficult
for
a
tenant
to
prove
they
didn't.
They
didn't
unreasonably
withhold
notice,
they're.
So
fact
specific
these
cases,
and
it's
and
it's
the
landlord's
word
against
the
tenants
word
and
you
know,
landlords
in
many
courts
are
presumed
to
be
more
honest
or
something
I
don't
know.
F
I
want
to
emphasize
that
we
could.
We
could
definitely
you
know
when,
when
we
go
through
and
open
this
up
for
comment
and
and
be
able
to
receive
input
once
it
goes
public
which
it
is
now,
we
can
go
and
receive
comment
on
all
of
these
items.
I
do
believe
that
all
of
these
items
that
are
stated
except
for
item
one
with
regards
to
an
unreasonable
rent
increase,
are
already
standard
causes
for
eviction.
F
E
E
G
E
Genevieve
you
had
said
earlier
that
this
is
a
is
an
ongoing
negotiation.
So
that's
exactly
what's
happening
right
now,
so
I
think
hopefully
we'll
have
the
support
tonight
to
circulate
this
and
then
we'll
keep
going
with
the
with
the
conversation
and
laura.
Did
you
have
another
comment.
D
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
that
these
are
drafts
we
would
be
voting
to
to
circulate,
and
I
also
just
wanted
to
comment
that
the
examples
that
we're
sharing
tonight
are
examples
of
the
most
unscrupulous
landlords,
and
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
have
landlords
who
have
good
intentions,
who
have
been
flexible
with
tenants
who
are
interested
in
improving
their
properties.
D
They
have
an
investment
in
their
properties,
they're
not
interested
in
immediately
going
to
eviction,
because
eviction
is
most
definitely
costly
and
even
traumatic
for
tenants,
but
it
is
costly
and
not
necessarily
the
first
course
of
action
of
of
landlords.
So
I
did
want
to
make
that
point
and
provide
some
balance.
There.
E
Thanks
all
right:
well,
thank
you
to
keith
and
genevieve
and
taylor,
and
we
we
will
continue
the
conversation.
Thank
you
yeah.
Thanks
for
making
time.
P
E
So
next
up
we
have
announcements.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
announcements.
E
Okay,
so
the
first
action
item
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
the
iura
inlet,
island
development,
clarification
and
I
know,
there's
a
resolution
that
from
nells.
I
believe
that
the
ira
passed,
and
so
this
was
this
was
in
response
to
our
vote
on
the
ground
floor,
active
use
requirement,
and
I
guess
there
was
a
question
over
how
this
was
going
to
impact
the
overall
feasibility
of
the
project
and
so
the
resolution
in
our
or
that
we're
looking
at
tonight.
I
don't
actually
have
it
in
front
of
me.
I
don't
know
nels.
Q
Sure-
and
we
have
chris
prew
and
steve
flash
available
as
well
before
this
item,
and
the
main
issue
here
was
that
the
agency
and
the
developer
were
uncertain.
Q
How
to
interpret
the
amendment
that
was
made
by
the
common
council
on
on
guidance
regarding
the
project,
as
it
relates
to
activity
on
increasing
vitality
and
activity,
and
the
the
current
language
says
that
is
requiring
the
commitment
by
the
developer
to
include
ground
floor,
active
use
and
maintain
the
prop
through
a
proposed
number
of
affordable
housing
units
in
the
project
and
the
ira
recommended
an
amendment
to
that.
A
recommended.
Q
Little
change
to
make
that
a
broader
approach
to
address
the
issues
of
attracting
residents
to
the
island
and
increasing
ground
level
activity,
not
necessarily
in
the
ground
floor
of
the
new,
affordable
housing
project
proposed
to
be
built
or
the
proposed
home
tell
so.
The
languages
was
recommended
was
commitment
by
the
developer
to
include
strategies
to
enhance
ground
level
activity
and
attract
residents
to
the
inlet
island
waterfront,
without
reduction
in
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
in
the
project.
Q
So
there's
a
nuance
there
and
I
think
this
would
be
best
able
to
emphasize
or
clarify
further
any
any
points
on
that.
E
Thanks
nils
so
with
that,
maybe
maybe
I'll
look
for
a
motion
on
the
resolution.
Is
there
a
motion
moved
by
laura?
Is
there
a
second
and
then
we
could
open
it
up
for
discussion
seconded
by
cynthia,
so
discussion
on
this.
K
K
D
Laura
thank
you
yeah,
like
donna,
I
did
not
vote
for
adding
this
amendment
to
the
resolution
at
common
council
meeting,
so
I
would
be
in
favor
of
the
iura's
preferred
alternative
development
objective
as
read
files.
I
I
did
want
to
comment,
though,
that
and
nells.
Perhaps
you
could
comment
then
on
this.
D
My
preference
is
to
not
see
a
reduction
of
the
affordable
units
in
the
inhs
building
that
is
being
proposed.
That's
part
of
the
conceptual
plan
and
it's
my
I
think
it
strengthens
the
inhs
proposal
for
the
low
income
housing
tax
credits
to
put
forward
a
proposal
that
meets
the
zoning
requirements
and,
as
is
currently
configured
the
affordable
housing
building
meets
the
zoning
requirement.
Is
that
true.
D
F
Yeah,
so
I
was
the
one
who
proposed
the
the
inclusion.
F
Does
not,
in
my
mind,
adequately
take
advantage
of
enhance
the
the
waterfront
area
to
support
residents
and
visitors.
It
doesn't
provide
any
kind
of
vibrancy
along
the
waterfront.
We
have
a
very
little
waterfront
in
which
development
is
allowed,
and
this
is
one
of
those
rare
properties
that
we
can
do
that
and
the
the
project
itself
with
a
hotel
and
an
apartment
complex
and
could
easily
be
any
place
in
the
city.
F
So
I
was
looking
for
a
ground
floor.
Active
use
integrated
into
the
project
to
bring
vibrancy
to
the
area,
and
I
am
concerned
that
the
proposal
in
terms
of
inclusion
of
strategies
for
ground
level
activity-
and
I
think
that
the
term
I
had
heard
of
was
food
trucks
as
a
way
to
increa
increase
ground
level
activity.
F
Really
doesn't
do
the
waterfront
justice
in
terms
of
what
it
could
possibly
be.
I
do
share
george's
concerns
that
the
proposed
project
is
overly
large
for
this
site
for
two
five-story
buildings,
one
for
the
apartment,
complex
and
one
for
the
home
tell
is
the
is
the
home,
tell
five
stories
or
larger
nails:
five,
sorry,
you're,
muted,
again.
F
So
that's
five
stories
up
to
five
stories,
so
I
would
fundamentally
what
I'm
looking
for
is
a
project
that
enhances
the
waterfront,
invites
individuals
locals
and
visitors
to
the
waterfront
and
is
done
at
a
scale
that
is
not
overwhelming
for
the
site.
F
N
Hear
me
now:
yep,
thanks
steph.
Let
me
tell
you
why
I
I'm
suggesting
that
we
take
out
the
language
about
not
reducing
the
number
of
affordable
units.
N
It's
not
necessarily
because
I
don't
think
that
should
be
a
possibility.
I
think
personally,
I
think
the
project's
too
large
for
the
site,
I'm
not
alone
in
that
thought.
N
N
I'd
like
to
remind
us
all
that
there's
only
one
way
into
this
site
that
empties
out
onto
route
96
the
parking
that
there
is
there
now
fills
up
in
the
on
the
weekends.
So.
N
D
Yeah,
I
did
thank
you,
and
I
know
that
this
is
a
a
challenging
topic
and
issue.
I
you
know
I've
walked
around
inlet
island
numerous
times
with
the
concerns
that
george
and
cynthia
are
raising
in
mind.
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
we
at
our
august
common
council
meeting,
we
approved
the
resolution
unanimously,
and
so
I
have,
I
guess,
a
procedural
question.
Now.
Are
we
reopening
that
which
we
have
already
approved?
D
I
understand
that
right
now
the
plans
are
conceptual
they're,
not
definite,
but
I
also
think
that
having
residents
living
in
an
apartment
building
is
in
and
of
itself
an
active
use.
These
are
residents
who
would
be
living
and
working
in
our
community.
So
one
is
a
procedural
question
and
the
other
is
a
comment
that
I
think
there
is
some
increased
activity
by
having
people
living
there
and
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
L
Yeah
I
just
want
to
chime
in
on
on
the
side
of
not
reducing
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
on
the
site.
I
think
it's
a
great
site
for
housing
period.
I
think
it's
a
great
site
for
affordable
housing.
I
don't
think
the
project's
too
big,
and
I
think
changing
this
on
the
fly
would
be
would
be
a
mistake.
L
I
think
we
should
trust
the
democratic
process
that
led
us
to
this
point,
including
the
plan,
the
comprehensive
planning
process
that
created
plan
ithaca,
which
took
years
dozens
of
volunteers,
hundreds
of
of
well
thousands
of
hours
and
thousands
of
citizens
contributing
to
it.
You'll.
L
Remember
too,
that
council
created
the
waterfront
planning
committee
immediately
after
the
comprehensive
plan
was
passed,
because
this
was
identified
as
the
most
important
area
to
plan
and
get
the
new
rules
in
place
for
the
zoning
was
an
outflow
of
two
plus
years
of
work
by
the
waterfront
planning
committee
and
to
come
in
right
before
a
project
and
say
well,
it
just
feels
too
big.
I
think
that
sort
of
reflexiveness
it
would
be
a
mistake,
not
only
anti-democratic
but
and
bad
process,
but
I
think,
would
lead
to
a
bad
outcome.
L
I
think
this
is
a
a
good
place
for
very
badly
needed.
Affordable
housing,
the
last
hour
or
so
of
comment
illustrates
how
badly
we
need
more
housing
and
more
affordable
housing,
and
this
is
a
great
site,
especially
if
you
think
of
our
region.
This
is
a
great
site
for
that
housing.
R
Thank
you,
maybe
just
building
a
little
off
of
what
cevante
was
just
saying
like.
I
think
it
is
really
important
to
separate
these
two
things
and
I
think
it
was
you
know.
I
think
I
didn't
wasn't
at
the
meeting
where
you
actually
approved
this
amendment,
but
it
seems
like
the
intent
here
was
to,
and
this
is
what
we're
trying
to
clarify
what
is
the
intent?
You
know
we
just
entered
into
an
exclusive
negotiation,
a
period
with
the
developer.
R
That's
going
to
surface
a
whole
series
of
issues,
including
these
issues
and
others
for
a
concept
that
will
get
more
refined
in
a
final
agreement
that
will
come
back
to
the
common
council.
So
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
clarify
is
more
the
intent,
and
I
think
it's
important,
therefore,
to
separate
the
number
of
housing
units
from
the
the
ground
level
active
uses,
the
ability
to
draw
residents
and
visitors
to
inlet
island
and,
again,
I
think,
building
on
what
savannah
they
were
saying.
I
just
want
to
remind
everybody.
R
We
tried
to
choose
the
program
concept
here
that
we
thought
struck
the
best
balance
of
working
within
the
vision
of
the
city
plan
for
inlet
island
that
balanced
the
ability
to
kind
of
create
housing
attract
other
uses.
There
leverage
the
uses
that
are
already
on
the
island
and
not
in
any
way
disproportionately
negatively
impact
those
and
make
necessary
public
improvements
that
would
draw
more
residents
and
visitors
to
the
island
without,
to
georgia's
point,
overburdening
that
small
space
with
traffic
et
cetera
is,
is
the
concept
originally
proposed
by
finger
lakes.
Development
got
the
one.
R
At
this
point,
so
I
think
the
intention
behind
this
clarification
is
to
get
more
at
the
intent
of
common
council
and
less
about
adding
specific
conditions
to
the
negotiation
at
you
know
at
this
stage,
which
we
already
have,
I
know,
nels
could
tell
us
how
many
conditions
we
have
right,
but
all
of
those
are
going
to
be
massaged
to
come
up
with
a
much
more
refined
concept
that
will
get
this
body's
input,
ira's
input
and
the
planning
board's
input.
F
Thank
you,
and-
and
I
appreciate
the
conversation
around
this
just
a
couple
responses
to
some
of
the
comments
that
I'd
heard.
We
have
already
very
clearly
articulated
that
we
do
not
consider
housing
to
be
an
active
use.
F
We
did
not
consider
that
traffic
congestion
or
lack
of
parking
in
any
part
of
our
conversation
with
regards
to
whether
or
not
we
should
promote
an
active,
vibrant
community
feel
in
college
town.
So
I
I
warn
us
against,
including
this
idea
that
well,
we
shouldn't
put
active
uses
on
inlet
island
because
of
traffic
or
parking
constraints,
because
we
don't
make
that
similar
consideration.
F
When
we
talk
about
college
town,
you
know
part
of
the
the
parking
constraints
on
inlet
island
at
the
moment
are
the
fact
that
a
significant
portion
of
that
island
is
being
used
to
house
boats,
which
one
could
also
argue,
is
not
the
best
use
of
that
property
and
and
would
be
better
used
to
support
the
businesses
and
restaurants
there
and-
and
that
would
be
a
different
consideration
too.
F
So
you
know
if,
if
we
really
thought
that
that
just
the
mere
existence
of
a
hotel
or
a
mere
existence
of
a
housing
complex
was
in
active
use,
then
we
would
see
the
hotels
on
route,
13
or
other
locations
to
be
vibrant,
economic
or
community
generators.
But
I
don't
think
that
they
are
people,
don't
there's
nothing
attractive,
just
to
visit
ithaca
island,
to
visit
an
apartment
building
or
to
visit
a
a
hotel
so
going
back
then
to
the
proposed
language
that
was
offered
in
nasa's
resolution.
F
I
still
don't
think
it
goes
far
enough.
I
think
I
feel
that
requiring
our
current
definition
of
a
ground
floor
active
use
on
the
site,
whether
or
not
it
be
included
in
the
home
tell
building.
Instead
of
the
housing
building,
I
think
would
still
be
accomplish
the
vision
that
we
have
in
terms
of
increasing
the
vibrancy
of
inlet
island.
F
E
N
Hey
I'd
just
like
to
agree
with
what
chris
is
saying
and
strongly
disagree
with
what
cevante
is
saying.
N
Chris
is
saying
they
don't
want
additional
restrictions,
and
yet,
if
anything
was
done
on
the
fly,
it
was
adding
these
two
amendments
in
august
and
what
the
one
about
the
number
of
housing
units
is
saying
that
okay,
we've
got
this
initial
sketch
and
we
can't
we
can't
vary
from
it.
That
is
an
additional.
N
We're
not
saying
we
don't
want
affordable
housing,
we're
saying
we
want
to
look
at
this
project
and
find
out
what
is
an
appropriate
size
for
this
piece
of
land
and
and
move
ahead.
Accordingly,
we
don't
want
to
restrict
it
by
saying
it
has
to
be
this
many
units
we're
not
opposed
to
affordable
housing
on
this
site,
it's
a
matter
of
scale
and
and
what
we
discover
as
we
as
the
developer
and
the
iura
get
farther
in
the
process.
E
Okay,
I'll
just
say,
because
you
know
I
did
vote
for
this-
I
I
don't
really
care
about
the
size
of
the
project.
I
think
affordable
units
are
great.
We
need
more
affordable
housing
on
the
waterfront.
My
big
concern
with
this
has
to
do
with
just
the
the
quality
of
the
waterfront
and
there
there's
a
tendency.
E
We've
seen
a
tendency
in
this
town,
when
developments
are
sometimes
built
in
places
where
the
city
has
zoned
or
planned
for
some
kind
of
active
use
or
recreational
use
and
there's
just
nobody
there,
it's
like
kind
of
a
dead
zone.
I
mean
you
can
see
it
there's
examples
of
it.
On
the
waterfront
I
mean,
if
you
look,
I
was
biking
the
other
day
on
the
waterfront
trail
and
you
look
across
the
inlet
there's
that
whole
lovely
section
of
where
island
health
and
fitness
is
on
the
back
side.
E
You
never
see
anybody
out
there
and
there's.
The
reason
is
that
there's
nothing
to
draw
them
there
there's
a
lot
of
examples
of
that,
and
I
think
I
don't
know.
I
think
that
I
think
this
is
really
important.
I
think
we
all
want
a
vibrant,
active
waterfront
and
I
think
we
really
have
to
think
carefully
about
how
we're
going
to
draw
people
to
this
area.
E
So
it's
a
place
that's
attractive
instead
of
just
having
an
area
where
we've
all
sort
of
planned
for
all
kinds
of
people
type
uses,
and
then
you
know
nobody
shows
up.
That's
my
biggest
concern.
So
with
that
I'll
say.
I
understand
that
this
caused
a
lot
of
problems
for
the
project.
I've
talked
to
steve.
I've
talked
to
a
few
others
about
it.
I
would
like
a
little
bit
more
explanation
of
what's
meant
by
strategies
for
active
use
like
what
are
we
envisioning
with
that
or
or
at
this
point?
Q
I
think
maybe
the
developer
could
respond
to
that,
but
one
of
the
strategies
is
utilizing.
The
coast
guard
auxiliary
building
as
a
active
use.
It's
not
it.
Wouldn't
you
know
that
would
be
another
ground
floor
use,
that's
closest
to
the
trail,
to
use
it
for
retail
or
food
and
beverage
type
of
uses,
in
addition
to
educational
classes
with
the
coast
guard
auxiliary.
That
would
not
involve
necessarily
a
first
floor
use
that
is
commercially
oriented
for
the
hotel
or
the
housing,
but
it
would
be
a
ground
floor.
Q
Active
use
of
an
existing
building
that
would
be
part
of
the
project
as
well
as
public
use
of
the
docks
along
that
area
and
developing
kind
of
facilities
to
support
recreational
uses
where
things
mentioned
by
the
developer,
but
steve
could
provide
more
detail.
That's
an
example
of
of
a
strategy.
That's
that's
been
discussed.
Q
S
If
I
may,
the
the
the
strategy
and
the
intent
is
to
absolutely
create
active
and
vibrant
waterfront,
and
certainly
the
coast
guard
using
that
building
and
using
the
dock
that
exists
as
public
as
well
as
the
dock
at
the
northern
end
or
the
one
that
we
would
add
at
the
northern
end
again
creates
an
attraction
for
people
to
come
to
both
from
the
water
and
from
land
to
get
onto
the
water,
in
conjunction
with,
for
example,
just
the
the
the
as
I
think,
cynthia.
S
To
cleaning
out
the
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
storage
boats
will
activate
it.
I
will
be
the
first
to
acknowledge
that
hunks
of
fiberglass
are
not
the
most
attractive
thing
in
the
world,
and
nor
do
they
draw
people
to
the
water.
S
However,
to
balance
that
you
know
with
you
know,
however,
that
business
also
does
assist
in
providing
access
to
the
water,
so
that
can
be
changed,
and
it
is
already
in
the
process
of
doing
that,
and
also
in
conjunction
with
your
businesses
that
already
exist
from
both.
S
You
know
from
all
the
way
from
from
mickey
roose
and
iowa
and
health,
and
to
several
businesses
that
are
in
the
dock
and
kelly's
to
you
know,
create
really
a
larger
destination
together
with
cleaning
up
as
it
exists
now
will
hopefully
activate
the
water
waterfront,
but
imposing
a
retail
on
the
ground
floor
of
one
of
the
buildings.
S
Presents
you
know
significant
financial
challenges
to
both
the
financing
of
it
and
and
would
certainly
eliminate
any
possibility
of
making
a
smaller.
G
S
E
So,
just
to
quickly
respond
to
that,
I
you
know
I
I
would
support
this
amendment
tonight.
I
you
know,
I
I
believe
that
you
know
what
you've
mentioned
and
with
the
the
adjacent
businesses
I
think
gives
me
enough
confidence
that
there
would
be
enough
active
use
in
that
area,
but
I
did
just
want
to
add
that
I
don't
think
that
this
is
having
a
ground
floor.
Active
use
requirement
is
not
something
out
of
left
field
or
something
unprecedented.
I
mean
we
have
one
in
downtown.
We
also
have
one
in
college
town.
E
F
Thank
you.
So
I
heard
something
very
different
from
nells
than
what
I
heard
from
steve
steve.
You
mentioned
the
north
point
adding
a
dock
there,
that's
not
part
of
the
project.
You
mentioned
island,
health
and
kelly's,
and
so
on.
That's
not
part
of
the
project.
Those
things
are
already
existing,
presumably
those
you
know
you
could
add
that
doc
to
the
north
point
of
of
the
island
on
your
own.
That's
that's
outside
the
scope
of
what
we're
talking
about
here.
F
What
we
are
talking
about
is
this
particular
project
and
and
adding
vitality
to
the
to
the
to
the
parcel,
and
so
nells
mentioned
commercial
use.
But,
but
you
mentioned
mentioned
your
strategy
for
ground
level
activity,
basically
being
the
coast
guard,
opening
up
the
building
and
and
making
the
coast
guard
dock
available
to
the
public,
which
is
is
not
what
we
would
consider
ground
floor
active
use.
F
So
I
think,
I'm
not
quite
sure
if
we're
at
crosshairs
or
we
have
entirely
different
understandings
of
what
this
means,
but
I'm
very
reluctant
at
this
point
to
support
the
amendment.
If,
if,
if
that
is
the
definition
of
the
strategies
to
enhance
ground
level
activity,
I
don't
think
we're
on
the
same
page.
E
All
right
so
hopefully,
at
this
point,
everybody's
had
a
chance
to
weigh
in
we
do
have
a
motion.
The
resolution
has
been
moved
and
seconded.
E
S
E
You
next
up
is
the
west
hill
planned
unit
development
expansion,
and
do
we
have?
Is
there
a
lead
agency
for
this?
So
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
move
the
lead
agency?
Is
there
a
motion
on
that
move
by
laura
seconded
by
donna
all
in
favor
of
moving
the
lead
agency
common
council
declaring
itself
leading
agency
to
conduct
environmental
review
that
carries
unanimously?
E
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
environmental
review?
This
is
a
negative
declaration
moved
by
donna
seconded
by
laura
any
discussion
on
that
all
those
in
favor
and
that
carries
union
assault
and
then
the
the
pud
odd
itself
expansion.
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
expansion
moved
by
donna?
E
E
F
Yeah,
just
to
reiterate,
these
parcels
are
significantly
large
for
west
hill
they're,
bounded
by
two
main
streets,
hector
and
elm
street
they're
at
the
entrance
to
west
hill,
and
I
think
there
is
a
tremendous
opportunity
to
do
something
creative
there
and
the
fact
that,
if
a
developer
wanted
to
do
something
that
did
not
comply
with
the
underlying
zoning
council
would
have
a
chance
to
review
it.
F
It
would
go
through
additional
review
rather
than,
for
example,
just
rezoning
this
something
else,
and
I
do
appreciate
the
the
mention
in
the
resolution
that
there
is
a
dedication
to
protecting
established
one
and
two
family
neighborhoods
which
which
basically
is
west
hill.
So
I
appreciate
that
the
only
question
I
had
had
for
staff
is.
The
resolution
mentions
a
map
that
is
referred
to
as
dated
november
2021.
F
The
map
we
have
is
august
2021.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
that
is
changed
before
it
comes
to
council
either
the
name
on
the
map
or
the
how
it's
referred
to
in
the
resolution,
so
that
we
can
have
a
complete
package
before
it's
voted
on
it.
E
E
But
weird,
this
is
a
discussion
only
item,
but
I
don't
know
I
guess
luis.
Do
you
want
to
maybe
just
kick
it
off
and
kind
of
explain
why
this
was
why
you're
asking
this
us
to
vote
on
this.
G
Yes,
well,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
I
apologize
if
this
you
know
caught
you
by
surprise.
That
was
not
the
intention
at
all.
You
know.
Part
of
the
attack
agreement
you
did
is
to
take
the
the
community,
take
the
city
to
be
carbon
neutral
by
2030.
G
So
to
do
that,
you
know
we
don't
have
enough
time
really.
We
we
need
to
implement
a
very
aggressive
programs
to
reduce
carbon
emissions.
G
The
city
has
approximately
four
hundred
thousand
metric
tons
of
co2,
which
is
equivalent
to
a
hundred
thousand
internal
combustion
engine
vehicles
going
at
the
same
time
in
the
city.
So
you
get
an
idea.
What
we're
talking
about
about
40
of
those
emissions
come
from
existing
buildings
and
it
normally
comes
from
from
two
sources.
One
buildings,
particularly
in
our
city,
where
buildings
were
built
before
like
40,
were
built
before
1940,
for
example.
G
You
know
they
are
highly
inefficient
right
now
in
terms
of
how
they
they
use
energy,
especially
for
for
space,
heating
and
and
the
other
one
is.
We
have
you
know
furnaces
water,
heaters,
cooktops
or
clothes
dryers
that
use
either
natural
gas,
in
some
cases
even
propane
and
fuel
oil,
and
that
is,
you
know
the
main
source
of
emissions
for
the
entire
city.
G
At
the
same
time,
trying
to
address
this,
we
we
realized
that
we
looked
at
what
everybody
was
doing
in
the
city,
and
there
are
definitely
therefore
a
number
of
engineering
firms
and
contractors
that
take
care
of
either
energy
efficiency,
retrofitting
or
the
substitution
of
thermal
loads,
with
heat
pumps,
for
example,
when
talking
to
them,
we
realized
that
part
of
the
problem
was
that
this
is
still
expensive.
G
The
volume
is
not
quite
there
and
the
technology
is
mature,
but
not
mature
enough,
so
it
is
as
affordable
as
we
would
like
it
to
be.
So
there
was
a
need
to
create
a
project
that
would
be
at
scale
we
needed
to
create
economies
of
a
scale,
and,
given
that
we
were
talking
about
the
substitution
of
a
number
of
appliances,
we
were
also
trying
to
create
bulk
purchasing
power.
G
I
I
guesstimate
that
this
will,
you
know,
provide
a
savings
in
the
range
of
20
30
already,
which
will
make
it
more
affordable
for
for
people
in
the
city.
Then,
at
the
same
time
that
we
are
doing
that,
we
we
realized
that
you
know
to
do
it
at
scale.
We
needed
a
large
amount
of
money,
the
the
options
to
finance
this
are
limited.
It
is
not
for
the
government
to
pay
for
this,
and
and
also
the
community
would
unlikely
be
willing
to.
G
You
know,
pay
for
it
or
even
afford
it.
Especially
there
is
approximately
27
of
the
population
in
the
city
that
would
be
according
to
the
quality
census.
Tract
would
be,
would
qualify
as
low
or
moderate
income,
in
which
case
I
would
find
it
very
difficult
to
believe
that
they
would
be
able,
at
times
to
afford
everything
that
needs
to
happen.
G
So
with
that
in
mind,
we
went
out
and
started
started
looking
for
alternatives,
and
the
options
were
issuing
a
grid
bond,
perhaps
or
trying
to
rely
on
state
incentives
or
or
different
government
programs,
and
the
reality
is
that
none
of
it
would
take
us
to
the
scale
that
we
needed
to
have.
In
order
for
this
to
be
successful,
approximately
we
needed
to
think
about
a
thousand
buildings.
G
So
if
we
were
to
do
that,
we
would
be
able
to
create
these
economies
of
scale
so
thinking
about
the
type
of
buildings
approximately
we're
talking
about
fifty
thousand
dollars
per
building
residential
building
about
seventy
thousand.
This
is,
in
average
right
for
commercial
buildings,
so
we
needed
about
a
hundred
million
dollars
to
have
this
first
phase
of
the
program.
G
So
there
were
different
options,
but
we
I
had
conversations
with
the
major
with
the
city
attorney
and
with
the
city
comptroller,
and
I
got
instructions
that
the
city
should
not
take
any
risks
and
also
the
city
should
not
acquire
any
new
debt,
and
we
should
make
sure
that
any
scheme
or
any
program
that
we
developed
the
city
would
be
protected
at
all
times
from
any
liability.
G
So
we
talk
to
a
number
of
large
companies,
companies
that
don't
exist
in
the
city,
but
that
have
experience
and-
and
this
includes
some
international
companies
like
siemens.
It
also
includes
some
large
consultancy
firms
like
guide
house
and
some
contractors
that
work
in
new
york
city
like
block
power.
In
conversations
with
them.
G
We
understood
that
there
was
a
possibility
of
investment,
banking
or
private
equity
firms,
directly
financing
the
upfront
directly
upfront
in
the
costs
for
for
these
repairs
and
because
of
the
type
of
program
and
the
scale
of
the
program,
there
was
a
possibility
that
this
could
be
structured
in
a
way
that
people
would
not
have
to
pay
any
money
in
advance
and
if
we
were
to
implement
certain
risk
and
financial
risk.
G
Mitigating
measures
we
would
be
able
to
offer
extremely
low
and
at
times
zero
cost
lending
to
to
most
people,
and
we
could
actually
do
that
at
a
15-year
program,
which
would
mean
that
people
would
be
able
to
pay
only
from
the
savings.
By
implementing
this,
so
we
understood
we
contacted
a
couple
of
private
equity
firms
and
we
had
conversations
together
with
the
mayor
with
these
firms,
and
they
indicated
that,
given
that
this
was
the
first
city
in
the
entire
country
that
was
looking
to
do
this.
G
G
Given
the
commitment
and
following
the
indications
of
the
mayor
and
the
comptroller
and
the
city
attorney,
we
decided
that
the
money
that
we
helped
to
have
private
equity
firms
to
commit
to,
since
the
city
would
not
come
to
the
city
but
would
go
directly
to
the
program.
So
we
decided
that
we
needed
a
program
manager
that
would
be
able
to
negotiate
with
the
private
equity
firms
directly.
G
That
would
be
able
to
manage
a
financing
facility
to
create
the
the
lending
program
and
that
would
be
able
to
understand
the
needs
of
the
city,
that
is
to
create
a
zero-cost
lending
program
that
would
help
decarbonize
the
city.
That
is
a
very
quick
summary
I
apologize
for
that.
I
hope
it
was
clear
information.
G
We
were
expecting
a
reduced
number.
We
were
expecting
four
in
total.
At
the
end,
two
of
the
largest
companies
decided
to
create
a
consortium
together
with
a
with
a
local
company
in
the
city
of
ithaca,
and
then
together
decided
to
be
using
a
rubric
that
we
had
established
before
the
rfp
was
released.
We
did
an
objective
evaluation.
There
is
a
a
very
specific
rubric
that
is
also
included
in
your
package.
G
We
did
the
assessment
of
all
24
points
that
were
evaluated
for
every
proposal
and
at
the
end
we
had
three
different
proposals,
only
one
of
them
above
70,
that
is
a
proposal
from
the
consortium
of
block
power
guide,
house
statement.
Engineering
alters
energetic
insurance
with
support
of
cornell
cooperative
extension
and
nyserda
and
the
department
of
energy
and
they
comply
with
practically
every
single
element
in
the
in
the
rfp,
and
it's
no
surprise,
no
single
company
was
gonna,
be
able
to
do
that.
Only
a
consortium
would
be
able
to
do
that.
G
This
last
point
is
important,
because
our
intention
was
never
to
have
a
company
from
outside
ethercat
to
come
and
do
the
work.
The
intention
was
that
company
to
come
in
and
help
manage
the
financing
facility
and
work
with
local
companies
such
as
smart
heat,
datum
engineering
halco
and
assist
with
providing
financial
assistance
for
these
to
be
implemented
at
the
scale
that
we
need
in
the
city.
G
It
is
my
estimation
that
if
we
implement
this
program,
even
though
we
are
targeting
2030,
just
the
carbonization
of
buildings
and
electrification
plus
cca
would
take
the
city
to
be
80
percent
carbon
neutral
by
2027..
G
So
this
is
a
big
step.
This
is
very
important
and
the
reason
is
is
getting
now.
International
attention
is
because
this
is
what
everybody
is
talking
about,
and
this
is
what
itaka
is
trying
to
do,
and
at
this
point
we
present
this
this
to
you
with
the
intention
that
that
you
reviewed
that
you
ask
questions
that
you
feel
comfortable.
G
E
I
F
F
An
easy
question,
but
but
if
this
is
an
easy
answer,
then
then
we're
going
a
long
way.
Okay,
so
here
you
are
talking
about,
and
I
appreciate
the
desire
and
the
mandate
to
protect
the
city
from
increased
liability
and
debt
and
that
it
needs
to
be
executed
at
scale
and
so
on.
So
you
also
mentioned
that
participants
in
the
program
would
be
paying
for
this
debt
through
their
energy
savings.
F
So
walk
me
through
this
model
say
you
are
a
homeowner
and
you're.
You
want
to
participate.
You
mentioned
50
000,
on
average,
for
an
average
homeowner
for
these
energy
improvements
in
a
15-year
loan
payback.
How
are
we,
how
are
we
going
to
ensure
that
they
pay
back
this
loan?
Is
this
a
lien
against
their
property.
G
We
are,
I
need
to
give
you
the
background
information,
so
I
apologize
for
that,
but
it's
it's
very
quickly.
We
developed,
together
with
cornell
university,
the
environmental
systems
lab
there,
is
a
tool
that
allows
us
to
model
energy
use
in
every
single
building
in
the
city
that
that
tool
is
already
available
and
it
allows
us
to
forecast
energy
use
when
we
do
this
retrofitting
and
replacement
of
thermal
loads.
G
So
assuming
that
we
find
those
buildings
that
actually
would
benefit
from
that,
what
that
means
is
that
they,
what
they
currently
pay
as
a
combined
utility
bill
for
gas
and
electricity,
would
be
less
by
having
this
program
once
combined
in
a
single
electric
bill,
and
we
believe
that
the
savings
in
some
cases
could
be
as
much
as
70
and
in
some
cases
would
be
as
low
as
10.
We
believe
that
in
the
vast
majority
of
cases
it
would
be,
there
would
be
savings
we
would.
G
The
intention
for
this
is,
as
you
know,
a
very
important
component
of
the
green
new
deal
is
climate
justice,
and
what
that
means
is
we
need
to
make
sure
that
this
is
not
a
program
that
only
benefits
middle
class
that
not
only
benefits
wealthy
individuals.
It
has
to
be
a
program
that
first
and
foremost
benefits.
G
You
know,
climate
justice,
communities,
low,
moderate
income,
normally
low,
moderate
income
communities
would
not
be,
would
not
have
the
right
credit
history,
so
they
could
participate
in
these
type
of
programs.
So
what
we
did
was
talk
to
nyserda
about
a
loan
loss
reserve
program
that
they
currently
have
the
companies
that
are
participating
in
these
talk
to
before
responding
to
the
rfp.
G
They
talked
to
nyserda,
and
this
is
equivalent
to
having
a
long
guaranteed
program
and
the
loan
loss
reserve
is
a
10
million
dollar
program
that
allows
that
allows
the
financing
facility
to
issue
a
lending
financial
product
to
low
and
low
moderate
income
people
with
a
guarantee
from
the
state.
G
And
if,
if
you
were
to
to
calculate
using,
if
you
were
to
to
determine
the
interest
rates
that
would
be
generated
from
these
the
amount
of
money
that
would
be
used
for
explicitly
the
low
moderate
income
community,
you
would
calculate
that
is
about
13
million
dollars.
So
a
10
million
load
loss
reserve
would
actually
provide
the
guarantee
necessary
for
that.
G
We
can
also-
and
it
is
part
of
the
suggestion-
this
is
not
part
of
the
rfp,
but
there
is
an
extra
component
that,
if
you
think
about
it,
this
loan
loss
guarantee
program
that
is
guaranteeing
this
for
the
contractor.
You
know
like
I,
I
lent
them
the
money
and
if
they
don't
pay
the
state
pays
instead
of
them,
then
we
can
actually
have
an
insurance
policy
covering
that
and
that
insurance
policy
could
actually
transfer
the
risk
even
further.
So
that
way
we
could
actually
guarantee
the
entire.
G
I
mean
this
is
an
exercise
in
risk
management
and
there
are
industries
that
all
they
do
is
risk
management
and
those
are
insurance
companies,
so
loan
loss
reserve
at
nyserda
is
actually
modeled
after
an
insurance
product
called
first
loss
insurance
and
it
is
exactly
the
same
and
it
can
be
protected
with
stop-loss
insurance
too.
So
that's
the
way
we
guarantee
that,
and
that
is
perhaps
the
the
the
bid
that
very
few
other
cities
have
thought
about.
We
cannot
say
that
we
are
the
only
ones
who
thought
about
it.
G
F
Okay,
so
I'm
thank
you
for
that.
I'm
just
going
to
put
it
into
language
that
I
understand,
if
you
don't
mind,
so
basically
the
way
I'm
understanding
this
is
that
applicants
would
be
expected
to
take
a
home
equity
loan
that
might
be
guaranteed
by
nyserda.
G
They
are
expected
to
take
a
a
loan,
a
standard
loan
and
that
loan
would
be
guaranteed
by
nassar
by
the
loan
loss
reserve
program.
At
my
certain
yeah.
F
G
It
is
when
you
say,
a
home
equity
loan.
I
mean
it
is.
G
They
don't.
That
is
my
whole
point.
The
the
the
loan
is
protected
entirely
by
nyserda,
so
people
will
be
able
to.
You
know,
sign
a
letter
of
commitment
to
be
part
of
this
program
and
the
moment
they
cannot
pay
for
this
program
on
their.
You
know,
legally,
you
know
unable
to
pay
for
this
program.
Then
the
loan
loss
research
program
kicks
in
and
it
covers
the
pending
payments.
G
It
is
a
a
program
that
was
issued
by
nyserda
and
it
is
when
you
have,
for
example,
health
insurance
provided
by
by
the
employer
normally
when,
when
it's
not
provided
by
an
insurance
company,
what
the
employer
normally
does
is
something
very
similar
is
a
stop-loss
insurance.
In
case
something
happens,
so
it
is
a
very
similar
program.
So
what
you
are
doing
is
providing
what
is
called
a
credit
enhancement
for
low-income
people,
and
this
great
enhancement
basically
replaces
the
credit
score
with
the
score
of
the
guaranteeing
agency,
which
in
this
case
is
nyserda.
G
Therefore,
a
low
income
person
would
actually
have
the
credit
score
of
myself,
the
analyzer
that
would
respond.
In
this
case,
the
loan
loss
research
program
will
respond
in
case
of
default.
In
case
of.
F
But
for
for
just
again,
for
clarity's
sake,
that's
for
low
and
moderate
income,
individuals
who
might
not
have
the
the
credit
rating
of
of
another
homeowner.
I'm
presuming
that
loan
loss
reserve
is
not
applying
to
the
1000
properties,
because
that
would
be
50
million
dollars,
not
13..
F
G
What
you
should
go?
Okay,
we
have.
F
The
is
there
I
mean
we
on
one
hand
this
sounds
like
a
wonderful
commitment,
and
I
I
this
is
very
creative.
Thank
you
so,
but
part
of
this
commitment
and
my
understanding
is
the
ability
to
deliver
and
receive
pricing
at
scale.
F
F
Do
we
have,
as
as
a
city
in
terms
of
that
commitment,.
G
As
a
city,
you
mean,
as
a
municipal
government,
we
do
not
have
any
specific
risk
as
a
city.
If,
if
we
cannot
get
the
scale,
we
will
not
be
able
to
negotiate
the
lower
the
lower
price
for
for
the
equipment,
we
will
not
be
able
to
grade
the
economies
of
scale
for
for
labor
and
parts,
so
it
would
be
something
very
similar
to
what
exists
today
today.
If
you
talk
to
any
of
the
contractors
doing
this
work
in
the
city
of
italka,
there's
two
problems
that
they
face.
G
One
of
them
has
to
do
with
the
with
people,
not
wanting
to
be
part
of
this,
and
the
other
one
has
to
do
with
people
not
having
the
money
or
not
wanting
to
spend
the
money
on
this.
The
reality
is
that,
according
to
the
clcpa,
the
state
government
is
going
to
ban
natural
gas,
probably
by
2030
in
the
state
of
new
york.
What
that
means
is
that
everybody's
going
to
have
to
do
it
eventually
and
not
because
we
mandate
this,
but
because
the
state
is
going
to
mandate
this?
G
There
is
also
the
require
america
federal
program,
which
is
to
take
the
entire
country,
fossil
fuel,
fossil
fuel
free
in
the
next
15
years,
at
least
for
buildings.
So
there
is
a
reality
that
is
coming,
and
I
think
the
reason
why
everybody's
interested
in
the
model
that
itaka
is
implementing
today
is
because
everybody's
gonna
have
to
do
it.
We're
gonna,
be
perhaps
the
first
one
we're
gonna
have
preferential
conditions
from
a
lot
of
people.
G
Normally,
when
you
talk
about
private
equity,
the
cost
of
capital
tends
to
be
very
high,
but
they
are
not
betting
on
making
money
out
of
us.
They
are
betting
on
showing
that
this
model
could
work
and
they
can
eventually
make
money
with
a
similar
program.
So
what
does
this
gives?
G
Us
is
not
only
the
30
discount
that
we're
going
to
get
with
economies
of
scalable
purchasing
power,
we're
also
getting
a
very
reduced
cost
of
capital
over
100
million
we're
talking
about
five
to
six
points
production
over
100
million
dollars,
so
that
is
already
a
lot
of
savings.
And
then
there
is
a
soft
commitment
that
private
equity
firms
are
making
to
the
city.
To
increase
this.
To
probably
300
million
dollars,
so
we
could
actually
have
the
entire
city
fully
retrofitted
and
electrified.
G
One
of
the
steps
that
we
are
taking
to
do
this
right.
We
actually
have
three
groups
working.
One
of
them
is
looking
at
the
demographic
information,
the
socioeconomic
information
to
create
a
list
of
low-income
buildings
that
would
have
to
be
put
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
queue.
So
we
can
take
care
of
those
and
therefore
implement
our
justice
climate
justice
program.
There
is
another
group
that
is
looking
at
the
business
case
for
every
individual
building
in
the
city,
because
it
all
varies.
G
You
know,
probably
you
changed
your
furnace
in
the
last
five
years,
but
probably
your
clothes
dryer
is
15
years
old,
so
it's
not
gonna
make
sense
for
everybody
to
do
the
same,
so
we
need
to
identify
what
makes
economic
sense,
but
also
what
makes
environmental
sense
and
then,
at
the
end
the
cost
is
going
to
vary,
but
in
general
the
fact
that
we're
doing
this
as
a
group,
you
know
it's,
what
brings
the
benefits
in
cost
of
capital
and
also
in
price,
and
there
is
one
extra
component-
and
this
is
something
that
everybody
in
america
is
struggling
with,
and
this
is
part
of
the
reason
why
everybody
is
talking
to
us
right
now.
G
I
believe
we
can
generate
400
jobs
out
of
this
program
just
for
just
just
out
of
this
program:
400
jobs.
This
is
for
the
first
phase
and
if
we
were
to
actually
do
this
for
the
entire
city,
that
number
could
actually
reach
six
to
seven
hundred
and
we
are
already
talking
to
binghamton.
G
So
there
is
a
key
component
in
terms
of
job
creation
than
an
economic
development
and-
and
the
other
thing
is
this:
once
you
have
a
fully
electrified
city
like
the
one
we
want
to
have
we're
talking
about
different
industries,
we're
talking
about
smart
thermostats,
smart
meters
and
we're
talking
about
creating
industries
and
attracting
companies.
We're
not
talking
about
attracting
jobs,
we're
talking
about
attracting
companies
and
creating
new
industries
in
the
city.
G
So
there
is
a
huge
component
of
economic
development,
job
creation
that
has
the
environmental
component
climate
justice
component
and
will
be
the
first
in
the
country
to
do
this,
which
brings
with
benefits
such
as
the
loan
loss
reserve
program.
That
maserati
is
providing
for
10
million,
which
is
not
enough
for
the
entire
city
could
be
enhanced
by
the
department
of
energy
through
the
loan
program
too,
and.
F
That's
that's
not
tied
to
the
asset
that
the
individual
then
is
obligated
to
repay,
and,
and
that
is
true
for
both
residential
and
commercial.
And
so
what
happens
if
that
individual,
like
sells
the
house
sells
the
apartment
complex,
doesn't
want
to
pay
that
that
in
nyserda
loan
loss
program
takes
that,
and
is
that
true
for
the
the
commercial
property
too,.
G
I've
been
asked
this
question,
I
honestly
don't
don't
have
the
right
answer.
This
is
something
that
that
probably
we
would
need
to
discuss
with
you
know
some
of
the
the
financial
people
that
could
help
us
implement
this
program
with
the
program
manager
and
nicer
than
at
this
point.
What
we
believe
is
that
the
the
loan
is
is
for
the
property
and
the
owner
of
the
property
at
the
moment
of
acquiring
the
loan
is
responsible
for
paying
the
loan.
G
G
No,
no,
no!
No.
What
I
say
at
the
beginning
is
that
I
am
not
sure
and
we
need
to
talk
to
the
people
that
deal
with
finance.
What
I've
been
thinking
about
is
the
the
loan
is
given
to
the
owner
of
the
the
owner
of
the
property,
what
they
can
do
if
they
were
to
sell.
This
is,
is
probably
you
know,
get
the
loan
to
pass
to
a
different
person,
but
I'm
not
entirely
sure
that
that's
the
way
it
would
work.
G
I
am
not
entirely
sure
and-
and
I
I
think,
a
lot
of
what
you
are
referring
to
is
to
the
problems
that
we
had
with
the
pace
program
in
new
york,
and
this
is
not
pace
at
all
and
we
actually
look
at
pace,
and
I
also
looked
at
john
oliver's
program,
and
you
know
we
identified
that
one
of
the
key
issues
was
precisely
that
you
know
it
was
tied
to
the
ass
to
the
house,
and
people
were
losing
their
homes
for
not
being
able
to
pay
for
a
hit
pump.
G
So
that
didn't
make
any
sense
to
us.
So
so
we
actually
changed
that
and-
and
it's
not
like
pace-
and
this
is
the
question
that
comes
up
all
the
time-
is
it
like
base?
No,
it's
not
like
it's
actually
a
different
financial
product,
but
it's
backed
by
a
loan
loss
reserve
program
and
stop
loss
insurance.
F
To
know
before
we
vote
on
that,
thank
you.
E
E
Next
up
is
the
good
cause
eviction
legislation,
so
this
is
down
as
approval
to
circulate,
and
I
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversations
about
this
already
among
ourselves
and
with
the
tenants
union
and
with
various
people
in
the
community.
E
So
tonight
this
is
just
down
for
circulation
and
I
think
the
idea
is
that
we
would
vote
on
this.
It
would
go
out
for
feedback
and
then
come
back
next
month
for
a
public
hearing,
and
I
know
cynthia,
if
you,
if
you
had
anything
you
wanted
to
add
on
this
I
mean
it
was
just
a
discussion
item
last
month,
so
basically,
where
we
were
last
month
was
looking
at
the
albany
legislation.
E
I
think
this
this
legislation
that
we
have
tonight
mirrors
the
albany
legislation,
but
I
know
that
cynthia
also
made
a
few
tweaks
to
it,
based
on
conversations
that
she's
been
having.
So
I
don't
know
cynthia,
if
you
had
anything
else
to
add
to
that.
F
Yeah,
basically,
this
is
built
off
of
both
the
albany
legislation,
as
well
as
the
legislation
that
is
in
front
of
new
york
state.
I
believe
it's
s3082.
F
There
are
two
changes
to
those
two
models
which
seth
mentioned
earlier:
it
removes
as
a
as
a
cause
for
eviction
sale
of
the
property,
and
it
also
moves
as
a
good
cause
for
eviction
the
improvement
of
the
property.
So
it
does
add
some
elements
and
corrections
to
other
aspects
of
our
code,
one
of
which
teresa
mentioned.
F
If
you
may
recall
a
couple
years
ago,
we
added
a
section
that
required
landlords
to
provide
a
minimum
of
60
days
notice,
written
notice
to
the
tenant
before
either
reviewing
renewing
the
current
rental
agreement
or
showing
it
to
prospective
tenants
part
of
that
legislation
included
an
opt-out
where,
basically,
the
landlord
could
write
into
the
lease
that
the
tenant
agrees
to
opt
out
of
that
provision.
F
I've
actually
removed
the
opt
out
because
I
think,
what's
happening,
what
I've
seen
happening
is
tenants,
are
waiving
their
right
to
be
notified
before
the
apartment
is
shown
again
without
knowing
that
they
had
the
right
to
that
60
days
notice.
F
So
so
it
does
remove
that
in
section
258-10
it
adds
something
that
I
think
is
a
very
relevant
component,
which
it
establishes
a
basically
a
protection
against
eviction
through
a
dramatic
rent
increase.
F
So
it
says
that
if
a
landlord
raises
the
rent
at
a
rate
exceeding
one
and
a
half
times
regional
cpi,
that's
considered
an
unconscionable
rent
increase
and
a
de
facto
eviction.
F
So
I
think
that's
a
relevant
clause
to
take
a
look
at
the
other
aspects
in
terms
of
good
cause
for
eviction.
I
believe
essentially
mirror
what
is
accepted
now
as
a
good
cause
for
eviction.
F
F
Basically,
you
know,
for
example,
requiring
that
the
lease
must
be
understandable
to
the
tenant
that
they
should
not
include
provisions.
That
would
avoid
the
intention
of
this
chapter.
F
And
yeah,
I
I
think
we
all
recognize
that
we
are
facing
severe
gentrification
in
the
city
of
ithaca.
We
have
a
housing
crisis,
as
the
ithaca
tenants
union
has
already
mentioned.
Quite
a
number
of
our
tenants
are
facing
dramatic
rent
increases
on
a
year-to-year
basis.
F
I
just
met
with
someone
over
the
weekend,
a
woman,
my
mother's
age,
who
has
a
multi-generational
household,
lived
in
her
home
in
fall
creek
for
five
years
and
was
just
forgiven,
given
the
lease
renewal
at
a
rate
of
increase
of
11
and
then
also
being
required
to
take
on
the
water
and
sewer
bill.
In
addition,
obviously,
having
to
uproot
a
multi-generational
household
is
a
very
traumatic.
F
She
cannot
afford
to
stay
in
the
home,
but
has
agreed
to
renew
her
lease
there.
While
she
looks
for
a
new
place
to
live,
and
we
are
seeing
this
across
the
city,
I
shared
some
data
with
you
earlier
today,
based
on
the
american
community
survey
that
shows
the
median
rent
for
the
city
of
ithaca
and
how
it
has
increased
over
the
last
10
years,
we're
seeing
basically
a
annual
rate
of
rent
increase
exceeding
five
percent.
F
Had
this
clause
been
adopted
ten
years
ago
and
a
reasonable
rent
capped
at
one
and
a
half
times
cpi,
we
would
have
seen
a
annual
rate
of
rent
increase
of
about
2.7
and
a
dramatic
reduction
in
the
median
rent
for
the
city.
F
So
I
think
this
will
go
a
long
way
to
supporting
our
tenants,
giving
them
the
ability
to
have
control
over
their
finances
control
over
their
future
stability
for
their
families,
and
I
really
am
happy
to
work
with
you
on
this
and
look
forward
to
receiving
everyone's
comments
on
the
draft.
E
C
K
Are
you
saying
that
under
current
law,
landlords
can
break
a
legal,
mutually
agreed
upon
lease
with
their
tenants
without
obtaining
an
order
from
a
city
court
judge.
K
Okay,
because
this
is
okay,
because
that's
not
how
this
is
written,
I
think
I've
made
it
clear
that
I
don't
support
this
for
theoretical
reasons,
and
that
is,
I
don't
see
how
you
can
force
somebody
to
renew
a
contract
that
has
come
to
its
legal,
mutually
agreed
upon
termination
date.
K
I
and
I
understand
from
prior
conversations
this
evening
and
lots
of
other
conversations
that
housing
situations
are
tight
and
very
difficult
and
that
some
landlords
don't
maintain
their
property
correctly,
but
still
in
theory.
I
do
not
believe
that
the
state
can
force
one
party
to
enter
in
to
renew
a
contract
with
another
party.
K
E
Council
so
laura
and
then
I
had
a
comment.
D
Thanks
and
thanks
cynthia
for
all
your
work,
thanks
for
the
presentations
tonight
from
keith
and
from
the
itu,
both
very,
very
informative
and
helped
us
in
teasing
out
the
best
way
of
providing
protections
for
tenants-
and
you
know
that's
what
we're
all
interested
in
we're
interested
in
tenants,
particularly
those
with
the
least
resources
being
protected
again
from
the
unscrupulous
landlords,
and
we
do
have
plenty
of
landlords
who
have
been
flexible
and
have
worked
with
their
tenants
throughout
the
pandemic.
D
D
I
share
the
concern
donna
mentioned
about
at
least
being
a
legal
contract
and
upon
termination
of
that
contract.
I
have
reservations
about
a
presumption
that
that
contract
would
be
renewed.
D
I
think
and
we'll
be
talking
about
this
right
to
counsel
and
protection
against
retaliatory
non-renewal
of
leases.
It
does
seem
to
me
that
that
is
the
better
way
of
ensuring.
D
What
the
itu
is
saying
about
those
tenants
who
are
most
vulnerable,
not
feeling
comfortable
or
safe,
going
to
court,
but
if
landlords
again,
those
unscrupulous
landlords
in
our
community
know
that
there
are
legal
protections,
free
provided
legal
protections
to
tenants.
It
can
have
a
rebalancing
effect.
That
would
be
my
expectation
and,
and
my
hope,
so
having
that
legal
advice,
I
know
that
the
2-1-1
housing
specialists
at
the
human
services
coalition
are
able
to
help
callers
fill
out.
D
E-Wrap
applications,
they
two-on-one
housing
specialists,
clearly
don't
give
legal
advice,
but
they
do
refer
callers
to
other
safety
nets.
Other
support
services,
like
law,
new
york,
the
enterprise
grant
that
the
city
received
has
helped
to
ensure
a
number
of
other
safety
nets
and
and
services
for
tenants.
So
I
hope
the
itu,
as
well
as
the
two
on
one
housing
specialists,
are
sharing
all
of
those
resources
with
individuals
who
call
on
the
hotlines.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
give
my
my
two
cents
on
this
and
then
cynthia
pass
it
on
to
you.
I
mean
the
way.
The
way
that
I
see
this
legislation
is
ultimately
it's
not
the
state
stepping
in
to
determine
how
a
contract
should
happen.
It's
the
state,
the
government
saying
here
are
the
conditions
under
which
a
landlord
has
the
right
to
not
renew
a
lease
or
to
evict
a
tenant
right
and
spelling
those
conditions
out
in
law
right
which
the
legislation
does.
It
says
there
should
be
an
unconscionable
rent
increase
there
shouldn't.
E
All
of
a
sudden,
with
only
a
few
months
notice,
they're
suddenly
have
to
uproot
their
entire
lives
because
the
landlord
has
decided
to
either
sell
the
property
or
is
deciding
to
renovate
the
property
and
rent
it
for
a
much
higher
rent.
That
is
a
common
thing
in
this
community.
It
happens
quite
a
bit,
and
this
may
be
a
complicated
piece
of
legislation,
as
as
teresa
alluded
to,
and
I
and
I
share
her
concern.
I
do
think
that
if
we
pass
this,
not
all
tenants
are
going
to
understand
it.
E
Not
all
landlords
are
going
to
understand
it,
but
at
the
very
least
what
this
will
do
is
it
will
give
tenants
a
knowledge
of
their
rights
and
to
pursue
their
rights
in
court,
and
I
think
that's
important.
I
think.
Ultimately,
there
has
to
be
some
mechanism
where
tenants
who
are
in
that
situation,
who
are
long-term
tenants
who
suddenly
find
that
they're
being
displaced,
because
the
landlord
has
decided
that
they
want
to
renovate
the
property,
and
this
is
not
even
necessarily
an
unscrupulous
landlord.
E
E
However,
for
the
people
that
are
living
there-
and
I
do
think
that
there
this
legislation-
I
think
it
probably
could
be
fine-tuned
a
little
more,
but
I
do
think
it
creates
an
opportunity
to
at
least
give
tenants
a
knowledge
of
what
their
rights
are
under
the
law
right,
and
I
think,
particularly
if
that's
paired,
with
a
right
to
counsel
law
and
it's
paired
with
you
know
the
funding,
especially
low
income,
tenants
can
be
represented
in
court.
So
I
I
do
support
this.
E
I
mean,
I
know
that
it's
like
it's
a
complicated
piece
of
legislation.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
questions
about
it
at
the
very
least,
I'd
ask
tonight
that
we
vote
to
circulate,
even
if
you
have
concerns
about
this,
even
if
you
don't
support
it
in
theory,
I
think
having
this
this
conversation
as
as
a
community
is
important.
I
think,
having
the
public
hearing
and
giving
everybody
the
the
right
to
weigh
in
is
important
and
yeah,
so
I'll
be
voting
for
it
tonight.
Cynthia
did
you
have
a
comment.
F
F
The
anxiety
that
goes
to
an
individual
that
they
are
uncertain,
that
they
can
stay
in
their
home
is
incredibly
destabilizing
not
only
for
the
individual
and
their
family,
but
they're
for
their
finances,
their
ability
to
plan
for
the
future,
knowing
whether
or
not
they
can
be
in
a
location,
that's
close
to
schools
in
their
work
and
the
resources
that
they
need
and
to
have
an
environment
which
we
currently
have
now,
where
75
of
our
population
faces
that
uncertainty
every
single
year
of
whether
or
not
they
can
stay
in
their
rental
housing
unit
is
highly
highly
destabilizing.
F
I
mean
we,
like,
I
said,
two-thirds
of
our
population
rents
and
and
that
level
of
instability
and
is
devastating
and
so
by
extending
to
individuals
and
assuring
them
that,
if
you
do
everything
right,
if
you
abide
by
your
lease
terms,
if
you
pay
your
rent
on
time,
you
can
be
assured
that
you
will
be
offered
a
lease
renewal
that
the
the
rent
will
increase
at
a
reasonable
and
affordable
rate,
and
you
can
have
some
stability
in
the
future.
I
think
is,
is
a
tremendous
strength.
F
I
can't
imagine,
for
example,
an
environment
where
well,
actually,
no,
I
won't
go
there,
but
yes,
thank
you.
I
do
hope
that
we
will
vote
to
circulate
this
tonight.
E
E
And
that
carries
unanimously,
and
next
up
is
the
right
to
counsel
resolution.
I
want
to
thank
laura
for
her
work
in
drafting
this.
I
know
that
laura
you've
already
been
doing
some
work
with
the
is
it
the
anti-displacement
working
group.
D
Sorry
that
was
a
george
I
was
muted.
Yes,
I've
been
part
of
that
working
group
since
the
city
received
that
grant
from
enterprise
partners.
D
I
I
do
believe
that
the
right
to
counsel
is
the
most
effective
protection
for
tenants,
that's
demonstrated
by
the
growing
interest
and
codification
of
such
legislation
in
across
the
country.
There
are
at
least
11
cities
right
now
who
have
right
to
counsel
legislation.
D
There
are
three
states
that
have
right
to
counsel
and
it
when,
when
we
look
at
good
cause
there,
there
is
nothing
in
the
good
cause
legislation
that
assures
that
if
someone
finds
themselves
in
eviction
court
that
they
would
be
represented
by
a
lawyer-
and
we
know
that
the
vast
majority
of
landlords
are
represented
in
eviction
court
and
an
incredibly
small
number
incredibly
small
percentage
of
tenants
are
represented
in
in
eviction
court.
D
So
I
do
see
this
as
the
more
effective
way
of
protecting
tenants
to
be
able
to
provide
legal
advice
and
full
scope
representation
in
eviction
court,
and
there
are
numerous
cities
across
the
country
that
are
enacting
such
legislation.
D
There
is
question
about
illegal
or
soft
evictions
that
was
referred
to
in
the
earlier
presentations,
a
landlord
who
is
changing,
locks
on
an
apartment,
a
landlord
who
is
coming
in
and
looking
at
at
an
apartment,
basically
harassing
a
tenant,
and
that's
where
I
do
think
that
the
retaliatory
non-renewal
of
a
lease
is
a
very
important
aspect
of
the
right
to
council
legislation
as
well.
D
Funding
is
a
question
that
has
been
raised.
There
are
cities
that
have
dedicated
resources.
Some
cities
have
actually
dedicated
american
rescue
plan
funding,
so
we
could
look
at
some
arp
funds,
but
I
should
point
out
that
there
are
programs
in
place
that
are
funded
by
the
enterprise
grant.
The
cornell
and
genevieve
mentioned
this
too.
The
cornell
practicum
the
tenants
rights
practicum.
D
There
is
a
legal
fellow
that
has
been
brought
on
board
through
the
enterprise
funding
law.
New
york
provides
pro
bono
training
for
for
lawyers.
At
their
last
training
in
march,
there
were
45
to
50
attendees
at
that
training.
So
I
see
that
as
the
more
effective
protection
I
did
vote
to
circulate.
I
think
it
is
important
to
have
input
from
staff
input
from
the
public
on
both
of
these.
F
Thank
you.
This
hasn't
been
moved
and
seconded
yet,
but
we.
F
Okay
thanks,
so
I
I
appreciate
this,
I
I
definitely
support
all
of
it.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
the
same
kind
of
question
that
I
asked
to
louise.
F
What
is
the
financial
component
of
this
when,
when
the
resolution
says
commit
city
resources?
F
Is
this
staff
resources
funding
resources,
obviously
anything
that
we
establish
in
terms
of
a
right
to
to
counsel
I
notice
this
is
not
legislation.
So
what
exactly
is
the
city
commitment
to
this
financial
or
staff
wise
and
if
it
is
financial,
how
are
you
intending
it
to
come
out
of
the
operating
budget?
Is
it
a
funded
through
debt?
How
much
of
an
obligation
are
you
anticipating.
D
Yet
again,
there
are
some
eviction
cases
being
heard
in
court
that
are
hold
over
cases
or
cases
that
are
different
from
non-payment
cases.
So
I
did
want
to
highlight
there
are
already
resources
being
utilized
that
the
city
is
not
paying
for
it
that
are
being
paid
for
through
a
grant.
There
is
an
expectation
that
there
will
be
additional
pro
bono
lawyers.
D
There
are
summer
interns,
for
example,
that
cornell
has
law
interns
that
are
working
with
tenants
with
residents.
So
what
I
I
cannot
be
definite
about
resources.
We
could
be
referring
people
to
human
services
coalition.
D
I
know
that's
not
a
definite
answer,
but
we
don't
currently
know
the
scope
that
we're
dealing
with.
F
Right
and-
and
so
I
guess
like
with
with
all
that
uncertainty,
I'm
hoping
that
a
final
version
of
this
would
have
more
specificity
of
what
it
is
exactly
that
goes
along
with
this
resolution.
Well,.
D
We're
not
going
to
have
specific
if
what
you're
asking
for
is
a
budget
we're
not
going
to
have
that,
and
that
is
why
it's
written
as
it
is
that
the
council
would
commit
city
resources.
Would
that
be
some
staff
time
potentially?
D
Could
that
be
in
the
form
of
a
budgetary
request?
Yes,
possibly,
but
it
is
not
intended
that
the
full
burden
of
resources
would
fall
on
the
city.
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
the
first
resolved,
it
says
work
with
local
partners
that
are
named
in
this
resolution
to
work
on
tenant
protections.
D
E
E
Similar
to
like
what
we
did
with
the
green
new
deal
like
we
realized,
there's
this
very
serious
problem.
We
didn't
know
where
the
money
would
come
from
to
solve
it,
but
we
passed
it
because
we
had
this
aspiration-
and
I
I
kind
of
see
this
along
the
same
lines
like
we
know
that
there
are
these
programs
out
there.
Many
other
cities
have
implemented
this
successfully
here
in
ithaca.
We
would
like
to
do
the
same
thing
and-
and
I
agree
with
laura-
I
don't
think
the
money
exclusively
has
to
come
from
the
city.
E
I
think
there's
other
sources
of
funding
out
there.
There's
other
there's
partners
that
we
could
partner
with
there's
grant
funding.
There's
the
state
there's
the
federal
government,
so
I
think
I
think
the
opportunity
would
be
there
to
secure
funding
to
set
up
a
program
like
this,
but
right
now
I
think
we're
really
just
saying
like
yes,
this
is
something
we
want
to
do.
D
E
K
I
think
that,
as
a
matter
of
justice
and
due
process,
we
should
support
what
you're
calling
a
right
to
counsel.
Now
I
I
think
the
case
is
that
everybody
has
a
right
to
counsel
just
that.
In
many
cases,
people
can't
pay
for
counsel.
So
we're
saying
that.
K
I
think,
if
we
want
to
ask
staff
to
draft
a
right
to
counsel
legislation
like
some
other
cities
have
done,
we
could
do
that
or
we
could
say
that
we
intend
in
the
next
month
to
give
some
amount
of
money
to
the
ithaca
eviction
displacement
defense
project,
as
we
often
budget
to
give
to
other
organizations,
I'm
just
not
clear
what
we're
asking
for
to
fulfill
the
sentiment
that
we
think
that,
as
a
matter
of
due
process,
people
low-income
people
should
have
counsel
provided
to
them
in
eviction
court.
K
So
I,
even
though
I
think
we
need
to
do
what
we
can
to
promote
the
accessibility
of
attorneys
to
people
to
evictees
in
eviction
court.
I
think
we
need
to
be
clear
about
how
we
want
to
do
that.
There
are
several
of
the
whereases
that
I
think
are
extraneous
and
also
I
I
always
object,
and
my
colleagues
know
this
to
referring
to
this
portion
of
ithaca
tenants
who
are
rent
burdened,
because
many
of
those
are
students
who
might
not
technically
have
income,
but
I
don't
think
we
want
to
call
them
rent
burdened.
K
D
Yeah,
if
I
could,
if
I
could
just
respond,
yes,
donna.
Thank
you
for
asking
that
those
questions,
and
let
me
just
point
out
something
that
I
think
most
of
us
know,
and
that
is
that.
D
Someone
going
to
criminal
court
is
entitled
to
have
a
lawyer
assigned
to
them.
Someone
in
civil
court
does
not
have
that
same
right
and
eviction.
Court
is
civil
court
as
I
understand
it,
and
so
what
this
right
to
counsel
would
do
is
level
that
playing
field
so
that
someone
would
have
the
right
to
free
legal
representation
in
eviction
court,
which
has
been
demonstrated
numerous
other
cities
to
have
a
significant
impact
in
reducing
the
number
of
evictions
in
improving
the
likelihood
that
someone
will
have
a
judgment
allowing
them
to
remain
in
their
home.
D
Your
question
about
how
many
students
are
captured
in
that
percentage
of
rent
burdened.
You
know
I
I
would
need
to
look
into
that
further.
I
can't
respond
to
that
and
though
your
question
this
is
really
intended.
I
was
not
going
to
write
a
local
law.
This
is
a
resolution
that,
in
effect,
is
asking
for
input
from
others,
including
city
staff,
city
staff,
who
may
be
able
to
refine
the
wording
on
this
resolution
and
may
be
able
to
draft
a
local
law
for
common
council
to
consider.
So
that's
really
my
intent.
E
E
D
Yes,
that's
a
good
point
because
I
think
in
cleveland
that
was
the
case
in
a
couple
of
other
cities
that
I've
been
looking
at.
D
E
I
think
I
think
ultimately,
what
would
happen
and
the
action
we
would
be
taking
as
a
city
would
be
to
say,
tenants,
low-income
tenants
who
are
experiencing
an
eviction
proceeding
and
appearing
in
city
court,
there's
some
kind
of
mandatory
they're
guaranteed
to
write
to
council
legal
representation
and
that
we're
partnering
with
such
and
such
organization.
That's
providing
it.
E
E
D
F
Well,
thank
you
to
donna
for
framing
my
question
in
a
way
that
everybody
understands
you
know
in
recognizing
that
you
know
if
we
make
this
commitment.
This
is
something
that
would
need
to
have
a
steady
source
of
you
know,
commitment
either
by
staff
or
funding.
And
what
is
it
exactly
that
we're
committing
to.
E
G
E
U
Well,
I
wanted
to
talk
with
the
committee
about
some
of
the
public
comments
that
we
received.
We
did
circulate
this
after
last
month's
meeting
and
we
got
a
good
number
of
comments
all
in
support,
but
several
of
them
requested
that
we
consider
adding
the
400
block
of
north
cayuga
street
between
court
and
cascadilla
to
the
resulting
proposal.
U
The
comments
noted
that
there's
a
similar
condition
and
a
similar
feel
along
that
block
of
cayuga
and
that
they
just
asked
that
we
consider
that
request
as
well.
So
what
I
sent
out
to
you
by
email
today
and
I
can
share
on
my
screen-
if
that's
helpful,
is
kind
of
looking
at
the
non-conforming
uses,
not
necessarily
area
but
use
along
those
along
that
block,
and
I
believe
there
were
four
that
aren't
on
that
aren't
on
court
they're
just
either.
I
have
a
key
industry
address,
so.
U
Yes,
exactly
so,
I
can
pull
this
up
to
show
you
here
too.
U
Yeah,
it's
really
challenging
because
even
something
that
might
not
be
expanding
the
you
know
business
like
the
volume
of
business
or
generate
more
traffic
or
anything
like
that.
It
does.
It's
considered
an
expansion
of
the
use.
So,
for
example,
there
was
one
of
these
properties
that
wanted
to
create
an
expansion
so
that
their
accessible
entrance
was
also
the
same
as
the
front
entrance.
U
So
whether
regardless
of
ability,
everyone
could
enter
through
the
same
door,
it
also
relocated
the
accessible
entrance
so
that
people
didn't
have
to
pass
through
a
staff
area
where
people
had
their
masks
off
and
were
eating
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
it
was
considered
an
expansion
of
the
non-conforming
use.
So
it
becomes
a
tricky
thing
too,
because
it
is
hard
to
make
a
case
and
that
they
to
meet
the
criteria
for
a
use
variance.
U
U
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
and
see
if
it
was
something
the
committee
wanted
to
consider
adding
that
area
or
if
you
wanted
to
kind
of
keep
the
original
area
as
proposed.
If
you
wanted
to
add
it,
we
would
want
to
recirculate
it
for
comment.
E
U
I
don't
know
whether
there
some
of
them
were
owned,
the
business
that
might
be
in
the
building
and
then
there
were
others
that
owned
the
property
and
we're
local,
but
don't
maybe
isn't
their
home
and
then
a
couple
others,
I'm
not
sure
I'd
have
to
check.
U
Let
me
make
sure
so
it's
it
is
in
some
areas.
It's
a
slight
increase.
The
biggest
again
is
the
use
that's
allowed,
but
the
the
so
in
if
it's
an
r3
district,
there's
no
increase
in
height,
so
b1a
allows
four
stories
and
40
feet,
as
do
our
r3a
districts.
U
R3
double
a
and
the
r2b
are
three
stories
in
35
feet,
so
it
would
allow
a
five
foot
height
increase,
but
it's
not
a
considerable.
We
don't
feel
that
that
would
be
enough
to
encourage
somebody
to
say
try
to
tear
down
a
property
for
five
feet.
The
larger
difference
is
in
lot
coverage.
I
would
say
so.
The
r3
again
allows
35
lot
coverage
and
the
b1a
is
up
to
50..
So.
U
That's
a
15
increase
so
in,
and
I
know
that
could
be
seen
as
a
considerable
increase.
The
only
thing
I
would
say
about
that
too
is
most
of
these
properties
are
located
in
the
dewitt
park,
historic
district,
so
it
does
have
ilpc
review
the
exception.
To
that
would
be,
you
know,
some
of
the
area
that
we
were
considering
adding
is
you
get
part
of
north?
That
400
block
is,
but
part
is
not,
and
also
further
to
the
east,
as
you
get
closer
to
up
court
street
that
isn't
necessarily
all
in.
U
But
the
other
point
I
want
to
know
is
that
several
of
these
properties
are
also
non-conforming
in
terms
of
lot
coverage
and
some
area
requirements
as
well,
which
is
pretty
common
in
this
in
many
of
our
zones.
But
so
again
I
don't
think
that
the
change
is
necessarily
would
necessarily
spark
a
huge.
E
I
just
think
it'll
be
nice
from
some
people
who
actually
live
in
the
neighborhood,
and
I
mean
I
think,
we're
hearing
from
people
who
are
frustrated
when
they
have
to
go
to
the
bza
because
of
the
they're
trying
to
do
something
with
their
property,
which
is
understandable.
That's
a
that's
a
constituency,
but
I
also
think
particularly
that
area.
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
resi
there's
a
lot
of
residents
in
that
in
that
neighborhood
and
I'm
just
kind
of
I
don't
know
just
kind
of
feeling,
like
I'm
curious
what
they
think
about
this
donna.
K
I
got
a
call
today
from
former
older
person,
susan
cummings.
She
might
have
called
the
rest
of
you
as
well,
and
she
told
me
that
she
was
active
in
articulating
for
the
zoning,
the
distinction
that
court
street
should
be
the
boundary
between
business
and
residential,
and
she
really
urged
us
to
hold
the
line
on
keeping
that,
I
guess
it's
the
north
side.
K
Am
I
getting
this
right
residential,
so
she
urged
us
not
to
change
these
non-conforming
properties
to
the
b1
zoning,
and
I
got
her
call
late
this
afternoon,
but
it
made
sense
to
me
that
we
might
want
to
protect
the
border
between
residential
and
commercial,
particularly
because
my
understanding
is,
we
have
a
lot
of
empty
commercial
space
now,
so
it's
it's
so
a
lawyer
or
an
accountant
or
somebody
else
could
find
an
office
further
south.
E
I
think
her
concern
had
to
do
with
like
what
happens
when
everything
switches
over
to
business
and
there's
like
nothing
going
on
at
night.
There's
not
a
lot
of
activity.
That
was
one
of
the
things
she
raised
to
me
was
that
you
could
see
a
shift
from,
but
again,
like
you
know,
we've
had
this
whole
discussion
about
active
use
right
and
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
properties
there
have
businesses
on
the
ground
floor,
but
they
might
have
housing
up
above.
U
Yes,
actually,
a
lot
most
of
them
that
I
looked
at
would
be
office
on
what
would
be
the
the
first
floor
and.
L
C
C
D
D
Is
if
this
rezoning
would
result
in
potentially
less
housing
she's
concerned
with
the
housing
crisis
and
from
what
you're
saying
you
know,
there
are
businesses
offices
on
the
first
floor
with
apartments
above,
but
do
you
would
you
foresee
any
impact
on
on
the
housing
supply.
U
I
mean,
I
can't
say
for
sure
it
would
allow
businesses
and
specifically
professional
offices
and
areas
where,
right
now
you
couldn't
you
could
not
convert
a
residential
structure
into
an
office.
On
the
same
time,
if
it's
true
that
there's
already
a
surplus
of
office
space
available,
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
see
more
can
write
necessarily
converted
over.
You
know
it's
kind
of
a
tricky
boundary.
U
There's
I
mean
some
of
it
is
right
across
from
a
cbd
zone,
so
it
I
mean
the
b
1a
is
kind
of
our
lowest
density
commercial
zone,
so
it
almost
makes
a
a
transition,
but
I
also
I
understand
her
concern
about
you
know
there
there's
a
a
line,
and
we
do
talk
about
that.
A
lot
with
zoning.
I
think
again
the
the
issue
here
was
not
to
create
more
space
for
office.
U
It
was
more
to
address
an
area
that
has
a
significant
number
of
non-conforming
uses
in
comparison
to
other
areas.
I
mean
you'll
often
see
one
or
two
in
other
areas,
but
to
see
this
is
quite
a
cluster
I
would
say
so
that
was
and
and
to
be
honest,
it's
very
hard
for
any
of
these
properties,
even
that
have
been
medical
offices
for
for
decades
to
to
meet
the
criteria
for
use
variants
if
they
want
to
do
anything
different.
E
K
U
So
we
do
our
notification
process,
we
send
out
to
listservs,
and
but
we
do
not
send
to
individual
property
owners
about
a
zoning
change.
We
tried
that
in
the
past-
and
it
just
wasn't
possible
to
do
so.
Really
we
send
out
to
neighborhood
lift
serves,
we
send
it
out
to
different
boards
and
committees
and
and
that
kind
of
thing,
and
it's
of
course,
on
the
agendas
and
such.
But
it
doesn't
go
out
to
each
individual
property
owner.
E
B
That
would
be
really
helpful
because
it
is
your
ward
and
if
you
do
have
any
contacts
you
know
to
see
what
people
see,
how
they're
what
their
reaction
is.
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
that'd
be
good.
U
Oh,
I
was
just
gonna
say
it
is
a
small
area
but
we're,
but
we
try
to
keep
our
practice
for
notification
consistent
across
all.
So
it's
harder
for
us
to
do
that
for
one
and
not
all
the
changes
so.
E
E
Okay,
so
should
we
is
there
a
motion
to
circulate
moved
by
laura's?
Second,
vice
cynthia,
all
in
favor
that
carries
it
honestly.
E
E
I
B
The
only
thing
she
could
see
is
the
the
you
know
the
transcript
as
it
were.
I
find.
K
T
Turned
off
what
I
wanted
well,
I
asked
I
I
when
I
went
and
I
wanted
it
to
actually
do
a
transcript
of
the
of
the
meeting,
not
cl
not
closed
captioned.
Well,
that's
what
it
was
doing
and
I
was
like.
Oh
my.
T
T
Just
so
right,
so
if
you
go
in
like
here
under
more
oh
into.
I
T
I
Okay,
I'm
not
gonna,
say
anything,
okay,
hear
me,
okay,
so
oh.
I
I
I
B
All
right,
so
all
I
have
her
screen,
which
is
her
desktop
screen.
I
don't
know
how
to
get
back
into
the
meeting
from
her
computer,
which
is
why
we
watch
why
she
didn't
who.