So Rira,the supplicant without much clout or effective history, went to Risa to borrow some
creds in the grant dept. Risa obliged but, might have questionable parentage, shadowing the transaction. Who cares? Nobody. Why shouldn't good money just go to those who ask or simply take? Money is up for grabs and whoever has the longest arm, gets it. Just shut up and deal with it.
Actually, RIRA has been around since 1977, RIRA was the entity that advocated for a decade and got Resident Board Member requirements for the RIOC Board; RIRA ran the RIOC Board Member candidate elections, getting a half-dozen *resident* board members appointed; RIRA was the entity that completely changed the Public Safety Department to Community Policing; RIRA kept the tram open on the third shift; RIRA members sued RIOC over land use and got clarification and confirmation the open spaces in the General Development Plan (aka Parks) cannot be developed; among many many other efforts. Not to mention, we did the evaluation of the PPF grants (with greater transparency and rationale) from 2008 to 2022. Lots of clout, very effective history.
Frank, you’re right to cite RIRA’s legacy—there’s no question the organization has a long history of public service and real wins: from reforming Public Safety to protecting parkland and advancing resident representation. Those are meaningful chapters.
But the “Lazy Activist’s” cynicism shouldn’t be dismissed. It reflects something real: a growing public perception that the current grant process lacks visible standards. That perception—fair or not—is corrosive. And when funding flows through organizations with historical baggage or unclear structure, without clear public documentation, people will naturally ask: who decides, and why?
Yes, RIRA has a legacy—and it's now in the process of rebuilding under your leadership. We acknowledged that in the article. But credibility isn’t earned once. It’s maintained over time, through transparency and accountability. That’s the standard we should all be working toward.
Theo, yes, I'm all for transparency and we (Roosevelt Island) should have some expectations on criteria. Like any grant applicant, if you don't get an award or the full amount, a question might be "How can I make my proposal more competitive?". I wish RIOC and NYCT did a debrief afterwards - it would help us write better proposals. FYI, when RIRA did the vetting, we provided a summary report on each awardee. There were a couple times we said No to an applicant - and explained to them "You're asking for PPF funds of tens of thousands of dollars to support scholarships of children - only 1-2 scholarships - and the family needs to make $70-90K to qualify for the scholarship. That's not well distributed (only 1-2 recipients) and not supporting residents who need the most help. Likewise, we had complained multiple times about the PTA PPF requests in that they were targeted towards K-5 (where there was an abundance of funds) and insisted that they needed to spend money on 6-8 graders, where there were fewer family resources/income. Also, RIRA has had no problem calling out racial/ethnic imbalances that do not represent our community - both in clientele and in staff/counselors. So I agree with you, but that's not how I interpreted Lazy Activist's writing. Your clarification makes it easier to respond.
I read your article, and I'd like to add some history and some clarity.
- The Public Purpose monies don't necessarily go towards 501(c)(3) corporations, they go to efforts that serve the Public Purpose. This has been the case since the 1980s and through the 1990s and up to the present.
- In the 2000s RIOC clarified this (see amended Board Resolution of December 11, 2014), that both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations were permitted with the provision "[...] certified as tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4). Please note that organizations recognized under IRC section 501(c)(4) as tax-exempt social welfare organizations, may apply for PPF only if the requested funds are: (i) not intended or used for lobbying or other political activities; and (ii) are intended and used for an activity that directly relates to a power, duty or purpose of RIOC.". The RIRA PPF Grant for developing a CERT team complies with this provision. See "https://rioc.ny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/471".
- The RIRA PPF grant to develop a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is NOT related to NYC Emergency Management's (NYCEM) City-wide CERT program. NYCEM is the sponsor of that program, and completely independent of our work. Precisely, FEMA authorizes several kinds of CERT programs: one sponsored by local law enforcement or emergency services (like NYCEM), one for teenagers (Teen CERT) as a "feeder" program into adult CERTs, one for college campus (Campus CERT), and one for workplaces (Workplace CERT). Our CERT program is a Workplace CERT where RIRA (whose footprint and membership) includes the Island and its residents. We RIRA do not intend to deploy outside of Roosevelt Island and vicinity, and this addresses one of the reasons why the NYCEM-sponsored CERT team had withered: Roosevelt Islanders only wanted to deploy and support their own community here, not the rest of Manhattan or New York City. We had 40 people sign up for the Roosevelt Island CERT on Roosevelt Island Day.
- The original RISA had numerous problems with its executive director taking money, and many of their board went to RIDA. The RISA organization (now branded as RIRA/Good Life) has reinvented itself with new leadership and a board. I have worked with Andrea Jackson for many years, her approach to the organization is very professional and ethical, we are finalizing the formalities to make sure we've satisfied all legal and ethical obligations, and I look forward to a productive collaboration - a very different RISA than the one that existed a decade ago. Likewise, as RIRA President, I take my own responsibilities seriously, and I believe this collaboration with RISA/Good Life will be good for RIRA and our community.
- Regarding the RISA/Good Life fiscal sponsorship for RIRA, I don't believe that money should be counted towards allocating to RISA/Good Life as this money is NOT being spent on RISA/Good Life's priorities/direction, it is spent on RIRA's priorities/direction. RISA/Good Life is merely serving an administrative function to make sure the money is being spent correctly, i.e., on RIRA priorities/direction per the RIRA PPG grant application, which is why RIRA signed documents with NYCT on the grant, and RISA/Good Life is not controlling or directing this $10,000 grant, RIRA is controlling and directing this grant per our grant proposal.
- Regarding Howard Polivy, he was involved as Team Chief in the NYCEM-sponsored "MN8 RI" (Manhattan CB8 Roosevelt Island) team 2006-2019. In 2019, there was a NYCEM City-wide reorganization and Manhattan's 15-20 CERTs were reorganized into 5 divisions, Roosevelt Island was part of Manhattan Division 3, and Howard had a marginal role - and there were only 2 CERTs from Roosevelt Island who participated regularly in a Division 3's approx 50 CERTs, i.e., the Roosevelt Island team has severely withered (as explained above). Regardless, since 2004, Howard, Matt Katz (former RIRA President), and I were the three-some for years who advised on Roosevelt Island's infrastructure, services, and emergency preparedness. Howard is very very knowledgeable, I'm glad he's on the RIOC board, and Howard and I collaborate well - which is of good benefit for Roosevelt Island as I plan on working with Howard in our efforts on the Roosevelt Island CERT team. To my knowledge, Howard's wife Ellen is not involved at all - she has not been part of or referenced in ANY aspect of the RISA/Good Life and RIRA collaboration.
Regarding Public Purpose Funds and Grants, I'd like to add some precision. There were Public Purpose Payments from Manhattan Park's construction in the 1980s. In essence, rather than state taxes collected on the local construction (e.g., sales taxes), those payments would be made directly to the benefit of Roosevelt Island. At the time, it was believed that there would be more efficiency in redirecting the taxes directly - rather than collecting the state tax revenues in one big pot, and then depending upon legislators to distribute directly to Roosevelt Island (this seemed unlikely). Thus, these Public Purpose Payments (see section 3.07 in the Manhattan Park ground lease) would come directly. By the early 1990s (after Manhattan Park had been completed), there was approximately $2 million in available Public Purpose Payments. The document cited above (RIOC Board resolution) provides some history. I've been familiar with the Public Purpose fund distribution since 1996.
In the early 2000s, it appeared that the money was running out from its initial source, RIOC assigned PPF grant evaluation to RIRA in 2008, (I believe) RIOC President Steve Shane sought $100,000 annual funding to assure continuity (annual funding increased since), and Senator Serrano proposed legislation in 2015-2016 (Senate Bill S5813B), which was approved, that provided up to 3% of RIOC's annual operating budget for public purpose distribution:
"Not-For-Profit Grant Distribution. 1. The corporation is authorized to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to not-for-profit corporations or governmental agencies that provide direct services or benefits to the residents of Roosevelt Island, not to exceed 3% of the operating budget of the corporation, and upon the approval of a majority of the entire board of the corporation."
Since then there has been much griping that RIOC is not spending all of the 3% on community benefits and services. Here is some more precision on terminology:
- Public Purpose Payment: the original funding from Manhattan Park's construction, there are no more payments
- Public Purpose: as constructed from the legislation "provid[ing] direct services or benefits to the residents of Roosevelt Island"
- Public Purpose Fund: a separate accounting mechanism withing RIOC to track monies belonging to Public Purpose
- Public Purpose Grant: monies from the Public Purpose Fund that are awarded based upon Public Purpose Grant applications (previously reviewed by RIRA, now administered separately by NYCT)
Although RIOC can spend up to 3% on Public Purpose Funds, it seeks to "color" (an accounting term of art) as much spending as "Public Purpose", e.g., the Roosevelt Island Day, Fall Festival for the Arts, Holiday Tree lighting, the RIOC's Youth Program, RIOC's Youth Program summer camp, and some Public Safety activities as "Public Purpose". Thus, although there are 3% funds available, in fact, some portion is spent upon RIOC itself (a governmental agency) so that is shows that RIOC is complying with the law, but it's not all coming to community not-for-profits. Both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are considered not-for-profit (see NYS Attorney General's Charities Bureau), and a separate RIOC Board Resolution (cited above) PROHIBITS lobbying and political activities:
"[...] (i) not intended or used for lobbying or other political activities; and (ii) are intended and used for an activity that directly relates to a power, duty or purpose of RIOC. [...]"
Thus, while your statement about 501(c)(4) might be true:
"RIRA is not a 501(c)(3). It’s a 501(c)(4)—a classification that allows for advocacy, political organizing, and lobbying."
A careful reading (via construction) shows that PPF grants do NOT allow for "advocacy, political organizing, and lobbying".
Several other Community Leaders have presented the same concerns: the 3% is not being spent, and it's not being spent on community not-for-profits but government agencies (e.g., RIOC). This is still a concern, and I hope you can shine a light upon this.
Thank you, Frank, for providing historical context and technical clarifications.
That said, we can’t treat individual commentary as a substitute for official communication. You’re speaking on behalf of RIRA, RISA/Good Life, and individual board members. For transparency:
- Is Andrea Jackson officially the President or Executive Director of RISA and will she communicate with us?
- Do you have a full list of RISA’s current board members?
- Can you share the current membership of RIRA’s Common Council?
If RISA would like to clarify its leadership or role in the grant process, we’d be glad to share that with our readers. We plan to publish a dedicated piece on RISA in the coming weeks.
To be precise, I'm speaking on behalf of RIRA. Our knowledge of the former and current board members of RISA is based upon PPF grant applications that RIRA vetted - so our last applications would have been circa 2022. You'll have to ask Andrea directly about the current RISA/Good Life. I'll write to you separately on the RIRA Common Council members.
So Rira,the supplicant without much clout or effective history, went to Risa to borrow some
creds in the grant dept. Risa obliged but, might have questionable parentage, shadowing the transaction. Who cares? Nobody. Why shouldn't good money just go to those who ask or simply take? Money is up for grabs and whoever has the longest arm, gets it. Just shut up and deal with it.
Actually, RIRA has been around since 1977, RIRA was the entity that advocated for a decade and got Resident Board Member requirements for the RIOC Board; RIRA ran the RIOC Board Member candidate elections, getting a half-dozen *resident* board members appointed; RIRA was the entity that completely changed the Public Safety Department to Community Policing; RIRA kept the tram open on the third shift; RIRA members sued RIOC over land use and got clarification and confirmation the open spaces in the General Development Plan (aka Parks) cannot be developed; among many many other efforts. Not to mention, we did the evaluation of the PPF grants (with greater transparency and rationale) from 2008 to 2022. Lots of clout, very effective history.
Appreciate the tension in this thread.
Frank, you’re right to cite RIRA’s legacy—there’s no question the organization has a long history of public service and real wins: from reforming Public Safety to protecting parkland and advancing resident representation. Those are meaningful chapters.
But the “Lazy Activist’s” cynicism shouldn’t be dismissed. It reflects something real: a growing public perception that the current grant process lacks visible standards. That perception—fair or not—is corrosive. And when funding flows through organizations with historical baggage or unclear structure, without clear public documentation, people will naturally ask: who decides, and why?
Yes, RIRA has a legacy—and it's now in the process of rebuilding under your leadership. We acknowledged that in the article. But credibility isn’t earned once. It’s maintained over time, through transparency and accountability. That’s the standard we should all be working toward.
Theo, yes, I'm all for transparency and we (Roosevelt Island) should have some expectations on criteria. Like any grant applicant, if you don't get an award or the full amount, a question might be "How can I make my proposal more competitive?". I wish RIOC and NYCT did a debrief afterwards - it would help us write better proposals. FYI, when RIRA did the vetting, we provided a summary report on each awardee. There were a couple times we said No to an applicant - and explained to them "You're asking for PPF funds of tens of thousands of dollars to support scholarships of children - only 1-2 scholarships - and the family needs to make $70-90K to qualify for the scholarship. That's not well distributed (only 1-2 recipients) and not supporting residents who need the most help. Likewise, we had complained multiple times about the PTA PPF requests in that they were targeted towards K-5 (where there was an abundance of funds) and insisted that they needed to spend money on 6-8 graders, where there were fewer family resources/income. Also, RIRA has had no problem calling out racial/ethnic imbalances that do not represent our community - both in clientele and in staff/counselors. So I agree with you, but that's not how I interpreted Lazy Activist's writing. Your clarification makes it easier to respond.
I read your article, and I'd like to add some history and some clarity.
- The Public Purpose monies don't necessarily go towards 501(c)(3) corporations, they go to efforts that serve the Public Purpose. This has been the case since the 1980s and through the 1990s and up to the present.
- In the 2000s RIOC clarified this (see amended Board Resolution of December 11, 2014), that both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations were permitted with the provision "[...] certified as tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4). Please note that organizations recognized under IRC section 501(c)(4) as tax-exempt social welfare organizations, may apply for PPF only if the requested funds are: (i) not intended or used for lobbying or other political activities; and (ii) are intended and used for an activity that directly relates to a power, duty or purpose of RIOC.". The RIRA PPF Grant for developing a CERT team complies with this provision. See "https://rioc.ny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/471".
- The RIRA PPF grant to develop a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is NOT related to NYC Emergency Management's (NYCEM) City-wide CERT program. NYCEM is the sponsor of that program, and completely independent of our work. Precisely, FEMA authorizes several kinds of CERT programs: one sponsored by local law enforcement or emergency services (like NYCEM), one for teenagers (Teen CERT) as a "feeder" program into adult CERTs, one for college campus (Campus CERT), and one for workplaces (Workplace CERT). Our CERT program is a Workplace CERT where RIRA (whose footprint and membership) includes the Island and its residents. We RIRA do not intend to deploy outside of Roosevelt Island and vicinity, and this addresses one of the reasons why the NYCEM-sponsored CERT team had withered: Roosevelt Islanders only wanted to deploy and support their own community here, not the rest of Manhattan or New York City. We had 40 people sign up for the Roosevelt Island CERT on Roosevelt Island Day.
- The original RISA had numerous problems with its executive director taking money, and many of their board went to RIDA. The RISA organization (now branded as RIRA/Good Life) has reinvented itself with new leadership and a board. I have worked with Andrea Jackson for many years, her approach to the organization is very professional and ethical, we are finalizing the formalities to make sure we've satisfied all legal and ethical obligations, and I look forward to a productive collaboration - a very different RISA than the one that existed a decade ago. Likewise, as RIRA President, I take my own responsibilities seriously, and I believe this collaboration with RISA/Good Life will be good for RIRA and our community.
- Regarding the RISA/Good Life fiscal sponsorship for RIRA, I don't believe that money should be counted towards allocating to RISA/Good Life as this money is NOT being spent on RISA/Good Life's priorities/direction, it is spent on RIRA's priorities/direction. RISA/Good Life is merely serving an administrative function to make sure the money is being spent correctly, i.e., on RIRA priorities/direction per the RIRA PPG grant application, which is why RIRA signed documents with NYCT on the grant, and RISA/Good Life is not controlling or directing this $10,000 grant, RIRA is controlling and directing this grant per our grant proposal.
- Regarding Howard Polivy, he was involved as Team Chief in the NYCEM-sponsored "MN8 RI" (Manhattan CB8 Roosevelt Island) team 2006-2019. In 2019, there was a NYCEM City-wide reorganization and Manhattan's 15-20 CERTs were reorganized into 5 divisions, Roosevelt Island was part of Manhattan Division 3, and Howard had a marginal role - and there were only 2 CERTs from Roosevelt Island who participated regularly in a Division 3's approx 50 CERTs, i.e., the Roosevelt Island team has severely withered (as explained above). Regardless, since 2004, Howard, Matt Katz (former RIRA President), and I were the three-some for years who advised on Roosevelt Island's infrastructure, services, and emergency preparedness. Howard is very very knowledgeable, I'm glad he's on the RIOC board, and Howard and I collaborate well - which is of good benefit for Roosevelt Island as I plan on working with Howard in our efforts on the Roosevelt Island CERT team. To my knowledge, Howard's wife Ellen is not involved at all - she has not been part of or referenced in ANY aspect of the RISA/Good Life and RIRA collaboration.
Regarding Public Purpose Funds and Grants, I'd like to add some precision. There were Public Purpose Payments from Manhattan Park's construction in the 1980s. In essence, rather than state taxes collected on the local construction (e.g., sales taxes), those payments would be made directly to the benefit of Roosevelt Island. At the time, it was believed that there would be more efficiency in redirecting the taxes directly - rather than collecting the state tax revenues in one big pot, and then depending upon legislators to distribute directly to Roosevelt Island (this seemed unlikely). Thus, these Public Purpose Payments (see section 3.07 in the Manhattan Park ground lease) would come directly. By the early 1990s (after Manhattan Park had been completed), there was approximately $2 million in available Public Purpose Payments. The document cited above (RIOC Board resolution) provides some history. I've been familiar with the Public Purpose fund distribution since 1996.
In the early 2000s, it appeared that the money was running out from its initial source, RIOC assigned PPF grant evaluation to RIRA in 2008, (I believe) RIOC President Steve Shane sought $100,000 annual funding to assure continuity (annual funding increased since), and Senator Serrano proposed legislation in 2015-2016 (Senate Bill S5813B), which was approved, that provided up to 3% of RIOC's annual operating budget for public purpose distribution:
"Not-For-Profit Grant Distribution. 1. The corporation is authorized to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to not-for-profit corporations or governmental agencies that provide direct services or benefits to the residents of Roosevelt Island, not to exceed 3% of the operating budget of the corporation, and upon the approval of a majority of the entire board of the corporation."
Since then there has been much griping that RIOC is not spending all of the 3% on community benefits and services. Here is some more precision on terminology:
- Public Purpose Payment: the original funding from Manhattan Park's construction, there are no more payments
- Public Purpose: as constructed from the legislation "provid[ing] direct services or benefits to the residents of Roosevelt Island"
- Public Purpose Fund: a separate accounting mechanism withing RIOC to track monies belonging to Public Purpose
- Public Purpose Grant: monies from the Public Purpose Fund that are awarded based upon Public Purpose Grant applications (previously reviewed by RIRA, now administered separately by NYCT)
Although RIOC can spend up to 3% on Public Purpose Funds, it seeks to "color" (an accounting term of art) as much spending as "Public Purpose", e.g., the Roosevelt Island Day, Fall Festival for the Arts, Holiday Tree lighting, the RIOC's Youth Program, RIOC's Youth Program summer camp, and some Public Safety activities as "Public Purpose". Thus, although there are 3% funds available, in fact, some portion is spent upon RIOC itself (a governmental agency) so that is shows that RIOC is complying with the law, but it's not all coming to community not-for-profits. Both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are considered not-for-profit (see NYS Attorney General's Charities Bureau), and a separate RIOC Board Resolution (cited above) PROHIBITS lobbying and political activities:
"[...] (i) not intended or used for lobbying or other political activities; and (ii) are intended and used for an activity that directly relates to a power, duty or purpose of RIOC. [...]"
Thus, while your statement about 501(c)(4) might be true:
"RIRA is not a 501(c)(3). It’s a 501(c)(4)—a classification that allows for advocacy, political organizing, and lobbying."
A careful reading (via construction) shows that PPF grants do NOT allow for "advocacy, political organizing, and lobbying".
Several other Community Leaders have presented the same concerns: the 3% is not being spent, and it's not being spent on community not-for-profits but government agencies (e.g., RIOC). This is still a concern, and I hope you can shine a light upon this.
Thank you, Frank, for providing historical context and technical clarifications.
That said, we can’t treat individual commentary as a substitute for official communication. You’re speaking on behalf of RIRA, RISA/Good Life, and individual board members. For transparency:
- Is Andrea Jackson officially the President or Executive Director of RISA and will she communicate with us?
- Do you have a full list of RISA’s current board members?
- Can you share the current membership of RIRA’s Common Council?
If RISA would like to clarify its leadership or role in the grant process, we’d be glad to share that with our readers. We plan to publish a dedicated piece on RISA in the coming weeks.
To be precise, I'm speaking on behalf of RIRA. Our knowledge of the former and current board members of RISA is based upon PPF grant applications that RIRA vetted - so our last applications would have been circa 2022. You'll have to ask Andrea directly about the current RISA/Good Life. I'll write to you separately on the RIRA Common Council members.