by Yori Yanover

SPURA close-up

ver the past 40+ years there have been two symmetrically opposed views on the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area (SPURA), those five or so razed lots between Delancey and Grand and Clinton and Essex Streets.

One view was expressed most emphatically by the organizers of a rally last month, under the banner of "We Want Justice at SPURA." The details were reminiscent, as they often are, of the plight of Palestinian refugees: "42 years of vacant land in the heart of the neighborhood… 2,000 homes demolished for urban renewal… The Lower East Side is still waiting for community revitalization and affordable housing on the site…" The rally also demanded "priority for tenants displaced in 1967."

I doubt that justice for the displaced is the burning issue—the original tenants are not currently huddled in relocation camps. The rally was, most of all, about answering the need for affordable housing in Manhattan. And "affordable" means low income.

Which brings us to the opposing view, that the Lower East Side already has the second largest concentration of low income residents in Manhattan – some 15 thousand households below the poverty line. Why should this neighborhood shoulder an even greater burden of low income housing? What we need, instead, are amenities: a modern shopping mall, a movie theater, a park.

The popular perception is that the dispute over SPURA is between local "haves" and "have nots." The more well-to-do residents of co-ops and condominiums naturally oppose additional low income housing, while the NYCHA constituency want to expand it. I seriously wonder if this is the case. While many of our burgeoning families are sharing very small apartments, it does not necessarily mean that what the Lower East Side needs are 2,000 more residential units below the poverty line.

The problem is that no one is organizing angry rallies in favor of a shopping mall and a public piazza in SPURA. Housing is simple and urgent enough an issue to serve as a gathering point for militants. But how do you get middle- and lower middle-class folks to go militant over their quality of life needs?

I fear that, as in most political debates, the more militant and better organized advocates for SPURA’s future will win the day, if not in this round then in the next. And once the political process starts rolling, we’ll see a new cluster of low income apartment buildings rise across the street from the Seward Park co-op. It would mean further straining the already dwindling resources of our neighborhood safety net. It would also mean permanently giving up hope of turning Grand Street between the FDR Drive and Allen into a thriving cultural area.

It’s time to get militant about the future of SPURA, because whatever develops on those five lots will certainly alter our lives down here.

To join the local discussion of SPURA on Yahoo go to: groups.yahoo.com/group/spura