Will you protect this house?

A group of vocal protestors was bunched in tightly together within the confines of a narrow sliver of sidewalk that JP Morgan security had provided for them yesterday morning. By design, the space kept the group safely off the spacious outdoor plaza in front of the company's headquarters at 270 Park Avenue, placing their backs against the wide, waist high concrete bollards that delineate private property from the city sidewalk.

The protestors' uncomfortable position simultaneously allowed a constant flow of pedestrian traffic to move past them on the sidewalk and to obstruct the view of onlookers, which consisted almost entirely of curiously observant JP Morgan employees leaving the building for lunch. The rest were the various City Council employees that were on hand to staff the three members who took turns at the makeshift lecturn shoved snuggly into the center of the chanting crowd.

Unfortunately for the protestors, their chaotic, ad hoc physical placement and the clear lack of an interested public seemed to echo the rather jumbled message that they brought to the headquarters of the corporation that they insulted, accused and then, bizarrely, invited out for a walk around Brooklyn, where they believe Chase is wreaking havoc on low-income homeonwers.“The government bailed out this company and then their CEOs received thousands of dollars in bonuses,” said Minister Patricia Malcolm of Brooklyn's “Churches United to Save and Heal,” before going on to accuse the bank of refusing to re-negotiate the mortgages of many poorer city residents that are facing foreclosure in the face of rising unemployment and ongoing financial crisis.

The minister then engaged in a repetitive ‘call and response’ with the supporters crowded in closely behind her by calling out “Can’t take it no more!” to which the crowd responded en masse, “Fired up!”

Minister Malcolm's crowd did indeed seem "fired up" by its anger toward what it perceived as Chase's predatory lending practices even after the bank received "bailout money" from the Federal Government. Those acrimonious feelings were heightened by the elected officials that took the podium after Minister Malcolm.

“Tax money has built up this institution,” said Councilwoman Letitia James while gesturing up at 270 Park Avenue, the black steel and glass high rise that rose up behind her, giving the event perhaps its only successful moment of theatrics. “Chase has the second lowest conversion rate in New York City, and they control thousands of mortgages.”

And it was Ms. James who made the biggest statement of the event by by giving a broad strokes description of legislation that she intends to propose before the council. It would prevent JP Morgan, currently the largest issuers of New York City bonds by a wide margin, from dealing in any more bond issues with the city.

Judging from Ms. James' statements yesterday, the measure would be intended as a clear punitive message to Chase, and one that, judging from at least two other members of The Council present at yesterday's protest, has at least a modicum of political support.

City Council Members Ruben Wills and Jumaane Williams followed Ms. James to the podium and both were quite pointed and discourteous in their remarks. Mr. Wills made a veiled accusation of Chase’s targeting of “black homeowners” through a concerted ad campaign. Mr. Williams was less subtle, going as far as to say that Chase lenders are “ravenous predators who dangle gold in front of poor people.”

The strong language seemed odd for more than a few reasons, not the least of which were the fact it was being broadcast out into mostly passing car and pedestrian traffic, or for the incongruous invitation that immediately followed it.

In what was perhaps meant to be the climactic event of the press conference, a middle-aged man who was not clearly identified took the podium to describe the urban decay caused by high foreclosure rates in his Brooklyn neighborhood. After further accusing Chase of being a major, active force behind this social blight, the man the invited Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase's CEO, to come tour those neighborhoods hardest hit by homeowners unable to pay their mortgages.

The protest signs put it plainly: “Jamie Dimon, Come See What Chase Has Done to NYC."

When she returned to the mic, Councilwoman James made the same plea. “Come down and talk Jamie Dimon,” she said, “We will show you what you have done.”

As the crowd took full throat to chant after Mr. Dimon’s whereabouts, Ms. James answered a question posed by The Observer about the efficacy of her plan to cut Chase out of further city business; in this current climate, with interest rates at zero, banks failing every day and widespread panic around lending, what institution is capable of replacing Chase to issue New York City bonds?

“I don’t really know,” replied Ms. James, “I’m not really in a position put forth any names yet.”

Perhaps Mr. Dimon might offer some during his walking tour.

Voting in favor of it was Helen Foster of the Bronx , Alan Gerson of Manhattan, Letitia James of Brooklyn and Helen Sears of Queens.

Liz Crowley of Queens abstained [corrected]. The issue now goes before the full City Council where things may get interesting.

UPDATE: Vinny Ignizio, a Republican from Staten Island, said he opposes the renaming of a street in Queens after Sean Bell.

"In the six years that I have been with the City Council, he has not met with the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus," said Letitia James of Brooklyn.

It's not for a lack of trying, Caucus members say.

On December 1, 2005, the Caucus sent a letter to the mayor. According to a Caucus-friendly source, the letter proposed a meeting "meant to be a general meeting discussing our legislative and programmatic priorities, including but not limited, to out-of-school-time RFP process."

In the fall of 2006, the Caucus sent another letter--a proposal to meet with the mayor to discuss newly released data on poverty. In response, the administration sent Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs. Some members, seeing Ms. Gibbs as an inadequate stand-in for the mayor, skipped the meeting.

"This administration makes Black, Latino and Asian members of the City Council irrelevant," said Diana Reyna, also of Brooklyn. "Having a relationship with the Speaker alone can't move our agenda. We have to be able to have a relationship with the mayor."

In November 2007, they sent a third letter. The letter read: "The members of the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus respectfully request to meet with you.

"We'd like to discuss affordable housing and the ongoing process of improving the relationship between the NYPD and communities of color."

Caucus members said they received no response.

The latest attempt was on January 16, when they asked to speak with Mr. Bloomberg about how to use "President Obama's stimulus package."

In that letter, read to me by the Caucus source, the group recounted its failed efforts to sit down with the mayor.

"Collaboration between yourself and the Caucus will help to ensure that New Yorkers of color will benefit from this plan," the letter said. "We recognize that you have an extraordinarily busy and ambitious schedule but we must adhere a sense of urgency to our request."

Further down in the letter, the group wrote: "We could not help but remember that we requested a meeting with you in 2006 and you elected to delegate the responsibility to Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs. With all due respect to Deputy Mayor Gibbs, she and any other potential surrogates, we must be explicit that this is a request to meet with you in your capacity as the mayor of the City of New York. We will not accept a meeting with anyone acting in your stead."

Again, Mr. Bloomberg did not meet with the Caucus. Members said there was no response to the letter in January.

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said, "We've met with members of the Caucus both individually and as a group, and of course will continue to do so." Mr. Loeser also said they have no record of having received the Caucus' latest letter.

City Councilman Eric Dilan, of Brooklyn, recalled one meeting Bloomberg had with the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus early in his first term.

"He was cool," said Mr. Dilan. "He was a new mayor at the time. Diversity at the fire department—that was the issue. It was a cordial meeting. I don't know that it bore fruit, but it was a cordial meeting. It was in the mayor's side of City Hall."

There's talk that the caucus may try to meet with the mayor again, when new members are sworn into office in January.

The first lady recently embraced paid sick days in a talk with the business leaders, according to the Times.

In the November 12 letter, the lawmakers said, “We believe that with the leadership of women like you all Americans will no longer have to make the choice between going to work or taking care of a loved one." It went on to say “we are inviting you to attend the New York City Council hearing on Tuesday, November 17th, at 1 PM to address the importance of cities like New York leading the way for the rest of the nation.”

Locally, the battle over paid sick days is one of the top priorities for the Working Families Party, and is proving to be a thorny issue for City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose allies in labor support it, but whose friends in the business community oppose it. Whether or not Obama accepts the invitation, making the invitation public helps spread the impression that the White House backs this kind of legislation. And that's a notion advocates are likely to remind critics about.

The letter was co-signed by City Council members Gale Brewer, Letitia James, Melissa Mark Viverito, Annabel Palma, Jessica Lappin and Helen Foster.

About 400 people showed up at the First A.M.E. Zion Church on MacDonough Street for the forum, which included appearances by Bill Thompson, John Liu, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery and Councilmembers Al Vann and Letitia James. Assemblywoman Annette Robinson was one of the principle organizers.

"We had a very nice meeting," she said. "Basically we had those that came that were there. Several elected officials that were there, the clergy was there, we talked about the budget."

Paterson's spokesman Peter Kauffmann said the governor was also talking about the budget deficit--in Albany, with legislative leaders. "He looks forward to future community events in Brooklyn and across the state," Kauffmann said.

The event would, conceivably, have been an opportunity to address and energize a critical base for Paterson. A poll released yesterday found black Democrats, by a two to one margin, supporting Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical primary match-up against Paterson. The Democratic leader in Brooklyn, Assemblyman Vito Lopez, has been far from a Paterson ally of late, organizing a meeting in Kingston where labor leaders and some party chairman expressed concern with this leadership and strength.

Another dimension: Robinson said the Rev. Al Sharpton was present. Sharpton had been a close Paterson ally, but has not been particularly vocal in Paterson's defense Barack Obama expressed non-support of the governor. Paterson and Sharpton then shared an awkward moment at Sharpton's birthday party, where Paterson proclaimed (jokingly, at least somewhat) that Sharpton was the prince of New York but he was still the king.

Robinson said she understood that the governor was busy, and noted that Paterson's close aide, Clemmie Harris, attended the meeting.

"I recognize that as a legislator, earlier in the week, we had a conference. It was indicated that there would be a leaders meeting. We were of course still hopeful that he would be able to be with us," Robinson said. "We're sure he valued that occasion as much as we valued his presence to be there."

De Blasio, speaking to reporters at a press conference across the street from City Hall this morning, said he was “surprised” to hear that unions supporting his campaign received inquiries from Gioia trying to capitalize on his removal from the ballot.

“I wouldn’t want to be on a cliff hanging on a stick and relying on Eric Gioia to pull me up,” said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

Representative Ed Towns said he would rather highlight the fact that de Blasio’s two other Democratic opponents, Mark Green and Norman Siegel, immediately called for him to be reinstated.

Also at today’s event were City Council members Letitia James of Brooklyn and Rosie Mendez of Manhattan.

De Blasio said that Henry Berger, the election lawyer who made the mistake that led to his removal from the ballot, is still working on the campaign.

De Blasio said his situation is not unique, and that “there’s many insurgent candidates who are good people, who are standing up for the right ideas, who cannot afford the best lawyers, who cannot sustain a court process.”

A vote on the project is scheduled for tomorrow morning, and Council Speaker Christine Quinn told a Council member on Wednesday that she intended to support the project, according to that member. With the speaker’s support, voting down the project would be a difficult task for project opponents.

Politically, the project has been defined by a rift between Councilman David Yassky and Councilwoman Letitia James. Mr. Yassky, who represents the district, has been an unwavering opponent, saying the tower is far too tall. Ms James, who represents the neighboring district, is normally no friend of development but has come out in strong support because of a school in the building.

The dynamic is an unusual one, as traditionally the entire Council defers to the local Cmember on land-use projects, and in this case, a vote of approval would be a clear rebuke of Mr. Yassky. Ms. James has argued that the inclusion of a middle school supersedes the Council tradition, as it elevates it to a citywide issue.

The scheduled vote comes as recent advocacy efforts for the project focused on Speaker Quinn. On Monday, and again Wednesday morning, Ms. Quinn went on site tours—first with the opponents and then with the developers—to weigh the arguments surrounding the project. 

ebrown@observer.com

But, on May 21, she was leading a rally and a press conference on the steps of City Hall with the sole purpose of calling for a development—a project that has an uncertain fate as it nears a Council vote.

“This is an issue about blocking the views of some, but, I believe, for the greater good,” she said, speaking to a handful of reporters before calling on a series of business owners, parents and other project supporters.

(She then proceeded to lead the exact same press conference again, as NY1 showed up too late to catch the first round.)

Such is the fight over the so-called “Dock Street DUMBO project,” a planned 17-story apartment tower that would rise next to the Brooklyn Bridge in the chic artistic neighborhood of Dumbo.

The Two Trees Management–owned project has upended the traditional political story line of the New York development battle. Traditionally on development issues, the entire Council defers to the local member, who wrests concessions from a developer before ultimately voting for a project. But, this time, the local councilman, David Yassky, says he sees no room for compromise, and is therefore on the defensive against his colleagues, scrambling to win support for his position while he tries to ward off the traditionally development-wary Ms. James and her allies.

Noise surrounding the issue has been crescendoing since it began the public review process half a year ago—opponents of the project enlisted documentary filmmaker Ken Burns and historian David McCullough to join the fight—and with a vote due by June 16, it’s set to soon reach its peak.

The tower’s foes are an active and highly vocal group of mostly nearby residents who protest its proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge, and say it would ruin views of and from the historic structure. (A slogan from their Web site: “Save the bridge, stop this building!”) Still, their numbers are relatively small, and the local community board actually voted in favor of the project—with conditions—a rare feat for a developer with a controversial project.

IN SELLING THE DEVELOPMENT to the community and the Council, the Walentas family, which owns Two Trees, has included two carrots: a school and subsidized housing. One-fifth of the building’s 325 apartments would be for moderate-income families, and the developer has an agreement with the city to create the core and shell for a school, where the city would then build out a 300-seat middle school.

If the Walentases are victorious, it will be in large part due to these inducements. After all, the family has been here before, as the father-son duo of David and Jed Walentas sought in 2004 approval for a similar, though less dense, tower on the same site, only without the school. In the end, it became clear that Mr. Yassky was against the project, and his colleagues had no reason not to follow his lead, so the Walentases withdrew their application before a Council vote.

Mr. Yassky’s position has not changed, but the developers now hope to circumvent him should he stay firmly opposed, a very rare action by the Council and usually done on issues that are considered of citywide concern. The inclusion of the school has won the Walentases the support of Ms. James, as new classroom seats are in high demand among her constituents in the neighboring district.

The developers also have a few other things going for them. For one, they seem to have a good relationship with the Council’s speaker, Christine Quinn—they were donors to Ms. Quinn when she was considering a run for mayor; she just approved one of their projects in her district; and she has praised them publicly—though she has not yet taken a public position on the matter.

Further, the project is no glaring, hideously out-of-context eyesore, making the debate one of whether the building detracts significantly from the Brooklyn Bridge. (At the City Council on May 21, members had to interrupt the Walentas family’s architect midway through a presentation to find just which building on a 3-D model was being proposed.)

For supporters such as Ms. James, this puts Mr. Yassky’s position in the extreme category. Taken with the school and the subsidized housing, they feel there’s enough reason to buck the local member.

“Normally we respect the opinions and the positions of the local council member,” Ms. James said. But “when it comes to matters related to at least education, there’s an overriding consideration.”

Ms. James said she is urging her colleagues to support the project, and expects the matter to pass the Council.

This has put Mr. Yassky, the often wonky candidate for city comptroller, in a race to round up the votes for his own position.

“Either me or my staff have called every one of my colleagues in the Council,” he said. “I’ve explained my position; I’ve made it clear that I oppose it, and that I’m asking for their support in opposing it.”

A few members—like Bill de Blasio and Tony Avella—have backed Mr. Yassky’s opposition, though he acknowledged that most of the Council has not yet decided whether to support or back him.

The uncertainty over the project in the Council also raises another issue: While controversy is common, the Council almost always ends up supporting proposed large developments, at least those that come this far in the process. The familiar dance of real estate development fights—in which the local council member opposes a controversial development until the developer agrees to concessions like affordable housing—has led to a small handful of “no” votes on land-use matters in recent years.

As for the chances of Mr. Yassky following suit, he insists his position is firm. “The case against it is extremely strong,” he said.

But, on May 21, she was leading a rally and a press conference on the steps of City Hall with the sole purpose of calling for a development—a project that has an uncertain fate as it nears a Council vote.

“This is an issue about blocking the views of some, but, I believe, for the greater good,” she said, speaking to a handful of reporters before calling on a series of business owners, parents and other project supporters.

(She then proceeded to lead the exact same press conference again, as NY1 showed up too late to catch the first round.)

Such is the fight over the so-called “Dock Street DUMBO project,” a planned 17-story apartment tower that would rise next to the Brooklyn Bridge in the chic artistic neighborhood of Dumbo.

The Two Trees Management–owned project has upended the traditional political story line of the New York development battle. Traditionally on development issues, the entire Council defers to the local member, who wrests concessions from a developer before ultimately voting for a project. But, this time, the local councilman, David Yassky, says he sees no room for compromise, and is therefore on the defensive against his colleagues, scrambling to win support for his position while he tries to ward off the traditionally development-wary Ms. James and her allies.

Noise surrounding the issue has been crescendoing since it began the public review process half a year ago—opponents of the project enlisted documentary filmmaker Ken Burns and historian David McCullough to join the fight—and with a vote due by June 16, it’s set to soon reach its peak.

The tower’s foes are an active and highly vocal group of mostly nearby residents who protest its proximity to the Brooklyn Bridge, and say it would ruin views of and from the historic structure. (A slogan from their Web site: “Save the bridge, stop this building!”) Still, their numbers are relatively small, and the local community board actually voted in favor of the project—with conditions—a rare feat for a developer with a controversial project.

IN SELLING THE DEVELOPMENT to the community and the Council, the Walentas family, which owns Two Trees, has included two carrots: a school and subsidized housing. One-fifth of the building’s 325 apartments would be for moderate-income families, and the developer has an agreement with the city to create the core and shell for a school, where the city would then build out a 300-seat middle school.

If the Walentases are victorious, it will be in large part due to these inducements. After all, the family has been here before, as the father-son duo of David and Jed Walentas sought in 2004 approval for a similar, though less dense, tower on the same site, only without the school. In the end, it became clear that Mr. Yassky was against the project, and his colleagues had no reason not to follow his lead, so the Walentases withdrew their application before a Council vote.

Mr. Yassky’s position has not changed, but the developers now hope to circumvent him should he stay firmly opposed, a very rare action by the Council and usually done on issues that are considered of citywide concern. The inclusion of the school has won the Walentases the support of Ms. James, as new classroom seats are in high demand among her constituents in the neighboring district.

The developers also have a few other things going for them. For one, they seem to have a good relationship with the Council’s speaker, Christine Quinn—they were donors to Ms. Quinn when she was considering a run for mayor; she just approved one of their projects in her district; and she has praised them publicly—though she has not yet taken a public position on the matter.

Further, the project is no glaring, hideously out-of-context eyesore, making the debate one of whether the building detracts significantly from the Brooklyn Bridge. (At the City Council on May 21, members had to interrupt the Walentas family’s architect midway through a presentation to find just which building on a 3-D model was being proposed.)

For supporters such as Ms. James, this puts Mr. Yassky’s position in the extreme category. Taken with the school and the subsidized housing, they feel there’s enough reason to buck the local member.

“Normally we respect the opinions and the positions of the local council member,” Ms. James said. But “when it comes to matters related to at least education, there’s an overriding consideration.”

Ms. James said she is urging her colleagues to support the project, and expects the matter to pass the Council.

This has put Mr. Yassky, the often wonky candidate for city comptroller, in a race to round up the votes for his own position.

“Either me or my staff have called every one of my colleagues in the Council,” he said. “I’ve explained my position; I’ve made it clear that I oppose it, and that I’m asking for their support in opposing it.”

A few members—like Bill de Blasio and Tony Avella—have backed Mr. Yassky’s opposition, though he acknowledged that most of the Council has not yet decided whether to support or back him.

The uncertainty over the project in the Council also raises another issue: While controversy is common, the Council almost always ends up supporting proposed large developments, at least those that come this far in the process. The familiar dance of real estate development fights—in which the local council member opposes a controversial development until the developer agrees to concessions like affordable housing—has led to a small handful of “no” votes on land-use matters in recent years.

As for the chances of Mr. Yassky following suit, he insists his position is firm. “The case against it is extremely strong,” he said.

ebrown@observer.com