« Weekday Events Open Thread »

November 2, 2009

DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

buildings-permits-1109.jpgAn article in The Times this weekend looks at the mayor's record at cleaning up corruption and incompetence at the Buildings Department and largely finds it wanting; but the paper also notes that no other mayor has had much luck in that department either. The problem, as the article frames it, is an inherent one when you have low-paid bureaucrats with quite a bit of power and discretion charged with policing an industry that's making money hand-over-fist. “When you pay people who have the responsibility as inspectors so little, they’re prone to having their hand out,” said Daniel J. Castleman, a former chief assistant in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and current managing director at FTI Consulting. “That’s not endemic to one mayor or a dozen mayors, that’s just the way it is. There’s so much money to be made in construction and development that people are going to offer you things and people who are paid less are going to think, ‘Who’s this going to hurt?’ ” The answer, as the numerous crane and building collapses in recent years show, is a lot of people.
Buildings Dept. Woes Have Persisted Despite Bloomberg’s Overhaul [NY Times]
Photo by Jon Meyer




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:00 AM | Comments (20)
Categories: DOB

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12090

Comments

This is just another symptom of the NYC $$ illness. According to the article, the fact that building inspectors have a starting salary of $48,017 (with excellent benefits)... this means that the "average" inspector is making considerably more. Probably in the $65-$80k range.

That being said... this *healthy* salary by most standards is seen in the context of "When you pay people who have the responsibility as inspectors so little, they’re prone to having their hand out"

So little?

Effing ridiculous. So, because my buddies are making $250k as second year associates in big ol' law firms in Manhattan, that should be an excuse for unethical behavior? I actually think they are paid waaaay to much for what they do... and the city's "wealth scale" is so absolutely fucked that it really should be no surprise that there's this much corruption. Making $65,000 or so a year in a bureaucratic job, clearly prescribed by codified rules... only in NYC would this be considered "so little."

But I guess they want to be able to afford to live within the city limits, rather than living in central NJ. Ya know, maybe afford to live in one of the buildings they are asked to inspect? Housing costs are out of control, wages are similarly out of whack with any connection to reality.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 9:18 AM

Ty;

Excellent reality check.

Have you ever heard of the term "The Dutch disease"? I think that is what we may be deaking with here in NYC.

It refers to what happened to the Dutch economy when its oil industry was flush with money. Apparently wages and prices became so out of whack because of the money flowing through this one sector that its other industries could no longer compete on the world market. I think something akin to that may have happened in NYC with the financial sector.

I think back to when I was a kid in Gravesend. One of our neighbors owned a small printing shop. Another was a furniture maker. Yet another owned a local butcher shop (at which I worked.) Finally, another was a furrier. All of them made comfortable, but not outlandish, livings. I can't imagine any of them making it the same way in modern-day NYC.

Posted by: benson at November 2, 2009 9:35 AM

Benson,
There are only two kinds of butcher shop that can exist in NYC now. The big, high-volume place in a big factory type setting.... or the "gourmet" butcher that charges $36.50/lb for his grass-fed steak.

In the former, none of the employees except the owner can live comfortably in the city... and in the latter, well... that's just part of the problem.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 9:39 AM

tybur6, I have to disagree with you. Los Paisanos (butcher) and Fish Tales are quite reasonably priced. Unfortunately most neighborhoods don't have access to places like that anymore, like they used to.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 2, 2009 9:52 AM

If the starting salary is $48K, the salary after two years (the "incumbent" rate) would be around $54K. (I checked for actual numbers but there are currently no inspector positions advertised at DOB.) Salaries then increase at the cost of living per union negotiation; let's say 3 percent per annum. At that rate, an inspector would need to have about eight years on the job to make $65K and approximately 15 years of seniority to make $80K. Does this alleged "average" inspector actually exist or does s/he just make a good straw wo/man?

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 9:58 AM

P.S.: Most city employees are REQUIRED to live in the city.

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 10:02 AM

Another reason why I am not voting.

Posted by: Miss Breukelen at November 2, 2009 10:22 AM

Politics as usual for the last eight years. It's enough. Bill Thompson will change all of this.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TOMORROW!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 2, 2009 10:26 AM

Politics as usual for the last eight years. It's enough. Bill Thompson will change all of this.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TOMORROW!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 2, 2009 10:26 AM


ROTFLMMFAO...Read the article about Thompson in the other thread

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 2, 2009 10:31 AM

G_man -- the city Council voted last year (December) that DC-37 union members no longer have to reside in NYC if they have completed 2 years of city service. In short, the City Council has recognized that it is too expensive to live in the city and the city cannot support it employees.

And it's not a straw man. (#1) $48k might be the starting salary, but that doesn't mean it's the salary someone actually starts at... bottom step vs. actual starting step. For example, there is an "Elevator Inspector" position posted at "$42,914 - $61,200." That ENTIRE range is available as the starting salary... chances are, it will be something in the middle ($50k)

(#2) I would suspect that the majority of inspectors in this city have well over 8 years on the job.

(#3) And here's the ACTUAL data for DOB employees with "Inspector" in their title (from www.seethroughny.net)

426 "Inspectors" -- Average = $60,044.73

247 (57%) make less than $60,000
112 (26%) make between $60k and $70k
54 (13%) make between $70k and $90k
12 (3%) make over $90,000

G_man -- my point is that these are jobs that earn plenty of money (and benefits) for their duties. However, this city's $$$ illness has made everything twisted. In fact, there are 85 inspectors making $47,882. This is a FINE wage... but not in this city. When a 2-bedroom apartment costs $1200-$1800 minimum, that doesn't surprise me that folks are on the take. My solution is NOT to raise these salaries... the same inspector in Philadelphia probably earns half this. The solution is to figure out how to control the unsustainable "growth" of all costs!

I'm glad city workers are allowed to live in NJ now. Previously, it was just forced poverty.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 10:34 AM

(And those figures are BEFORE the most recent contractual increases... so the average is probably more like $62,000 now.)

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 10:37 AM

tybur, thanks. I didn't get the memo and will look at apartments in Jersey on my day off tomorrow ... after I vote for Thompson, of course.

You concede my point that the "average" is less than you assume in your first point but ultimately prove that you are working from real data. Look at that attrition! I guess that most of the people in the higher salaries are supervisors of some sort, and not just guys who have hung in there for 20 years.

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 11:02 AM

i understand what this article intends to say, but it's kind of bs. the problem isn't "inherent," otherwise why does any enforcement system whose enforcers make much less than the enforcees work any better than the DOB (and, as i understand it, it's accepted fact that the DOB is much more broken than the rest of these kinds of systems)?

Posted by: i disagree at November 2, 2009 11:03 AM

This is not "the way it is" everywhere in the US. New York (and a few other areas) appear to be more corrupt than most.

Posted by: mopar at November 2, 2009 11:12 AM

Sorry g_man... are you DC-37? As far as unions in this city are concerned, they sort of suck. :-) My union, which also wants me to vote for this Thompson fella, has gotten a much better deal from the state and city than my DC-37 colleagues.

That being said, I believe I get paid what i should for my job... but looking at NJ for housing has always been in the back of my mind. If I worked in Manhattan, I'm sure I'd already be living in Jersey City or Hoboken. (I'm a state employee, so city residency isn't required.)

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 11:16 AM

I agree with g_man. I have worked for NYC government for the past 4 years. All these City postings have very wide salary ranges, but honestly, I don't know why they bother. Very few, if any employees seem to get anything beyond the minimum. I don't think that's for lack of negotiating, it's just the way business is done. Lots of people stay in their positions and don't get more than the union raise.

It's often said that if you want to make more money, you have to leave your agency. A fair number of people just hop around the agencies or leave city service for short periods of time and come back to their same job title at a higher salary. This makes NO sense at all from a Human Resources or any other job perspective. When people leave to chase $ elsewhere, they take the knowledge with them; then the agency has to advertise the position, interview replacements, train the replacement, etc. This is all a waste of time and money! It also leads to the loss of some really talented people and reduces morale amongst those who remain. Getting rid of the residency requirement was a step in the right direction. I'm not advocating that people do unethical things to make up the difference in salary, but it's kind of sad that many of the people who serve the City are forced into its outskirts, or NJ. Serving the City shouldn't be "just a job". Maybe if people felt like more of a part of it, they would be inclined to take their work more seriously...instead of thinking "well, what do I care? I live in NJ" or something similar.

With that said, there needs to be a zero tolerance policy for employees who are caught engaging in this kind of behavior. I don't know if it exists, but maybe an informant hotline where people can report instances of inspectors looking the other way?

Posted by: BrookLynn at November 2, 2009 1:02 PM

"...This makes NO sense at all from a Human Resources or any other job perspective. When people leave to chase $ elsewhere, they take the knowledge with them;..."

Posted by: BrookLynn at November 2, 2009 1:02 PM

Aren't all jobs like this. Instead of employers paying their employees what is fair & just to live in NYC, they don't. They turn the other cheek. I'm pretty sure the people responsible for budget & payroll for the City knows someone can't live on $47k/yr. Come on. Then the City (like every other employer) wants their employees to go over & beyond at their job; but, how can you when you can't even make ends meet? Wouldn't you feel resentment? The City (and every other employer) needs to wake-up.

You want someone to do their job efficiently and productively provide them with monetary incentives to make their jobs worth it.

Posted by: Miss Breukelen at November 2, 2009 2:46 PM

Miss Breukelen -- This would require revenue! And when home owners in Brownstone Brooklyn are only paying a 0.15% property tax rate on their multi-million dollar homes... I'm not sure where you want to get the revenue.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 2, 2009 3:16 PM

Aren't a lot of the problems at the DOB related to the flawed system of self-certification by architects? I don't deny that there are have been problems with the DOB system in general. Still and all, hasn't allowing people (architects/developers) to certify their own work during a building boom caused a virulent case of self-interest in many? (Apologies in advance to the many architects, designers, etc. reading this blog.) This is not my area of expertise, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 2, 2009 8:09 PM

bklyn20, as long as architects/engineers are HONEST, then the self-cert system works just fine. its not flawed.

Posted by: aj at November 3, 2009 1:33 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions