The budget plan proposes moving six staffers from the Human Rights Administration to the Source of Income (SOI) discrimination unit at the Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which had zero attorneys working on those cases after its final employee departed last month following years of employee exits and unfilled vacancies, City Limits previously reported.

New York City officials are poised to restore a wiped-out housing discrimination unit by shuffling in staff from the city’s social services agency, according to a Council-backed proposal included in Mayor Eric Adams’ executive budget.

As City Limits previously reported, the city’s Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) lost the last attorney working in its Source of Income (SOI) discrimination unit last month—following years of employee exits and unfilled vacancies—and moved to slash 18 empty positions as part of Adams’ cost-cutting mandate (in its budget reponse, the City Council has called for those 18 staffers to be restored).

The SOI unit, once made up of six attorneys and investigators, fields complaints, contacts landlords and at times files lawsuits on behalf of would-be renters who say they were denied an apartment because they have a housing assistance subsidy, like a federal Section 8 or local CityFHEPS voucher.

Anti-voucher bias is New York City’s most common form of housing discrimination, annual CCHR reports show, and the deterioration of the unit sparked criticism from people with housing vouchers, their advocates and policymakers. “It is truly heartbreaking to see such a powerful unit dissolve,” former SOI Unit head Steph Rudolph, who left the agency in 2020 and now works at the organization JustFix, told City Limits last month.

In the recently released Executive Budget, the Adams administration proposed restoring the unit by moving a similar six-person enforcement team from the Human Rights Administration (HRA)—part of the Department of Social Services (DSS)—into CCHR at a cost of just under $452,000 per year. DSS Commissioner Gary Jenkins has mentioned the arrangement in planning sessions with advocates and experts earlier this month, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

An HRA spokesperson directed questions about the plan to CCHR, which responded in an emailed statement.

“HRA and CCHR are in discussions about SOI enforcement, and the Executive Plan includes a transfer of staffing resources from HRA to CCHR,” said CCHR spokesperson Jose Rios Lua.

Rios Lua said the CCHR SOI unit is currently staffed but did not respond to a follow-up question asking how many people work on the team. Attorneys and staff from other parts of the agency’s Law Enforcement Bureau also take on SOI cases.

While HRA’s litigation unit can only sue on behalf of the city, CCHR is able to intervene on behalf of individuals who experience discrimination—like renters who encounter explicit  “no programs” stipulations in online apartment listings or voucher holders steered away from units by brokers on recorded phone calls. After the reshuffling, the two agencies will coordinate on complaints, according to a budget report prepared by the Council’s Finance Division.

Still, the interagency move raises questions about what exactly the transferred unit will be doing and whether the shift marks a permanent change, said Amy Blumsack, whose organization Neighbors Together helps tenants use their vouchers and fight discrimination.

“I want to see CCHR’s unit staffed up fully and robustly and I don’t know what moving DSS folks over would mean,” Blumsack said. “But putting more resources to enforcing against source of income discrimination is good.”

Both CCHR and DSS’ enforcement units have prioritized “pre-complaint intervention” with staffers contacting landlords, brokers or management companies accused of SOI discrimination, informing them that voucher bias violates the law and threatening further action if they do not offer the prospective tenant a lease.

Despite its dwindling staff numbers, CCHR has filed more complaints on behalf of tenants in the current fiscal year than in either of the past two, the agency told City Limits in March. The SOI unit had filed 29 complaints between July 2021 and March 2022 compared to 28 in the 2021 fiscal year and 27 in fiscal year 2020. CCHR has won fewer damages and penalties from property owners, but has also settled with landlords to set aside more units for tenants with housing vouchers.

But Housing rights advocates have urged the city to file more impactful litigation to hold lawbreakers accountable. In the absence of that more aggressive enforcement by the city, nonprofit groups like the Housing Rights Initiative have taken on landlords, property managers and brokers who tell would-be renters that they do not accept “programs,”  steer voucher-holders away from apartments or simply ghost applicants once when they learn about a subsidy.

Reinforcing the source of income discrimination unit is just one component to making housing vouchers work for people experiening or at-risk of homelessness, however.

In recent weeks, the city has taken additional steps to make the vouchers more effective by raising values and targeting administrative obstacles that torpedo moves to permanent housing for tenants—and turn off landlords otherwise willing to accept them. City Limits has documented those hurdles based on conversations with dozens of voucher holders, policymakers, property owners and managers.

“Source of income discrimination is bad, but there’s another aspect of this and that’s the bureacratc failures that make the process hell for landlords dealing with the city,” said Shams DaBaron, an advocate who has lived in shelters and on the streets and goes by Da Homeless Hero.

DaBaron uses a CityFHEPS voucher to rent a Manhattan apartment, but was served an eviction notice last year after the city was slow to make payments to his landlord. He is now working with a group of owners known as “Landlords Who Care” on a project to streamline the administrative process and reserve 1,000 apartments for people moving out of shelters with the city subsidies.

DaBaron has also consulted with city officials and other formerly homeless New Yorkers to propose ways to streamline applications and approvals.

The CityFHEPS usage rate shows there is still much work to be done to ensure more would-be renters are able to use the subsidies.

In December of last year just 24 percent of households—637 of 2,623—who were approved by a landlord to rent a unit managed to move in, according to data obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request by the Urban Justice Center and first reported by the Daily News. In November 2021, just 12 percent of households—295 of 3,230—accepted for a CityFHEPS move actually got the apartment.

But one outspoken advocate for more effective housing vouchers says the city is on the right track.

“Government has an incredible power to do good and an endless power to screw up good things,” said former Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who leads the family shelter provider Win. “But the things that are broken are administrative and they’re fixable if people dig their heels in.”

Quinn said the city has overcome one major problem hindering the vouchers by increasing the rates in accordance with a 2021 law meant to ensure the subsidies keep up with the actual cost of housing. New voucher values took effect earlier this month, raising the subsidy for an individual to $2,218 from $1,945 last year and $2,527 from $2,217 for a family of four.

“It’s so unusual to pass a law that has such wide-ranging and permanent effects,” Quinn said. “The bill said the amount would go up, but as a former legislator, you don’t really trust it. But it happened.”

The first rate increase went into effect in September 2021 and had an immediate impact, Quinn said. The number of families and individuals moving out of Win shelters with CityFHEPS vouchers increased from 150 between September 2020 and April 2021 to 257 from September 2021 to April 2022, according to agency statistics.

DSS introduced another impediment earlier this year, however. Apartments are subject to a “rent reasonableness” assessment that continues to prevent people from using their vouchers if the asking rent for a unit is deemed too high, even if it falls below the voucher value. Advocates in February wrote to DSS Commissioner Gary Jenkins urging the city to eliminate the rent reasonableness requirement as part of a comprehensive list of program improvements.

Quinn said she thinks the Adams administration seems willing to adjust the rigid rules because officials have begun listening to people directly impacted.

“It’s thrilling to see that the voices of homeless families are being responded to,” she said.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA –While Bill Gates trumpeted his so-called “Decade of Vaccines” in 2010—apparently given a new lease on life with Covid—he’s been understandably quieter about his planned Decade of Pandemics. Of course the two go hand in hand, or perhaps hand in glove, as both are merely tools to further the Davos elites’ two-pronged attack on We the People: genocide and subsequent enslavement of those who survive.

Plandemics and their subsequent mRNA vaccines can maim and kill millions of people, while providing the psychopathic elites with plausible deniability. Here’s Gates’ disingenuous warning: “Also, related to pandemics is something people don’t like to talk about much, which is bioterrorism, that somebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus. “ [Italics mine.] Hmmm… now why would anyone want to do that, Bill?

In case you were wondering, Stephen Luby, professor of medicine and senior fellow at Stanford’s Wood Institute for the Environment, informs us that: There will be a Sars-CoV-3.

Not one to be outdone by pundits across the Pond, Sustainable Prince Charles offers this gem: There will be more and more pandemics, if we don’t do ‘the great reset’ now.

It seems the WHO is planning for ten solid years of pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. How does WHO know what, why and when? Unless, of course, Gates’ minions—the WHO included—are feverishly planning and executing these pandemics. What better way to accurately predict the future than by controlling it?

LESSONS FROM FRANKENSTEIN

Among the dwindling numbers of literary classics students are assigned today, one often finds Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. Written when Shelley was only eighteen, it is quite an achievement and brilliant in concept; although, in my view, far from a literary masterpiece and actually a bit of a slog to read. Nevertheless, students love it.

Unfortunately, they miss the point.

Instead of grasping what I consider to be the genius of the novel—its exposition of the truism that when man plays God, disaster inevitably follows—the kids derive the message that you should be kind to monsters. Many of them write essays to the effect that if only people had not rejected the poor monster—if only they had not hurt his feelings—he wouldn’t have gone on a killing rampage, which many students think was justifiable. I kid you not. This is how your children are being trained to think in public schools.

Perhaps their teachers also fail to point out the moral of this story. In fact, if it was clearly recognized and taught as a cautionary tale about hubris in schools today, I’d wager that the Common Core progressives who put together today’s pathetically weakened and subversive curriculum, would quickly remove it from the syllabi. After all, from man made viruses to gene-altering “vaccines” to transhumanism, we’re being besieged by legions of unleashed Dr. Frankensteins.

FAUCI’S STEALTH WEAPON: GAIN-OF-FUNCTION “RESEARCH”

Of special note among the legions of domestic Frankensteins must be our own Dr. FauxChi, whom one might describe as a modern-day amalgamation of Josef Mengele, the Nazi’s mad scientist who conducted cruel experiments on prisoners, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi’s Minister of Propaganda.

The Fauch’s organization NIAID has given millions of dollars to crazed scientists to bioengineer new and deadly GMO viruses and retroviruses that previously apparently did no harm in bats or other creatures, and couldn’t infect humans, but now can cause worldwide pandemics.

This begs the question: Why perform “Gain of Function” research at all, since the function you gain creates a bioweapon?

Here’s the logic: in case those viruses were ever to naturally jump from bats to people, say in a Wuhan wet market, and make people sick, scientists would be able to recognize the pathogens and presumably make vaccines against them for the huge benefit of… patent holders, like Fauci’s NIAID, and Big Pharma.  And if thousands or millions were to die in the process? That’s just collateral damage.

Of course there’s an even more nefarious possibility—dare I say likelihood: that these Frankensteinian viruses and the genetically modified “vaccines” we’re told we must have to combat them, are both designed for genocidal “depopulation” purposes. Pick your poison.

RAND PAUL VS. TEFLON TONY

Recently, Senator Rand Paul bravely stood up to Fauci, perhaps to make amends for having stabbed President Trump in the back along with the majority of his feckless fellow Senators on January 6^th—but I digress.

Kudos to Rand for pointing out Dr. Fraudster’s lies and collusion with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund the dangerous, illegal and immoral viral-lethality-enhancing “research” that led to Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19.

But Rand’s main concern, like that of so many others, is that these viruses could escape the lab and infect people. Well, accidents do happen.

Except, as FDR told us, in politics, where “…nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” And for those who refuse to believe Covid-19 was planned—in spite of Event 201 describing the precise scenario of the pandemic and worldwide lockdowns several months prior to the Wuhan outbreak, as well as the perfect timing of the “pandemic” to pull the plug on Trump’s economic miracle and pave the way for flagrant voter fraud through unprecedented national mail-in voting to keep, um, Biden voters “safe”—all I can say is I’m running out of bridges to sell.

Back to the bats.

THE NEW NORMAL: “ZOONOTIC” PANDEMICS?

Here’s the May 2021 cover of Stanford’s Alumni Magazine, illustrations by Catrin Welz-Stein:

The accompanying ghoulish article: Of Viruses & Vectors, by Deni Ellis Béchard, almost reads like a primer on Agenda 21/2030, full of warnings about global warming, climate change and the dangerous “edges where humans and animals come into contact” leading to “human-wild interface with less and less buffer between them.”  Who knows what dire diseases may emerge “…at the edge of human habitats.” Did you realize you live in a “human habitat” instead of a city or suburb or small town?

The passage quoted above obliquely refers to the Davos elites’ Wildlands Project, as they plan to make the “wildlands” as off-limits to us as our Capitol was for months after January 6th, while herding us into crowded high-density “districts” à la The Hunger Games.

In his article, Béchard  kills two bats with one stone: implying we should stay out of forests, etc., and presumably stop raising livestock (animals are “reservoirs” for “vectors” like mosquitos that spread viruses) though people have done this safely for millennia.  So what has changed? The addition of the elite cabal’s phony global warming/climate change psyop, along with their control of the media for propagandizing their mischief.

Referencing climate change and other spurious globalist claims, Béchard blithely assures us we’re in for more pandemics, sooner rather than later, and the next one could stem from the NIPAH virus, with a fatality rate of 75%. Yes, you heard that correctly. Seventy-five percent fatality rate. Compare that to Covid’s measly .1% for all but the frail elderly and those with serious co-morbidities who have a rate from about .2% to 2% or so.

And surprise, surprise, NIPAH is also bat-derived.

What is this fascination with bats? The 2011 predictive-programming movie Contagion—and here’s your spoiler alert—featured a pandemic almost exactly like the one we’ve just endured, which was discovered to have originated from…you guessed it…a bat!

Here’s another unpleasant surprise for you: Look at the American quarter that came out in 2020, a year which should be rechristened by the Chinese as the Year of the Bat:

What a coincidence!

Perhaps the Globalist Cabal—billionaire Gates and Davos pals who can’t wait to depopulate, I mean vaccinate, the world—with their penchant for the occult and demonic, also had in mind the Mayan’s bat god, Camazotz, associated with death and sacrifice, as in the sacrifice of human beings. Pretty remarkable that a spooky-looking pair of bats was the best that American Samoa could come up with in the way of an uplifting emblem.

Here’s another creepy picture of our dystopian virus-laden future by Catrin Welz-Stein from the same article Of Viruses & Vectors.

WHO’S MONKEYSHINES

But it looks as if the monkey may have beaten out the bat, as the WHO is reportedly convening an “emergency” meeting on the Monkeypox which it claims is going global. Hmmm… I don’t recall ever hearing about monkeypox, which sounds as if it affects only, well… monkeys. Does that mean the WHO seeks to make monkeys out of us? If so, it won’t be the first time.

After the manner of Hollywood producers who often follow up a mediocre film with a sequel that’s even worse, it seems the Powers-That-Be are following the same template they used for Covid: First they claim to find a few scattered cases of some exotic or “novel” virus but reassure us that we have no cause for alarm…as yet. This way they can slowly build up a crescendo of fear, then suddenly crank it up to full-blown panic with projections of millions of deaths—ultimately terrifying people into getting a brand spankin’ new mRNA Chimp-22 vaccine that will magically be rushed to market to keep us, you know, “safe.”

GAIN OF FUNCTION = LOSS OF BENIGNITY

Once laboratory scientists re-engineer a virus that has never infected people and/or is benign to humans, in order to make it malignant, they’ve engaged in bioterrorism research and development. There’s no polite way to say this—it’s evil.

On the one hand, as Mary Shelley showed us more than a hundred years ago, messing with nature to create new life forms is bound to be catastrophic. On the other, since Dr. Faustus himself has both funded this kind of “research,” lied about having done so, and presumably gotten his co-conspirators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to cover for him, we can take this as clear indication that FauxChi knew what he was doing was wrong. And like his fictional predecessor, Dr. Frankenstein, little Tony Fauci will surely pay the price for the hellishness he’s unleashed on the world.

But unfortunately, he’s not alone. Not only have a number of “scientists” been working on Gain-of-MalFunction “research,” some of these geniuses have been laboring to create bizarre new life-forms that have even more in common with Mary Shelley’s infamous doctor and his monstrous creation. In fact, transhumanists are busily remaking man in their own benighted image, as the globalist cabal’s plan is not only to do away with our liberty, economy and quality of life, but also with humanity as we know it. For these hubristic New World Order designers, We the Peons are already being described as “legacy humans.”  This is analogous to the heirloom tomatoes you may find at your local farmers’ market—the rare varieties from the good ol’ days.

The new human species they plan to create will be merged with AI and/or some form of technological machinery—that is, those who are slated to be the “smart ones,” a la Huxley’s Brave New World. The Epsilons—those at the bottom rung of the societal ladder—will be merged with animals as “chimeras.” Alex Jones was evidently right—these experiments have been going on for many years.

And now there’s a team of researchers at Tufts that supposedly successfully created… the first-ever, self-replicating living robots.

Perhaps it was inevitable that as man discovered more and more about the wonders of our universe and of our own bodies, some would trod this path. It seems there’s nothing new under the sun after all.  The Serpent’s promise to Eve in the Garden was if she’d eat the forbidden fruit, she—and her mate—would become “as gods.”

Perhaps the psychopathic Powers-That-Be and their malevolent university-trained cohorts have forgotten the upshot of a devil’s bargain. At the very least, they ought to reread Frankenstein. Either that or the Bible.

Local Law 97, passed in 2019, requires buildings to lower emissions beginning in 2024. Property owners who fail to comply will face penalties calculated based upon how much their buildings’ emissions exceed the city’s benchmarks—what a new lawsuit decries as “draconian.”

The lawsuit, first reported by Crain’s New York, was filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court on behalf of Glen Oaks Village Owners, 9-11 Maiden LLC, Bay Terrace Cooperative Section I. The complaint names New York City and the Department of Buildings as defendants.

The complaint, forwarded to City Limits by the law office representing the defendants, alleges that the city’s key emissions law is “ill conceived and unconstitutional” at the expense of  building owners, landlords and shareholders. It calls the penalties written into the law “draconian.”

Local Law 97, passed in 2019, requires buildings over 25,000 square feet to lower emissions beginning in 2024, reaching a reduction of 40 percent in 2030 and 80 percent in 2050. Owners who fail to comply will face penalties based on how much their buildings’ emissions exceed the city’s benchmarks.

READ MORE: Progress and Delays in Putting Milestone Emissions Law into Action

The complaint claims that the law is preempted by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, the state’s aggressive climate legislation also passed in 2019. “The CLCPA sets ambitious targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions statewide and lays out a clear and all-encompassing plan by which New York State will implement these goals over the next several decades. It therefore preempts the field and leaves no room for localities to legislate in this area,” the complaint reads.

It also criticizes the calculation of penalties and the short timeframe for building owners to become compliant. Furthermore, it claims that it disproportionately targets buildings in densely populated areas and with longer hours of operation as well as buildings that by their nature use more power, including grocery stores, laundromats and restaurants.

Since taking office in January, City Comptroller Brad Lander has been vocal about his support for Local Law 97 and the need for the mayor’s office to fund and support regulation of the legislation. The office would not comment on the pending lawsuit, but Louise Yeung, the comptroller’s chief climate officer, noted the office’s commitment to retrofitting buildings.

“The city has provided various resources to educating owners on how to convert buildings, and we support proactively ramping up these programs to work towards our collective emissions reduction by 2050,” Yeung told City Limits.

Environmental advocates claim the lawsuit and overall resistance from building owners is merely an attempt to skirt regulation.

“There’s a set of regressive landlords that are delaying upgrading their buildings because they hope [and] think that the Adams’ administration is going to let them off the hook,” said Pete Sikora, climate & inequality campaigns director of New York Communities for Change.

Sikora also took issue with the suit’s claim that the local law conflicts with New York State’s CLCPA, noting other city legislation aimed at reducing emissions.

“The entire body of laws that regulate fuel use, including the city gas ban in new construction and bans on certain types of high polluting fuels, all of these help the state achieve the targets it’s set for itself under the CLCPA. But CLCPA does not preempt local decisions to reduce pollution,” he said. “That’s simply absurd.”

Others say it’s more complicated.

Bob Friedrich, president of the first named plaintiff in the suit, Glen Oaks Village, which houses 3,000 residents in 134 buildings, has been vocal in public meetings about his opposition to the law as it is written. On April 13, he testified at a committee hearing on Local Law 97, calling the measure financially burdening.

“The New York City Council has imposed crippling financial costs and penalties on our families,” said Friedrich, in the hearing. “The Climate Mobilization Act requires us to undertake costly retrofitting of our heating and hot water systems regardless of our ability to pay and regardless of need.”

He explained that a study of the Glen Oaks heating plan estimated it would cost $17–$20 million to retrofit the boilers. Even with those improvements, he added, the algorithm would impose a fine of more than $800,000 a year. The boiler replacements would require each family to pay $7,200 on top of a 5percent increase in maintenance fees, he said.

“This is insanity,” he added.

In New York, residential buildings emit more than 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, making them the city’s biggest source of pollution. In a recent report by the American Lung Association, The Bronx, Manhattan and Queens received “failing” grades for their high levels of ozone pollution—which is linked to vehicles and fossil fuels burning in buildings and power plants. Meanwhile, a new dashboard by the comptroller’s office shows the city is still far from the targets of greenhouse gas emission reductions required by the CLCPA by 2050.

Rohit Aggarwala, the city’s chief climate officer and commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has spoken in favor of being lenient with building owners during the transition to Local Law 97’s full rollout. “We need to understand the challenge of building space and undertaking the work that needs to be done, and we need to do everything we can to help them,” Aggarwala said during a more than four-hour City Council committee meeting about the law in April.

The Department of Buildings offers free personalized guidance for building owners to make energy updates with retrofit and sustainability experts through the NYC Accelerator Program. The program has already served more than 9,000 buildings, according to the agency.

“In NYC, our buildings are the largest emitter of the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change, and we are committed to fully enforcing Local Law 97,” said Andrew Rudansky, DOB press secretary. The agency will review the lawsuit when it has been served, he added.

This legal measure is not the first time opponents have sought to stop or delay enforcement of a key city environmental law. In 2020, a statewide measure to effectively ban plastic bags was challenged in court by plastic bag manufacturer Poly-Pak Industries, the Bodega and Small Business Association, a Bronx grocery store and two grocery store owners. A State Supreme Court judge later upheld the Bag Waste Reduction Law, allowing for enforcement to begin in mid-October, about seven months later than the Department of Environment Conservation originally anticipated.

READ MORE: Plastic Bags Still Ubiquitous in NYC Shops, Months After Enforcement of Ban Began

Sikora said he’s heartened that the DOB seems committed to forging ahead as planned.

“That’s the kind of message that the administration should be putting out,” he said. “That this is a law; the law is reasonable. It’s necessary. It creates jobs, saves lives and reduces pollution. And the city is providing loads of resources for building owners to help them comply.”

---