FFICE OF THE
June 21, 2010A.5667-C by M. of A. Lopez
to amend the multiple dwelling law in relationto interim multiple dwellings in a city of more than onemillion persons and to amend chapter 349 of the laws of 1982, amending the multiple dwelling law relating tolegalization of interim multiple dwellings in cities overone million, in relation to extending the effectiveness of such chapter.DISAPPROVAL RECOMMENDEDHon. David PatersonGovernor of the State of New York Executive ChamberAlbany, New York 12224Dear Governor Paterson:The above-referenced bill is now before you for executive action.This bill would expand coverage of the Loft Law to buildings or portions of buildings meant formanufacturing or commercial use that have been illegally occupied for residential purposes by two or more familiesfor a consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The number andlocations of these buildings are not specified in the legislation or supporting materials and are, in fact, unknown; bycontrast, the original Loft Law was enacted after an extensive survey and examination of the affected buildings.While the bill laudably attempts to address the fact of residential encroachment into current and formerindustrial zones, it fails to create a minimum standard for safety below which illegal conversions should not, in anycircumstances, be sanctioned. Basic safety, quality-of-life and environmental compatibility will not be assured. Noadditional buildings should be granted the protections of the Loft Law unless they do not involve incompatiblemanufacturing or industrial uses, have operable wet sprinklers, and provide at least one direct egress and a windowin each covered unit.As written, this bill would hurt our economy by driving manufacturers out of New York City, reducing thenumber of good-paying jobs available to New Yorkers at precisely the time we need them the most. The billwould, in effect, prioritize residential occupancy over industrial use wherever they conflict, sending a clear anddiscouraging message to current and would-be industrial tenants anywhere in the city. It would prevent the Cityfrom taking measures to preserve even small islands of industrial businesses, including the city’s sixteen IndustrialBusiness Zones, which in the aggregate represent a small geographic portion of the city, but which this legislationtreats no differently than the rest of the city, including its most residential neighborhoods. The bill would renderthose zones meaningless.