Image of Rivercross from Adventures of a Goodman
Dick Lutz of the Main Street WIRE sends the following bulletin:

DHCR Plans Hike in Rivercross Surcharge

DHCR plans to order an increase in the Rivercross surcharge, levied on residents whose income exceeds the maximum allowed in a building, from 20% to 30%, according to an e-mail from DHCR Commissioner Deborah van Amerongen to Assemblymember Micah Kellner.

Van Amerongen said that DHCR staff called the building’s managing agent today with the news. In addition, DHCR has approved an increase in maintenance charges which, if levied in one step, would be $7.45 per room (about 2.5%) per month (or $4.97/room/month if levied in two steps).

With regard to the surcharge increase, van Amerongen wrote, “…the [Rivercross] Board will be informed of our decision sometime today. If they decide to challenge this that is of course their right, we will argue the case in court.”

I don’t know if this is a fair and reasonable action by the DHCR or not. Nobody likes to have additional surcharges imposed or maintenance fees increased. Sometimes it is necessary, other times it may be not. I do know that it is very difficult to wage a successful legal challenge to decisions made by administrative agencies. Here’s a 2001 Main Street WIRE article on same issue:

“These rulings are correct.”

With that one-sentence paragraph, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court backed a lower-level decision holding that the Rivercross Board and DHCR acted properly last year when it increased the surcharge for over-income residents.

And: Also, a 2005 NY Times article on the changing housing dynamic on Roosevelt Island that may still hold true.

It is not the prospect of more affluent residents in their midst that rankles, but rather the fear that projects like Riverwalk and the Octagon will spur the proliferation of upscale buildings and tip the balance away from the middle-income interests.

“Millionaires’ Row is O.K., but don’t push us out,” Maxine Siegel, an events planner at the City University of New York, said at a tenant get-together in Westview, one of the buildings scheduled to be taken out of the Mitchell- Lama program. “We are open to growth, to people with different economic backgrounds, and we are more concerned with maintaining our homes than keeping out the rich.”

Here’s an excellent resource for issues regarding affordable housing and Mitchell-Lama privatizations – Saving Mitchell Lama. – 5 PM: A reader makes this excellent comment regarding a legal challenge to the DHCR on this matter:

Seems like DHCR might be in an interesting position, having at one time argued that it could leave decisions to the cooperative board(and won!) and now ordering that same cooperative board to impose a higher surcharge?