Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
REAL ESTATE
AND
NEW YORK, MARCH 13, 1915
â– Pllilllill^
â– â– â– â– â– ^^^^^
CONCESSIONS FOR SAKE OF UNITED ACTION!
Important Modifications in the Lockwood Bill Agreed to—Tenement, Fire and
Labor Laws Not to be Subject to Variation, and Mayor to Appoint Chief Board
liiimiiiiiHiiiiii^
â– illlllH^^^^^^
T^HE Conference Committee of Real
•^ Estate and Allied Organizations,
which recently presented to the Legis¬
lature the Lockwood-Ellenbogen bill for
simplifying building inspection i-n New
York City, is prepared to defend the
measure against criticisms which have
during the past few days been aimed
at it. The following statement, concern¬
ing the bill, is made by Richard O. Chit¬
tick, secretary of the conference:
"(Considerable opposition has devel¬
oped during the past few days to the
Lockwood-Ellenbogen bill for simplify¬
ing building inspection in New York
City. It is significant that this opposi¬
tion has been most marked since the
hearing at Albany on March 3. This is
perhaps accounted for by the fact that
on that occasion it was plain to all ob¬
servers, and doubtless was not lost upon
the Joint Committee on City Affairs,
that the advocates of the bill had all
the best of the argument. The opposi¬
tion to the bill was led actively by the
Secretary of the City Club, and rein¬
forced by charit^^ organization interests.
With this in mind the recent evidences
of a widespread propaganda against the
bill is easy to understand.
An Open Discussion.
"Before taking up specific criticisms
of the bill, it is only fair to those who
have devoted months of time in the ef¬
fort to remedy a condition of which the
whole city may well be ashamed, to say
that all presumed to be interested, in¬
cluding the City Club, were invited to
discuss the bill in the making.
"It is also necessary to contradict a
statement which has been given public¬
ity, to the effect that the Lockwood-
Ellenbogen bill has been 'deserted' by
many of its original advocates. While
the advertising value of this to the op¬
ponents of the bill is quite obvious, the
facts do not warrant the statement. The
number of organizations favoring the
bill has actually been increased.
"It would, of course, be absurd and
unfair to assume that all criticisms of
the Lockwood-Ellenbogen measure are
made in bad faith. Probably most crit¬
ics of the bill are sincere, though some
of them are badly informed; and while
this may be a sign of the times it is
not necessarily evidence of bad faith.
"Neither would it be the part of wis¬
dom to assume that the bill is perfect,
or that it offers a panacea for all the
ills of over inspection and waste.
"The bill may have its faults; but if
it had no other merits, those responsi¬
ble for it can at least pride themselves
on having forced upon public and official
notice a condition which ought to have
been remedied long ago, but for which
no remedy would have been provided
if the so-called real estate interests had
not, nearly a year ago, started a move¬
ment to correct an intolerable situation.
Sifting the Criticisms.
"Sifting the criticisms of the Lock¬
wood-Ellenbogen bill quite carefully,
those which deserve serious attention
seem to be:
1. That decentralization is threatened.
2. That thc functions of the Tene¬
ment House Department, Fire Depart¬
ment and the Labor Department will be
interfered with, the safeguards to life
growing out of the present equipment
and administration of these departments
endangered and the laws rendered inop¬
erative.
3. That the Superintendents of Build¬
ings will be given dangerous authority
and placed under pressure of local sen¬
timent.
4. That the Board of Standards will
have too great authority.
5. That the Board of Examiners will
be a law unto itself; that it will be re¬
cruited from organizations that will act
in self-interest; that this bill's existence
is a legalized looting of the City Treas¬
ury.
Borough Responsibility.
"To take these up in their order:
_ "First, as to the cry of decentraliza¬
tion. This is a fetich that seems to have
obsessed quite a number of very ami¬
able and well-intentioned persons. The¬
oretically the Lockwood-Ellenbogen bill
does mean a certain amount of decen¬
tralization, but in spite of affirmative
academic opinion on this subject is
there any particular virtue in retaining
a centralized administrative function^
that of building inspection and super¬
vision—whicli has steadily been break¬
ing down for seven or eight years until
at the present time it has collapsed
hopelessly? That it has broken down
no well-informed person will deny.
"Is not the present system of borough
jurisdiction, as it applies to building in¬
spection the direct result of the failure
of a central building inspection system
such as the opponents of the Lock¬
wood-Ellenbogen bill are now advocat¬
ing?
"Second, the so-called raid upon the
Tenement House Department, the Fire
Department and the Labor Department.
"Most of the critics of the Lockwood-
Ellenbogen bill seem to have assumed
that all the virtue in this controversy is
on their side. What are the facts about
that loudly decried stripping of these
departments?
Inflexible Laws.
"The Lockwood-Ellenbogen bill says
in effect: The Tenement House Act is
a fixed and inflexible law. The Labor
Law is in the same case. The authority
of the Fire Commissioner is exceeding¬
ly wide, both under the Charter and un¬
der specific enactments of the Board of
Aldermen; also under the police power
of the State. But in the matter of con¬
struction, alteration and structural
changes, there is no reason whatever
why, with such fixed laws applicable in
each case, a tenement house or factory
cannot be built as well under the di¬
rection of a Superintendent of Buildings
as under a functionary called by some
other name; and so in the case of fire
prevention requirements. To each of
these departments is left the jurisdiction
over maintenance and housekeeping.
"Finally there is the Board of Exam¬
iners.
"Mr. Binkerd characterizes this as an
irresponsible body, apparently because
it is not appointed by the Mayor. It is
recruited (in the bill) practically from
the same sources as at present. The
language of the bill does not depart
widely from that of the Charter, (bee
section 409 of the Lockwood-Ellenbo¬
gen bill and section 411 of the Charter).
But as proof that the bill is intended
neither to contain jokers nor to be a
'ripper' measure, the Executive Commit¬
tee is willing to amend this section so
as to vest with the Mayor absolute
power to appoint the Board of Exam¬
iners. The Conference will probably
recommend this change to the Legisla¬
ture.
"Decisions of the Board of Examiners
are given much wider publicity than at
present. They are final. But so they
are now under the Charter. The fram¬
ers of the present charter did not seem
to share Mr. Binkerd's opinion that the
persons who have spent millions to
make New York City what it is, and will
spend millions more, should have no
voice at all in how this great building
industry should be conducted. They
seem ta have had some faith in human
nature.
"The provision for 'variations' by the
Board of Examiners in the Lockwood-
Ellenbogen bill, coincides with the pres¬
ent charter provisions.
Another Modification.
"It is fair both to the critics of the
bill and to the Conference Committee to
state here another important modifica¬
tion which it is proposed to make.
"The transferring of jurisdiction of
the Tenement House Department over
construction, structural changes, etc., to
the Superintendent of Buildings, Section
406. and the provision for variations
from law or ordinance, etc., Section 410,
does give power to modify the Tene¬
ment House Act. While here again the
language of the existing Charter is used,
it was not the intention to 'tamper'
with the Tenement House Law as has
been charged. This is recognized as a
fair point for criticism. The Executive
Committee is perfectly willing to rec¬
ommend an amendment that will pre¬
vent the application of the variation
clause to the Tenement House Act.
"If the Lockwood-Ellenbogen bill
does not provide any way for getting rid
of the Board of Examiners, as Mr.
Binkerd complains, this is plainly be¬
cause it here again adopts the plan of
the existing Charter (Section 411).
"In many respects those who have
labored to discover in the Lockwood-
Ellenbogen bill a vicious measure are
visiting upon it alleged viciousness in
the present Charter, under which build¬
ing construction has been carried on in
this city for many years. The bill is
not a perfect measure. Where it reflects
wide divergence of honest opinion, these
differences must be fought out in the
usual way. But it does represent hard
work, honest effort, months of going
over and many revisions. It deserves
helpful and not destructive criticism.
"The alleged 'jokers' will be elimi-
mated, if they can be pointed out."