Rivercross and the Quiet Green LightThe Votes, the Conflicts, and the Sudden Exit of Margie Smith and Fay Christian
Rivercross privatization was enabled in 2010. This matters now because the same governance structures that allowed Rivercross to privatize without formal conflict controls are still in place. The same public authority oversees land leases, settlements, and redevelopment decisions that affect every resident on Roosevelt Island today. What happened at Rivercross shows how early, on-the-record decisions can predetermine outcomes years before the public believes a choice is being made. It shows how conflicts do not need to be hidden to be consequential, only unaddressed. And it shows how accountability can quietly dissolve when the people who shaped a deal are no longer present when its consequences are finalized. This article corrects the record, documents what the public minutes actually show, and explains why the unanswered questions around process and governance still matter today.
The Long Run-Up to PrivatizationRivercross, a limited-equity Mitchell-Lama cooperative, entered the late 2000s facing a familiar problem: an aging building, a maturing mortgage, and growing pressure to refinance. Across Roosevelt Island, other Mitchell-Lama buildings were already exiting the program. Privatization was not a sudden idea. It was openly discussed years before it became a vote. In February 2010, the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation board formally discussed ground lease extensions for Rivercross. The minutes show active debate, not procedural housekeeping. The board acknowledged Mitchell-Lama withdrawal and the role lease extensions would play in making that possible. Most notably, Director Margaret Smith stated on the record that she hoped the Rivercross resolution would be more binding. This was not a neutral comment. It reflected intent. No recusal was raised. No disclosure was recorded. The 2011 Vote That Changed EverythingOn January 19, 2011, the RIOC board approved a forty-year extension of the Rivercross ground lease. This vote was not originally on the agenda. It was added mid-meeting after management reported that negotiations were complete and materials had already been distributed. The board framed the decision as necessary to allow refinancing and repairs while maintaining affordability. Embedded in the deal, however, was an arbitration clause that anticipated a future Mitchell-Lama withdrawal and removed leverage from the state if terms later became disputed. Eight board members constituted the board at the time. Four of them were Rivercross residents, meaning half of the governing body voting on the lease extension lived in the building whose future they were deciding. Those voting in favor included Fay Fryer Christian, Dr. Katherine Teets Grimm, Howard Polivy, and Margaret Smith. All were Rivercross residents at the time. None recused. None abstained. No ethics guidance is referenced anywhere in the minutes. Michael Shinozaki cast the sole dissenting vote. His opposition is critical. According to the meeting record, he raised concerns about the financial terms and the process itself, questioning whether the extension adequately protected the public interest and whether the ground rent and related conditions reflected fair value. He was the only director to vote no on the lease extension that embedded the mechanism later used to enable privatization. It is also important to note how the record was later ratified. When the January 19, 2011 minutes were approved at a subsequent meeting, both Michael Shinozaki and Margaret Smith were absent. The approval was carried by a different subset of directors, meaning the formal ratification of the record occurred without either the sole dissenting vote or one of the vocal Rivercross-affiliated directors present. What Happened Next Was PredictableOnce the ground lease was extended, the path forward was no longer speculative. The legal and financial framework necessary for privatization was in place. Publicly, the 2011 vote was framed as a narrow response to mortgage maturity, capital needs, and the goal of maintaining affordability. That framing appeared repeatedly in board discussions and official summaries. But by that stage, affordability itself was no longer the open question being debated. The February 2010 discussions had already acknowledged Mitchell-Lama withdrawal as a real and contemplated outcome, and the lease terms approved in 2011 were structured to survive that withdrawal. Behind closed doors, the implications were understood. The extended lease provided the long-term security lenders require. It anticipated a full exit from Mitchell-Lama. It set the conditions under which ground rent and fees would be renegotiated once the building converted. The vote did not declare an intent to privatize, but it made that outcome legally and financially possible. In that sense, what followed was not a surprise. With refinancing secured and the structural barriers removed, Rivercross voted to leave Mitchell-Lama. By 2014, the building had gone private. The arbitration clause approved in 2011 was triggered exactly as designed.
It is also worth noting that Rivercross’s privatization did not proceed without resistance. As early as 2013, residents were publicly raising concerns about governance, arbitration leverage, and the long-term consequences of the deal structure, particularly the imbalance between early gains of Rivercross shareholders and long-term costs to the island as a whole. Those objections did not stop privatization, but they did change the context in which it unfolded. By the time the final settlement arrived, the process was no longer quiet. Years later, in April 2018, RIOC was asked to approve a settlement resolving that arbitration and finalizing the financial terms of Rivercross’s exit. The 2018 Meeting and the Sudden AbsencesAt the April 18, 2018 RIOC board meeting, Director Howard Polivy asked whether he should recuse himself from the Rivercross vote. He did. It was the first documented recusal in the entire Rivercross saga. Who was not in the room matters just as much. The published agenda for that meeting listed both Fay Fryer Christian and Margaret Smith as sitting board members. The minutes later revealed, in a single line in the President’s Report, that both had “recently resigned.” No dates were provided. No explanation followed. RIOC agendas are typically finalized just three to four days before a meeting. In this case, Christian and Smith appeared on the agenda but were gone by the time the board convened, indicating their departures occurred abruptly, in a matter of days. Board resignations do not require a vote, but context is usually known. Here, none was. Two Rivercross-connected directors were present for the votes that enabled privatization and absent in the final days when the settlement was finalized. To complete the public record, we submitted a Freedom of Information Law request seeking the exact dates and circumstances of those resignations. That absence mattered. The 2018 settlement did not simply formalize Rivercross’s future. It resolved arbitration on terms that shifted long-term financial burden onto the building, leaving Rivercross among the most heavily taxed residential properties on Roosevelt Island. While shareholders realized extraordinary value, the building now carries the cost. Yet, that settlement passed. Correcting the Record about FayWe need to be clear about what we got wrong, and what the record now shows. In an earlier reporting, we stated that Fay Fryer Christian and Margaret Smith voted on the Rivercross settlement in 2018. That was incorrect. By the time the April 18, 2018 vote occurred, both women were no longer members of the RIOC board. The confusion stemmed from the published agenda for the April 2018 meeting, which still listed both Christian and Smith as sitting board members. Their departures were noted only briefly in the President’s Report within the minutes themselves. That distinction was easy to miss, and it led to an error that we are correcting here. Where the record diverges sharply from Fay Christian’s later statements is on the earlier, decisive votes. Christian contacted David Stone on September 22, 2017, months before the 2018 settlement vote. Her response reads:
The minutes resolve that question. There were two Rivercross lease votes that mattered: one in 2010 and one in 2011. In both instances, Christian was a voting board member. When those votes were taken, she had a stake in Rivercross. She voted in favor of the lease extension and did not recuse. Margaret Smith did the same and was vocal in pushing the process forward. The documentary record is unambiguous. When the room empties, we keep watching. The Questions That RemainRivercross is not an isolated case. It unfolded under governance structures that remain unchanged, and under a public authority that is once again negotiating land lease extensions that will shape Roosevelt Island’s future for decades. As a new ten-year lease extension moves forward, the lesson from Rivercross is not about the outcome, but about the process that made that outcome inevitable. The record now shows that privatization was enabled early, without recusal, by directors who lived in the building and stood to benefit. It also shows that when the consequences of those decisions were finally resolved, those same directors were no longer in the room. What remains unanswered is narrower, and more troubling. Why were conflicts acknowledged only at the end, after the outcome was locked in? Those questions remain open. We are still looking. Most of our readers find us through a quiet forward from someone they trust. Subscribe for free to receive updates on new posts and support our work.
|
Friday, 9 January 2026
Rivercross and the Quiet Green Light
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Happy Pride from Blessed Bee!
Who are you wearing this Pride? ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
Dear Reader, To read this week's post, click here: https://teachingtenets.wordpress.com/2025/07/02/aphorism-24-take-care-of-your-teach...
-
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: AOM 2025 PDW ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
No comments:
Post a Comment