Follow-up: Article on Odd NYC Bill

[Guest guest]

More on the NYC bill requiring permits from NYPD for possession and use of air monitoring equipment....

A license to check for W.M.D's?

By Sewell Chan, New York Time, City Room.com, 1/8/08

Individuals and companies have increasingly expressed interest in

buying detectors to warn them in case of a biological, chemical or

radiological attack. But now a City Council committee is considering

a proposal that would require New Yorkers to get a permit from the

Police Department to buy or use such detectors.

The legislation — which was proposed by the Bloomberg administration

and would be the first of its kind in the nation — would empower the

police commissioner to decide whether to grant a free five-year

permit to individuals and companies seeking to "possess or deploy

such detectors." Common smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors

would not be covered by the law, the Police Department said.

Violations of the law would be considered a misdemeanor.

Why does the administration think such a law is necessary? A.

Falkenrath, the Police Department's deputy commissioner for

counterterrorism, told the Council's Public Safety Committee at a

hearing today, "Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms and

unnecessary public concern by making sure that we know where these

detectors are located and that they conform to standards of quality

and reliability."

The law would also require anyone using such a detector — regardless

of whether they have obtained the required permit — to notify the

Police Department if the detector alerted them to a biological,

chemical or radiological agent. "In this way, emergency response

personnel will be able to assess threats and take appropriate action

based on the maximum information available," Dr. Falkenrath said.

The Police Department would work with officials in the Departments of

Fire, Health and Mental Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Dr.

Falkenrath said, to "develop the appropriate standards for evaluating

the applications, regarding not only the technical specifications for

the detectors but also the applicant's emergency response protocols."

Not everyone is enamored of the legislation, however.

The Manhattan borough president, M. Stringer, said in a

statement that he was "concerned that in its current form this bill

is too broad and will unfairly obstruct the independent collection of

scientific data."

Mr. Stringer said that he could not "think of any evidence or events

from our recent past involving `false alarms' that would create any

urgency for this sweeping legislation," and that on the contrary, the

law "may undermine public freedom and add unnecessary red tape." In

the statement, he asked:

If enacted, would we have the absurd result of making it illegal for

patients to test whether their kids are being exposed to second-hand

smoke, mold, radon or other common pollutants unless they first get a

permit from the city? How about air-quality testing by environmental

advocacy groups in East Harlem, prompted by alarming statistics that

children in El Barrio have the highest asthma rates in the nation?

Ellie Engler, a safety and health official at the United Federation

of Teachers, said that "universally requiring permits for

atmospheric, biological, chemical and radiological detectors places

an undue burden on personnel conducting routine construction-related

activities in New York City."

And the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a

labor-backed advocacy group, was even more adamant in its opposition.

In a statement, the committee said the bill

• "is aimed at fixing a problem that does not exist";

• "would make it more difficult for the public, and for

government agencies, to obtain environmental sampling data in a

timely manner";

• "would make it more difficult for the public to obtain

independent environmental sampling data and to assess the accuracy of

government statements";

• "would inappropriately and impossibly task N.Y.P.D. with

assessing the capabilities of air monitoring instruments and of the

individuals, agencies and organizations that utilize them"; and

• "would immediately make illegal scores of thousands of safety

devices already in place in homes, schools, businesses and public

buildings."

At the hearing, Councilman F. Vallone Jr., a Queens Democrat

who is chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said the Council has

been asked by the Bloomberg administration to "move as expeditiously

as possible" on the bill. He and the speaker, C. Quinn,

support the bill but want to see the concerns about its broad

language addressed.

"The consensus is that the goal of the bill is very reasonable, but

we need to tailor a little more specifically so as not to hinder

legitimate private uses of these detection devices," Mr. Vallone said

in a phone interview this afternoon. In principle, the Police

Department should be able to know who has such devices, he said, but

household detectors like smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors

should not be included in the legislation.

"The technology in potential weapons and in detection devices is

constantly evolving and needs to be examined by experts, not

legislators," Mr. Vallone said.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/a-license-to-check-for-wmds/

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Are people aware of the " dueling bills " situation in NYC that was

covered in the NYT a few months ago?

I wonder if following the dictates of this law, for example, a

business tenant with a monitoring system, reporting a health issue

like mold or radon in NYC might fall under one of the bills definition

of " groundless harassment " if it was a commercial apartment building.

My first impression was that it might. I don't know.

Given that we have no standards for mold, complaints to city agencies,

etc. nationwide have occasionally, not infrequently been the subject

of legal retaliation by outraged slumlords outraged about having to

spend money to fix the issues brought up in " baseless complaints " over

issues like mold that " aren't illegal " .

To many landlords, if something isn't CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY

illegal, its permissable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/nyregion/24harass.html

Dueling Bills in the Fight Over Housing

By MANNY FERNANDEZ

A bill recently proposed in the City Council and known as Introduction

627 has been heralded by many tenants and housing advocates as a

measure that would provide long-overdue protections to renters. It

would, for the first time, give tenants the right to sue their

landlords in Housing Court for harassing them by making threats,

disrupting services or using other tactics to force them out.

But a rival bill, Introduction 638, would give aggrieved landlords a

new legal tool, too. It would allow them to sue tenants for

harassment, like making repeated complaints to city agencies that turn

out to be baseless.

The bills are the latest skirmish in the city's long cold war between

landlords and tenants. Both measures, which call for stiff

court-ordered fines, also contain dueling definitions of harassment.

One side describes it as a technique that landlords use to drive out

poor tenants in hopes of getting wealthier ones, and the other says

that is an unfair accusation hurled at landlords who are using

legitimate means to evict bad renters.

The tenants' bill, introduced by Council Speaker C. Quinn,

Councilman R. Garodnick and Councilwoman Mark Viverito,

has earned the support of 34 of the Council's 51 members. The bill

that is more favorable to landlords is sponsored by Councilmen Leroy

G. Comrie Jr. and White Jr.

Beyond anecdotal evidence, city housing officials say they have no

data on the number of cases concerning harassment by either landlords

or tenants. But some council members, housing advocates, legal aid

lawyers and tenants say that instances of landlords harassing renters

are on the rise and that the harassment has become more subtle than in

decades past.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, some landlords were criticized for

hiring relocation companies that resorted to questionable and even

criminal actions to clear buildings of tenants. Essential services

were cut off, or locks were broken to allow vagrants into buildings.

In one lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general's office in 1972

against two relocation and management companies, an unleashed dog was

allowed to roam a Manhattan building.

The actions may be less blatant these days, but they are no less

menacing, several housing advocates and tenants said. Some landlords,

they said, repeatedly take tenants to Housing Court for trivial or

baseless reasons, pressure tenants to accept buyouts and refuse to

make repairs.

Vivian ez, 35, shared an apartment for years in Greenpoint,

Brooklyn, with her parents and brothers. After a fire damaged the

building in June 2004, Ms. ez and her relatives were forced to

move, although they hoped to return.

She said that for more than three years the landlord has stalled

making repairs to their apartment because her parents have turned down

repeated buyout offers, preventing the building from being turned into

condos.

" The only phone calls that we get from him is, 'Take the buyout, take

the buyout,' and we don't want it, " said Ms. ez, who testified

on Dec. 17 at a Council committee hearing about the two bills.

Dulchin, deputy director of the Association for Neighborhood

and Housing Development, which represents nonprofit housing groups,

said harassment was one of the reasons that housing for low-income

families was disappearing from the city. " Landlords are buying these

buildings knowing that they can use illegal and semilegal means to

push out the low-paying tenants, " said Mr. Dulchin, whose group

supports the bill backed by Ms. Quinn.

The Rent Stabilization Association, a trade group that represents New

York City landlords, disputed the assertion that harassment of tenants

is a widespread problem. " There is a perception out there that every

violation in a building, that every time there is a failure to provide

heat, every time a landlord brings a case against a tenant that is

unsuccessful, that this is somehow perceived as a form of harassment, "

said Posilkin, the group's general counsel.

The landlord group opposes both bills, though it says that Mr. Comrie

and Mr. White's bill is " less objectionable, " Mr. Posilkin said. He

added that at least 10 existing laws address the same issues,

including the city's Illegal Eviction Law, which makes it a

misdemeanor for a property owner to use force or intimidation to evict

a tenant.

But Ms. Quinn, a former housing organizer, said that none of those

other laws give tenants the right to take their landlords to Housing

Court for harassment. And she doubted that tenants were harassing

landlords in large numbers.

" This idea that there is rampant landlord harassment perpetuated by

tenants is a red herring, " Ms. Quinn said.

Mr. Comrie, whose district is in southeast Queens, said that

landlords, many of whom own small buildings, often contact his office

to complain about tenants who harass them by refusing to pay rent or

by embroiling them in drawn-out cases in Housing Court.

Currently, the city's Housing Maintenance Code does not consider

harassment of tenants or landlords a violation; tenants can sue their

landlords in Housing Court only for problems with essential services

or the physical condition of their apartment.

Ms. Quinn's bill would allow a judge to fine landlords $1,000 to

$5,000 for harassment. It would define harassment as making threats,

interrupting essential services repeatedly, taking tenants to court

for baseless reasons and disturbing the comfort of occupants

frequently. The measure also states that if three harassment

allegations against a landlord are dismissed over a period of 10

years, a tenant would have to receive permission from a judge to file

another.

The landlords' bill was originally introduced by Councilwoman

Baez of the Bronx. But following a noisy protest outside her district

office by Bronx housing activists, she withdrew her support and now

backs Ms. Quinn's bill.

The landlords' bill would prohibit tenants from threatening owners,

making frequent baseless complaints to a governmental agency, taking

landlords to court repeatedly without cause and interfering with the

comfort or safety of owners or tenants.

Mr. Comrie said he was neither pro-tenant nor pro-landlord and was

hoping for a compromise bill. He is also, it turns out, a sponsor of

Ms. Quinn's bill.

" It's really about trying to make sure that we protect all New York

City residents, not just playing tenants against landlords or vice

versa, " he said. " I wanted to ensure that there was a debate. "