Stung Meets the Big Apple

Isilga Odunsi’s two-story red brick house is meticulously clean, warm and inviting. Ceramic trinkets commemorating her native country, Costa Rica, and framed family photos dominate the china cabinets in the dining room. Odunsi has invested her time and money in making her house a home.

Before her home was retrofitted with weatherproofing materials, many of the rooms were unbearably cold. She opened her home to workers she hired to insulate and weatherize the residence, but they caused more damage than improvements.

“I brought (a) guy in to fix a few things, and he stole a lot of my stuff,” she said with emotion and pointed south. “As a matter of fact, he lives around here. Right over there.”

Odunsi had just about given up hope for insulating her home until she heard about the Weatherization Assistance Program.

President Obama’s stimulus bill allocated $5 billion to the 24-year-old program that has been underutilized over the years. This money has triggered some criticism, but it has also made a positive change for community environmental groups and low-income families in New York City.

Weatherization, or weatherproofing, provided through WAP reduces the energy consumption of homes and buildings. The program provides various energy saving measures, such as air sealing, insulation and general improvements or replacements, specifically to low-income families

The Weatherization Assistance Program was founded in 1976 and has provided subsidized weatherization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households, but more than 27 million homes remain eligible. Funding for the program varies on the budget set by the presidential administrations, said Joseph Barden, executive director of Margert Community Corporation, a community housing organization in south Queens.

In recent years, WAP’s budget ranged from $200 to $250 million per year. Obama recognized the importance of helping people overcome income disparities in the move toward energy affordability and poured money into the program.

“Sometimes people have to make choices between paying the heating bill and eating,” said Olga Souto, the director of low-income program services at the Community Environmental Center (CEC) in Queens.

By weatherproofing homes to make them more efficient, people can save hundreds of dollars per month — money that can go toward increasing quality of life. Weatherization helps families afford both.

“Once we insulate a home…you can see a difference (in your heating bill) right away, whether it’s winter or summer,” Souto said. “You’re going to see savings right away, not in two, three years down the line.”

Complications and delays with the weatherization activities have been met with criticism from many news organizations. The newly funded weatherization program has not accomplished much since its goal to weatherize 593,000 homes around the country was established last year. According to the Government Accountability Office, only 5 percent of the homes had received WAP services as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Barden, however, disagreed with the negative assessments.

“Stimulus money is going to allows us to get through all the backlog (of homes) that have bene awaiting weatherization,” Barden said. “It’s my anticipation that with this level of funding, everybody (in small family units) who requests weatherization will get it.”

Funding for WAP trickles down from the Department of Energy in Washington, D.C., to state and local government agencies, which then provide grants to nonprofit organizations. Families request and apply for weatherization directly through nonprofit organizations.

In New York, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) handles the allocation of money for the state’s weatherization program. New York received the largest percentage of ARRA funds, about $395 million. In New York City alone, there are 13 nonprofits that receive money.

“The need for weatherization (in New York City) has always vastly exceeded the resource,” Barden said.

But, with the added stimulus funds, more families will finally get help. Barden’s organization was granted $5.4 million to complete 775 units by June 2011; over 600 of these units are in multi-family projects. He estimated they would overproduce by 10 to 12 percent.

DHCR also allocated $21 million in stimulus funds to the Community Environmental Center, which services part of Brooklyn and Queens. The Center’s largest project will be to weatherize and retrofit the 5,881 apartments at Spring Creek Towers (Starrett City), a multi-family housing complex in Brooklyn by June 2011.

WAP is also an example of how those who live at or below the poverty line can make a conscious effort to be proactive about environmental sustainability. Subsidized weatherization is available, but families have to be active participants to receive government help.

“(We) can only promote (WAP) so much,” Souto said. “But people actually have to look into the program, and want to be part of it.”

Clients who wish to receive weatherization assistance have to fill out an application with a local service provider. They must prove their income eligibility by providing pay stubs. If they do not provide these documents, they cannot receive weatherization services. In a multi-family building, like apartment complexes in New York City, at least half of the families must submit pay stubs.

One of the greatest challenges in the weatherization assistance process lies in education: teaching low-income families how to access information about energy conservation and efficiency, as well as alerting them to energy savings.

“I think (WAP) is a well-kept secret,” Souto said. “I think eventually it’ll evolve into a program that everybody knows about, provided that we put the word out there as much as possible.”

CEC is working to teach its local communities about energy conservation through the Weatherization Assistance Program. Souto said CEC has been forced to promote weatherization services even more since they started spending stimulus money.

“We’re weatherizing at least 400 more clients than normally,” Souto said. “Because of (Obama’s) Recovery Act, all this money has been channeled to (help people) quickly.”

Part of CEC’s outreach program works block-by-block to teach members of the community about WAP and its benefits.

Odunsi, 61, heard about WAP by word-of-mouth. The elementary school teacher in Flatbush, Brooklyn had no idea government subsidized weatherization services existed until her daughter, a social worker, told her about the opportunity.

Odusni lives with her 74-year-old husband, Bolaji, who has Alzheimer’s. Since her husband’s mental health deteriorated, she has been the only breadwinner in the household. They relocated to the two-story house 11 years ago because of poor conditions in the apartment building they had previously occupied.

“Part of the reason I moved was because it was very cold at times in the winter, and at times we didn’t have winter,” she said. “And then another thing, the elevators were not working at times. I had to walk down twelve flights, twelve floors.”

Although it costs a lot more to own a home, Odunsi said the benefits are far greater. Renovating the house, however, caused additional problems.

After hiring people who damaged her walls and windows, or stole precious belongings, Odunsi had run out of money. Because of her past experiences with local contractors, she was extremely skeptical when she first heard about WAP’s free services.

“The first thing I did ask was, ‘What are the fine prints? Are there any strings attached? Are you going to have a lien on my house eventually?’ ” she said.

Despite these doubts, Odunsi was more worried about the cold months ahead. “I thought I would have waited for like a year because I was becoming very concerned about waiting through another gruesome winter,” she said. Prior to weatherization, the temperature in her home dropped drastically during the colder months of the year, she said. The bedroom she shares with her elderly husband, for example, used to be like a morgue.

What Odunsi discovered, however, was that the federal weatherization program was the most efficient and professional job she’d ever had in her house. Odunsi applied for WAP during summer 2009 and by October, her home had been weatherproofed. Workers installed weatherstripping to doors, replaced windows and screwed in energy saving light bulbs.

“At the beginning, the (energy bill) really went down close to $100 a month,” she said.

In addition to installing weatherproofing technologies, WAP also assessed and retrofitted Odunsi’s home for potential health hazards — an important component of the program that is often overlooked, Barden said.

“Health and safety is our priority within the Weatherization Assistance Program,” Barden said. “It’s often ignored because there’s not an energy factor to it, (but) we’re saving lives, too, you know.”

During a tour of her home, Odunsi pointed at the smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector mounted in the ceiling of the second floor hallway.

Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased WAP funding assistance from $2,500 to $6,500. Odunsi said it cost about $3000 to weatherize and retrofit her home, and she did not have to pay a single cent.

“I was very, very grateful for such a program,” she said. “Every time I think about the program I smile.”

Local governments across the country, including New York City, are spending millions to promote environmentalism in low-income communities, from recycling to organic eating and energy conservation. But many of those who live in the communities say those programs feel distant and irrelevant to the daily realities of their lives.

“A lot of Spanish people really don’t care,” said Neal Figueroa, 17, of East Harlem. “Around here, it’s like a joke.” Figueroa said he and his friends frequently litter on the streets.

The New York City government is investing money for Green advertisement campaigns, programs and buildings, and more New Yorkers are taking steps to join the trend.

Posters encourage subway commuters to “Switch & Save” and programs like the Manhattan Borough President’s Go Green initiatives are hoping to show that going green is for everyone — even those who think they can’t afford it. However, change has been slow for some families.

Waiting outside Andrea’s Hair Design in East Harlem for her hair appointment, Anna Lanza and her friends, Sandra Martinez and Aramonita Seda, discussed going green. The Puerto Rican women discussed one component of the environmentally friendly movement: organic foods.

“If you going to die, you going to die,” Seda, a 53-year old from Central Halrem, said. “Doesn’t matter if you eat organic.”

For Lanza, 50, it’s a matter of cost. She said she prefers to shop at corner stores and fruit stands because the food is cheaper.

“I can’t afford organic food,” she said. Lanza lives with her husband and four boys, ages 18, 17, 16 and 14, in East Harlem. Her family spends $1,000 per month on food, on top of paying for rent, utilities, credit cards and car payments. “We’re barely making it.”

But going green is not just about eating organic food, said Manhattan Deputy Borough President Rose Pierre-Louis. It is also about carbon footprinting, which is “the impact of how we’re currently living our lives (and how it affects the environment), whether it’s how we’re eating or about congestion.”

Going green refers to any environmentally friendly activity that conserves energy, reduces pollution and saves money. Reducing trash and saving money through sustainable practices, like reusing and recycling, is especially important in low-income communities.

For Lanza’s family, making the effort to go green by recycling seems like it is a waste of effort and time.

Lanza said she it is difficult to recycle because many buildings in her neighborhood do not reinforce it. According to Pierre-Louis, it is the law for every building in New York City to recycle; but in Lanza’s apartment building, there is no recycling bin.

“I don’t mind going green,” she said. “I understand we have a lot of garbage. But they put it all in (the trash), so what’s the point?”

Lanza and her son, Figueroa, both believe that environmentalism is too expensive for their family to afford. For example, Figueroa mentioned the extra expense buying trash bags for recycling — money that is wasted because the apartment building does not sort out recyclables from trash.

“It’ll all come down to the neighborhood you live in and your income. Nothing’s (going to) change,” Figueroa said. “I don’t (want to) learn about (going green). I don’t believe in all that stuff.”

Lanza agreed. Her husband makes about $40,000 a year, and she works part-time at American Greetings, earning about $18,000 a year. Her rent is $2,089 a month, and Section 8 pays for 30 percent of it. But even with a dual income and subsidized rent, it is difficult to make ends meet.

Additionally, Lanza now faces the extra financial burden of paying for college. Her oldest son, a high school senior, wants to go to a school that costs $45,000 a year.

To help those with income disparities go green, the borough president’s office created initiatives that work to develop agendas and leverage resources specific to each community.

A large part of the problem with living in one of these low-income neighborhoods is that “we get the burdens without any of the amenities,” said Elizabeth Yeampierre, president of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance and executive director of UPROSE (United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park).

These burdens include harmful emissions and the health problems that can arise because of them. Sunset Park and Red Hook, for example, are home to a sludge treatment plant, several power plants and waste transfer stations, three highways and truck traffic—all of which contribute to pollution that can cause health problems like asthma, Yeampierre said.

Additionally, Yeampierre cited the lack of amenities, such as gardens or parks. Amenities are a key component to improving the physical well being of residents in low-income neighborhoods.

“When you have a community that’s struggling, the last thing they (want to) do is plant a tree for the sake of making their neighborhood look good,” she said. “Our kids don’t get enough exercise because there aren’t open spaces. For us, open space is really a quality of life issue.”

Go Green East Harlem has worked to help the community deal with its health burdens while providing more amenities. Since the first Go Green initiative was launched in 2007, Borough President Scott Stringer has spent at least $7.6 million to develop parks, playgrounds and an Asthma Center in East Harlem to help residents who suffer from the harmful effects of air pollution.

The Manhattan Borough president’s office has improved access to healthy fruits and vegetables for people at all income levels, she said. “One of the things we’ve done in East Harlem, for example, is start the first ever weekend farmers’ market in East Harlem.”

According to the Manhattan borough president’s office, poor neighborhoods are suffering health risks, such as obesity and diabetes, because of insufficient access to healthy foods.

“East Harlem…has the highest number of fast food restaurants per square mile than anywhere else in New York City,” Pierre-Louis said. “That gets into the issue of ‘food deserts’ meaning that within a close proximity of your home, to be able to access a green market or grocer is a challenge.”

Residents can now purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from vendors with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, an electronic system that allows card carriers to purchase products through government benefits.

Araceli Bandoja, 29, said she bought food from the farmers’ market at Franklin Plaza and was pleased with the low cost and high quality.

“It’s a little more cheap and more fresh, and they give a lot,” she said. The vegetables and fruits look “different” from those she bought at nearby neighborhood markets, but “in a good way.”

Still, not everyone knows these options are available in their neighborhoods. Lanza said she is not familiar with the Go Green East Harlem initiative and farmers’ market, but expressed an interest in affordable green options.

Yeampierre said there is a strong interest in low-income, ethnic neighborhoods to learn about going green — not because it may seem trendy, but because those communities recognize that they are the ones that suffer the most from environmental burdens.

Environmentalism refers to the consumer aspect of going green, which often comes with high price tags, according to Yeampierre. Products that are advertised as green or sustainable may not be affordable, but a sustainable lifestyle can help people save money—a concept many low-income families are already familiar with.

“Poor people are the most sustainable people there are,” Yeampierre said. “We’re the ones most likely to make food stretch or use our materials in creative ways because we’ve always had to do a lot with a little.” Shopping for old clothes at thrift stores, for example, is a sustainable practice.

This creativity with reusing cheap, available resources translates to environmental consciousness. Going green has to be relevant to their everyday lives and struggles, she said.

“That’s how we get communities to participate and get involved,” Yeampierre said. “All of them care about their children and the health of their elders.”

Not everyone in East Harlem is against the green movement.

“In our building, we are almost the only one family that recycle,” Bandoja said. “We like to live better to get a better future for our kids.”

Bandoja lives in an East Harlem housing project with her husband and two children. She has not heard about the Go Green East Harlem initiative, but her family tries to be green by recycling. She and her husband have taught their children about recycling and energy conservation. Her two sons, Axel and Oswaldo, are also learning about going green at school.

“You have to recycle the newspapers and bottles and any glass,” said 8-year-old Axel. “If we don’t recycle, the earth is not going to be healthy and clean.”

Mar. 30, 2010

NEW YORK CITY — Shortcomings in President Obama’s Middle East policies have been met with criticism from politicians and journalists alike.

Writer and journalist Lee Smith is one such critic. He gave a talk on his new book and presented his theory on the Middle East and U.S. policy yesterday.

Smith spoke to a small audience of roughly 40 people on Monday afternoon at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. Michael Doran, a visiting professor at Wagner, introduced Smith to the room as a unique authority on the subject.

“Lee Smith has established himself as an exciting, independent voice in Middle Eastern analysis,” Doran said. “(Most analysis) tends to take place behind bipartisan lines, along very well established ideological lines, and Lee Smith has succeeded in doing the impossible: staking out almost a middle ground.”

Smith, who is currently a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization, has written articles on Middle Eastern and Islamic affairs for publications such as the Boston Globe, the New Republic, the New York Times, Slate.com, Weekly Standard and Wired. His recently published book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, was the main topic during Smith’s visit.

Doran presented the book as a combination of “personal odyssey, reportage and strategic analysis” that Lee compiled after his extensive travels to the Middle East post-9/11.

Smith presented his particular paradigm of looking at the Middle East, which he said is a region with conflicts that have evolved as escalating defenses and reactions to past events.

“The issues of this particular part of the world…has to do with the issues in the region itself,” Smith said. “If you look at the Middle East just as a place that reacts to the United States, you might as well be studying just the United States.”

Smith’s expertise with the region stems largely from his time in the Middle East and his understanding of it. His journey to various countries in the Middle East, he said, was the direct result of his own reaction to 9/11.

“It was hard not to take 9/11 personally,” Smith read from his book. “It felt like a direct attack on my family and friends and myself.” As a native New Yorker, the suicide bombings felt like an incredibly personal offense, and he undertook a mission to discover what had led to the attacks.

According to Smith, the leftists and rightists thought it was a clash of civilizations, but in his opinion, 9/11 was not about the United States.

The United States actually plays a secondary role to the Arabs’ internal clash, Smith said. This clash is created through religious rivalry and an intricate system of wars in the region that has only recently spread worldwide.

“We are now incontrovertibly a part of these wars,” he said. “September 11th is the day we woke up to find ourselves in the middle of a clash of Arab civilizations, a war that used American cities as yet another venue for Arabs to fight each other.”

Though Americans may believe that the U.S. involvement with the Middle East started with President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror,” Smith reminded his audience that an American presence in the region existed long before the Bush administration was in power. A second important fact to consider, Smith said, is that Obama’s term in office will not put an end to the problems in the Middle East.

In his speech, Smith also included a large section from his article, “A Middle East Without American Influence?” published on Slate.com the previous week, which criticized the current administration’s treatment of Israel in recent weeks.

Obama’s preoccupation in the Middle East revolves around resolving the conflicts between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank, but Smith disagreed. “The Palestinian issue is not central,” he said.

According to Smith, Obama should redirect his attentions in the region, focusing on Iran instead of resolving tensions in Afghanistan or between Israel and Palestine.

When asked how the current administration should proceed with its policy in the Middle East, Smith was also quick to criticize the president’s visit to Afghanistan on Sunday. Since assuming office over a year ago, Obama has nearly tripled the number of American troops in the war-torn country, but Smith believed this investment is futile.

“I happen to think Afghanistan is a waste of time,” he said. “We’re not going to win Afghanistan, so why are we in Afghanistan? What’s important about Afghanistan?”

He went on to say that the Obama administration has no clear strategy there; and along with the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, Afghanistan distracts the U.S. from actively addressing Iran’s nuclear program.

Smith concluded his talk by entertaining additional questions from the audience. His book, The Strong Horse, was available for purchase after the event.