>>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH - RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

AND BY -- JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION.

>>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M RAFAEL P. ROMAN.

JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, GOVERNOR CUOMO WAS PRAISED ACROSS THE BOARD OF HIS HANDLING OF THE PANDEMIC.

TODAY 67% OF NEW YORKERS BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING UNETHICAL OR EVEN ILLEGAL BY UNDERCOUNTING THE NUMBER OF CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IN NURSING HOMES.

AS CUOMO CONTINUES TO DEAL WITH THE FALLOUT OF THIS CONTROVERSY, AS WELL AS THE RECENT ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE DEBATING WHAT MEASURES TO TAKE AGAINST THE GOVERNOR.

WHILE SOME ARE TALKING ABOUT REVOKING THE POWERS GIVEN AT THE START OF THE PANDEMIC, SOME WOULD LIKE TO GO EVEN FURTHER.

WHO CLAIMED CUOMO THREATENED TO DESTROY HIM DURING A PHONE CONVERSATION IS NOW CALLING FOR THE GOVERNOR'S IMPEACHMENT.

ASSEMBLY MEMBER KIM JOINS US NOW.

ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU HERE >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON.

>> PLEA MEMBER, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK SOME OF OUR VIEWERS MAY NOT KNOW BUT THE NURSING HOME TRAGEDY IS SOMETHING THAT HAVE TOUCHED YOU AND YOUR FAMILY PERSONALLY.

TELL US HOW IT DID THAT.

>> SURE.

WHILE I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF HELPING MY CONSTITUENTS AT THE VERY PEAK OF COVID IN APRIL, THESE ARE CONSTITUENTS WHO KNEW THAT COVID WAS SPREADING, THERE WAS AN ORDER TO TRANSFER COVID POSITIVES AND THEY HAD NO COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND I WAS SITTING OUTSIDE, SITTING OUTSIDE YELLING, PLEASE HELP, PLEASE HELP MY CONSTITUENTS.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT FIGHT, MY UNCLE, WHO WAS IN THE NURSING HOME FOR -- WITH DEMEFRMIA FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS, HAD DIED OF PRESUMED COVID.

WE DIDN'T EVEN THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE.

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW, WE COULDN'T PROCESS IT IN THE MOMENT, WE WERE TOLD HE HAD A COLD.

THAT HE WAS SLIGHTLY ILL. AND THEN WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS HE PASSED AWAY ALONE.

WE COULDN'T EVEN GIVE HIM A PROPER FUNERAL.

THAT'S THE STORY THAT 15,000 OTHER FAMILIES WENT THROUGH IN NEW YORK IN THE LAST TEN MONTHS.

>> ASSEMBLY MEMBER, TALK ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL, THE PHONE CALL YOU RECEIVED FROM GOVERNOR CUOMO AT YOUR HOME ONE EITHERVENING W YOU WERE BATHING YOUR CHILDREN, WHERE HE TOLD YOU, HE WOULD DESTROY YOU, A CLAIM THE GOVERNOR AND HIS PEOPLE CONTINUE TO DENY.

WHAT ELSE WAS IN THAT PHONE CALL, AND WHAT LED TO THE PHONE CALL?

>> YEAH, SO I THINK MANY ALREADY HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE CALL THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNOR, AND WITHOUT GOING INTO TOO MUCH DETAILS, IT WAS ABOUT TEN MINUTES LONG.

AND I THINK THE MAIN QUESTION NOW REMAINS OF WHY DID HE MAKE THAT PHONE CALL TO ME?

I'VE INTERACTED WITH THE GOVERNOR IN PUBLIC SETTINGS.

I EVEN HAD DINNER WITH SOME OF HIS STAFF AND THE GOVERNOR MANY YEARS AGO.

BUT I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A DIRECT PHONE CALL UNTIL THAT NIGHT.

SO WHY DID HE CALL ME AND PRETEND HE'S BERATING, THREATENING, YELLING AT ME, ORDERING ME TO ISSUE A STATEMENT THAT COUNTERED WHAT I HEARD IN A PRIVATE MEETING WHEN HIS TOP AIDE ADMITTED THAT THEY COVERED UP NURSING HOME DATA BECAUSE THEY WERE SCARED OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE USING THAT INFORMATION TO POLITICIZE THE MOMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNOR.

I HEARD A POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND I HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK OUT BECAUSE NOW I'M IMPLICATED.

IF I DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, THAT MEANS I'M IMPLICATED TO THAT COVER-UP.

THAT IS WHY THE GOVERNOR CALLED, NOT ONLY ONCE THAT NIGHT, BUT WHEN I DIDN'T PICK UP THE NEXT TIME, HE CALLED ME EIGHT MORE TIMES ON THAT SATURDAY MORNING, FOUR DIRECTLY BY HIMSELF AND FOUR BY OTHER STAFF MEMBERS TRYING TO GET ME ON THE CALL.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT THEY ACCIDENTLY TOLD THE TRUTH, THAT ALL THIS TIME, THE COVER-UP, LIES, WEB OF LIES, THEY HAD A TALKING POINT, THEY WERE ABLE TO COVER IT UP, BUT THAT MOMENT THEY TOLD THE TRUTH AND THEY WERE TRYING THEIR BEST TO CONTROL THE SITUATION.

>> AND YOU HAD ALREADY GONE PUBLIC WITH THIS STORY TO "THE POST," I BELIEVE, "THE NEW YORK POST" AND THE GOVERNOR DIRECTLY WAS TRYING TO GET YOU TO RETRACT IT, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> HE WAS TRYING TO GET ME TO ISSUE A NEW STATEMENT TO TELL NOT ONLY "THE POST" BUT TO THE MEDIA THAT I MISHEARD, THAT I HEARD SOMETHING ELSE AND THIS IS WHAT I REALLY HEARD.

HE EVEN ASKED ME IN THE PHONE CONVERSATION, IF I WERE A LAWYER, AND IF YOU'RE NOT, YOU PROBABLY HEARD IT WRONG.

THIS IS WHAT YOU HEARD WRONG AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY.

DO IT TONIGHT, NOT TOMORROW, DO IT TONIGHT.

I REMEMBER THOSE WORDS LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY.

AND IT WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS VERY DAUNTING.

>> SO AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL PUBLIC, OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS, FORMER AIDES, OTHER JOURNALISTS CAME PUBLIC OF THEIR STORIES OF BEING BULLY AND HARASSED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS STAFF.

IS THIS A PATTERN OF THIS ADMINISTRATION?

>> IT IS A PATTERN OF ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AND ABUSE OF POWER.

NOW, IF HE'S CALLING ME BECAUSE HE'S JUST UPSET ABOUT A RANDOM ISSUE, RIGHT, THAT I HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING HIM ON, HE WANTS TO JUST VENT, RON, WHAT THE HELL, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?

WE CAN PROBABLY YELL AT EACH OTHER FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND LET IT GO.

BUT THE MOMENT THAT HE ORDERED ME TO DO SOMETHING UNETHICAL, POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL, TO COVER UP THEIR COVER-UP, HE CROSSED THE LINE AND THAT IS WHY ULTIMATELY I WENT PUBLIC.

I ACTUALLY WAITED UNTIL MONDAY TO DECIDE WHAT I SHOULD DO.

BECAUSE MY WIFE WAS IN FEAR.

SHE DIDN'T WANT ME TO GO OUT THERE AND PUT OUR FAMILY IN JEOPARDY.

BUT AT MONDAY'S PRESS CONFERENCE, I LISTENED TO WHAT HE SAID WORD FOR WORD, AND I REALIZED THERE'S A PATTERN OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> HE WENT AFTER YOU IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> RIGHT.

IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> AS YOU KNOW, LINDSEY BOYLAN, CURRENTLY A CANDIDATE FOR MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT WAS A FORMER AIDE TO GOVERNOR CUOMO, AND SHE JUST RECENTLY DETAILED SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNOR SHE ORIGINALLY MADE BACK IN DECEMBER.

IN THE ONLINE POST SHE DESCRIBED A NUMBER OF EPISODES INCLUDING UNSOLICITED KISS ON THE LIPS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S MANHATTAN OFFICE.

FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THIS ALSO A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR OF THE GOVERNOR?

>> I BELIEVE IN LINDSEY.

SHE CAME OUT KIND OF -- PARTIALLY WITH THE STORY A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AS SHE DIDN'T WANT TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE EPISODE UNTIL NOW, AND I HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO HER ON THE PHONE BEFORE SHE CAME OUT WITH THE WHOLE STORY.

I DON'T KNOW HER PERSONALLY, BUT I SPOKE TO HER AND I BELIEVE 100% WHAT SHE'S SAYING.

AND I READ WHAT SHE WROTE, THE DETAILS, THE OUTLINE, I THINK SHE SPENT A LOT OF TIME JUST PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT ONCE SHE DOES, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO HOLE IN THAT STORY LINE.

BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR A WOMAN WHO ARE VERBALLY ABUSED, ASSAULTED, TO COME OUT.

BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS SO MUCH HARDER, THE STANDARD IS SO MUCH HARDER AND ALREADY SHE'S FRAMED AS THE ACCUSER, NOT THE VICTIM.

THAT'S HOW MANY MEDIA IS EVEN PORTRAYING HER AND IT'S NOT FAIR.

I SUPPORT HER.

I BELIEVE CUOMO IS AN ABUSER.

HE HAS A PATTERN OF ABUSING HIS BEHAVIOR AND I PLAN ON STANDING WITH HER TO HOLD CUOMO ACCOUNTABLE.

>> ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BEFORE THE DETAILS OF THESE ACCUSATIONS CAME OUT, YOU LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE POLLS, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO CONCLUDE MANY NEW YORKERS BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR'S BULLYING, HIS HARSH TREATMENT OF OTHERS, WAS OKAY IF IT LED TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE SITUATION FOR MOST NEW YORKERS, THAT HE WAS JUST BEING ENOUGHNEW YORK T TO USE HIS FRAME.

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE REMEMBER THE PRESS CONFERENCES EARLY IN THE PANDEMIC WHERE THEY FELT HE WAS PROVIDING AN OASIS OF CALM AND REASON AND DESERT OF CONFUSION AND FEAR.

DO YOU THINK MISS BOYLAN'S CHARGES NOW WILL BEGIN TO CHANGE THAT MINDSET?

>> I THINK THE PUBLIC FINALLY UNDERSTANDS THAT CUOMO IS NOT WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE OR HOW HE WAS PORTRAYED ON TV.

THEY PEAK OF THE PANDEMIC, YES, COMPARED TO WHAT DONALD TRUMP WAS DOING, HE GAVE A VERY CALM PERSONA, INCLUDING MY IN-LAWS, MY PARENTS.

OH, WE LOVE LOOKING AT CUOMO EVERY DAY.

IT MAKES ME FEEL CALM ABOUT THE SITUATION.

BUT NOW THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT.

WHILE HE WAS DOING THAT, HE WAS ALLOWING SOME OF THE TOP CORPORATE INTERESTS TO WRITE THE WORST TYPE OF POLICIES THAT LITERALLY PROTECTED THE PROFITS OF NURSING HOMES OVER SAVING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.

>> SURE.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.

THAT'S ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST, MOST SERIOUS CHARGES, IS THE GOVERNOR INSERTED A PROVISION IN THE LAST BUDGET THAT BASICALLY GIVES LIABILITY TO NURSING HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, AND YOU SAY THIS ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED TO KILLING PEOPLE.

EXPLAIN THAT WHOLE THING.

>> SO AT THE VERY PEAK OF THE FIRST WAVE, HE ALLOWED THE TOP LOBBYIST WHO GAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN $2 MILLION TO HIS CAMPAIGN WAR CHEST TO WRITE THE PROVISIONS -- BECAUSE THEY ADMITTED IT, THEY SENT A PRESS RELEASE, WE WROTE THIS FOR THE BUDGET AND HE WAS ABLE TO PUT IT IN THE LAST HOUR WITHOUT ANY OF THE LAWMAKERS ACTUALLY REVIEWING IT THAT GIVE A LEGAL SHIELD, LEGAL LIABILITY SHIELD FOR CRIMINAL AND LIABILITY CHARGES.

MEANING FAMILIES CAN'T SUE AND THEY CAN'T BE CHARGED PROSECUTIONS.

IT HAS TO BE A REALLY HIGH STANDARD FOR US TO PURSUE THAT.

IT IS A GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD BASICALLY.

WHAT DOES THAT DO TO AN INDUSTRY THAT'S 65% FOR PROFITS?

THE NURSING HOMES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY.

SO NOW WHEN YOU GIVE THEM A LICENSE LIKE THIS, WHAT I CALL LICENSE TO KILL OR GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD, THEY STOP INVESTING IN PPE, THEY STOP HIRING STAFF.

THEY FEEL LIKE WE'RE SAFE.

WE JUST GOT THIS SCARRED FROM THE GOVERNOR-- CARD FROM THE GO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

WE HAVE THESE THREE REPORTS THAT PUT THE FATALITIES AND PROVISIONS, IN MAY, CONSTITUTED 77% OF THE ENTIRE NATION'S COVID DEATHS THAT HAD THESE TYPE OF PROVISIONS, NEW YORK BEING THE WORSE IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO NOW YOU'RE NOT ONLY CALLING FOR THE GOVERNOR TO BE STRIPPED OF HIS EMERGENCY POWERS THAT WAS GRANTED HIM, AND YOU VOTED FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE FIRST GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PANDEMIC, YOU'RE ALSO CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.

TELL US HOW THOSE EFFORTS ARE DOING IN ALBANY.

>> I THINK OUR SPEAKER HAS A TOUGH JOB.

WE HAVE OVER 100 DEMOCRATS IN OUR CONFERENCE.

WE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING CONSENSUS.

I LAID OUT THE ARGUMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT NOT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING PERSONAL, IT'S NOT ME AGAINST THE GOVERNOR.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT PROTECTING THE SANCTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY SO WE CAN ACTUALLY BE A COEQUAL PARTNER IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

THE GOVERNOR HAS ENGAGED IN CORRUPT CONDUCT AND WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CHECK THAT EXECUTIVE SO WE CAN MAINTAIN A COEQUAL GOVERNANCE IN ALBANY.

>> SO HOW IS IT GOING REALLY QUICKLY?

BECAUSE I WANT TO GET TO ONE LAST QUESTION.

>> IT'S STILL GOING.

IT'S STILL GOING.

>> IT LISTEN, AS YOU KNOW, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THERE ARE MANY VETERAN POLITICAL OBSERVERS WHO ARE PREDICTING THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL SURVIVE THE ATTEMPT TO LIMIT HIS POWER, ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH HIM, HE WILL SURVIVE THE SCANDAL, EVEN THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT SCANDALS, AND IF HE RUNS FOR A FOURTH TERM NEXT YEAR, HE WILL PROBABLY WIN BECAUSE HIS POPULARITY IS STILL RELATIVELY HIGH AND HE'S GOT A LOT OF CAMPAIGN MONEY.

IF THAT HAPPENS, WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU AND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BEEN TAKING HIM ON?

>> I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL ASPECT OR HIS POLITICAL CAREER.

LAST YEAR WHEN I TOOK THIS FIGHT TO GOVERNOR, I WAS ACTUALLY FACING MY OWN RE-ELECTION.

EVERY CAMPAIGN ADVISER TOLD ME DON'T TAKE ON THE GOVERNOR.

HE'S 80%, 90%, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE YOUR RE-ELECTION IF YOU DO THAT.

I DIDN'T CARE.

THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH.

I SAW WHAT HAPPENED AND I WENT FOR IT AND NOW IT'S SORTING THROUGH THE POLITICS FOR THE TRUTH AND HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

>> ASSEMBLY MAN, WE HAVE TO END IT THERE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO TALK TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JACK FORD.

AFTER DECADES OF LOCAL ACTIVISM, THE NEW YORK CITY LAND MARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION HAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DESIGNATE A SMALL BRICK BUILDING IN BROOKLYN AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK.

MID-19th CENTURY, 227 DUFFIELD STREET WAS OWNED BY ABOLITIONIST COUPLE HARRIET AND THOMAS TRUESDALE.

IT'S REASON TO BELIEVE, ACCORDING TO THE ADVOCATES, THAT THEIR HOME MAY WELL SERVE AS A TEMPORARY STOP AS THOSE ESCAPING SLAVERY IN THE UPPED GROUND RAILROAD.

THOUGH THE CITY CONAMED A SECTION OF DUFFIELD STREET ABOLITIONIST PLACE BACK IN 2007, THEY HAVE RESISTED GIVING THE HOMELA HOME LANDMARK STATUS UNTIL NOW.

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE LOCATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ITS LANDMARK DESIGNATION IS HISTORIAN AND PRESERVATIONIST MICHAEL HENRY ADAMS.

MICHAEL, WELCOME TO YOU.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GREAT FUN TO TALK WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

>> I'M DELIGHTED TO CHAT WITH YOU.

LET'S START WITH THIS NOTION OF A DESIGNATION.

LANDMARK STATUS, JUST WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> YOU KNOW, NEW YORK CITY HAS THE BEST PRESERVATION LAW IN THE NATION AND ONE OF THE OLDEST.

IT MEANS WITHOUT THERE BEING PROOF BY THE OWNER THAT THEY WILL EXPERIENCE SOME HARDSHIP IF THEY MAKE CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS OR DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING THAT THEY CANNOT DEMOLISH IT OR CHANGE IT WITHOUT GETTING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

SO THAT JUST GOES SUCH A LONG WAY TOWARDS HELPING US TO PRESERVE BUILDINGS THAT EXEMPLIFY OUR GREAT HISTORY OF THE CITY.

>> AND WHAT DOES THE PROCESS INVOLVE?

HOW DOES IT COME TO ME THAT A LOCATION SUCH AS THIS IS ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT DESIGNATION?

>> ORDINARILY IT'S PEOPLE IN A GIVEN NEIGHBORHOOD WHO FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT OR HISTORICAL OR ESTHETIC IMPORTANCE IN THEIR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND THEY PETITION THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION, THEY ASK FOR A REQUEST FOR EVALUATION, AND THEN OFTENTIMES THEY GET A FORM LETTER BACK THAT SAYS THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THE WORK OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE LPC IS THE SMALLEST CITY AGENCY WITH THE SMALLEST BUDGET AND THE COMMISSIONERS DON'T RECEIVE ANY PAY, THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS, UNLIKE THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO THAT REALLY PRESCRIBES WHICH PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD TO VOLUNTEER TO BE ON THE COMMISSION.

SO IT'S NOT AS OPEN A PROCESS AS ONE WOULD LIKE TO HOPE.

AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF, AS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, CITY COUNCIL COMMISSIONERS COULD NOMINATE BUILDINGS TO BE ON THE CITY LANDMARK COMMISSION.

BUT IT GOES TO THE PROCESS, A HEARING IS HELD AFTER THE BUILDING HAS BEEN CALENDARED, AND AFTER THAT HEARING, USUALLY THE HEARING IS FAIRLY PRO FORMA.

THE HEARING BECOMES DESIGNATED AND IF APPROVED IT BECOMES OFFICIALLY LISTED AS A LANDMARK.

>> TELL US ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING, WHAT LED TO ITS DESIGNATION.

>> THIS BUILDING IS VERY SPECIAL, AND IT FACED TREMENDOUS PROBLEMS, IN PART BECAUSE THIS BUILDING WAS OWNED BY THE TRUESDALE FAMILY.

AND MR. AND MRS. TRUESDALE WERE PROMINENT ACTIVISTS IN THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT.

AND SO IT'S BELIEVED WERE THEIR NEIGHBORS IN A ROW THAT EXISTED TO THE WEST OF THEIR HOUSE.

AND HOUSES THAT ARE VERY MUCH LIKE THIS HOUSE, A GROUP OF ROW HOUSES.

AND WHEN PEOPLE FIRST PETITION THE CITY TO GET THE TRUESDALE HOUSE DESIGNATED AS A LANDMARK, THEY ALSO ASK THAT THESE OTHER HOUSES BE PROTECTED AND THE CITY HAD A PLAN TO TAKE THEM ALL AND PERSIST TO TRY TO SAVE THIS ONE HOUSE.

WE FINALLY GOT THAT, THIS ONE PARTICULAR HOUSE THAT'S BEEN PROTECTED, BUT THE OTHER HOUSES HAVE ALL BEEN DEMOLISHED THAT ARE IN THAT TIME PERIOD.

THE COMMISSION INITIALLY SAID THAT, A, AS YOU SUGGESTED, A, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

WELL, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING STRANGE GIVEN THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD WAS THE HIGHLY SECRETIVE OPERATION MUCH LIKE PEOPLE WHO RISK THEIR LIVES TO HIDE JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST.

THE FUTURE SLAVE ACT HAD JUST BEEN PASSED IN 19850 AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF FINES COULD BE ISSUED TO YOU FOR HIDING HIDE FUGITIVE SLAVES.

>> THE A TIME WHEN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WERE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS.

>> YES, A CITY COMMISSIONER MIGHT MAKE A THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND MAYBE $500 A YEAR.

SO THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WAS A LOT OF MONEY.

PEOPLE WERE TAKING A TREMENDOUS RISK.

AND THIS HOUSE -- THERE WERE NO FIRM DIARY ENTRIES OR LETTERS THAT SAID SOME SPECIFIC ACTIVITY OCCURRED HERE AND, OF COURSE, IN THE TIME PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE SIGNS THAT SAID, THIS IS 227 DUFFIELD STREET.

THIS IS THE BROOKLYN STOP ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

BROOKLYN WAS THIS MASSIVE PORT -- WE FORGET IT WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN THE COUNTRY, AND ITS COURT WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH ACTIVITY DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO SLAVERY, AND EXPORTING AND IMPORTING THE GOODS OF THE SOUTH AND BRINGING COTTON TO THE NORTH TO BE SPUN TO FABRIC IN NORTHERN HILLS.

THIS ACTIVITY WAS SO PROMINENT IN THE NEW YORK AREA THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR OR EVEN BEFORE THE WAR IN 1860, MAYOR FERNANDO WOOD OF NEW YORK SUGGESTED THAT NEW YORK SECEDE FROM THE UNION SO THAT IT MIGHT TRADE LIKE A CITY, LIKE VENICE HAD BEEN IN THE 16th CENTURY, WITH BOTH THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH AND NOT CURTAIL A BIG PART OF ITS BUSINESS.

>> I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN AT ONE POINT, IN SOME RESEARCH I WAS DOING, THAT ALBANY WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR SLAVE TRADING CENTERS IN THE COLONY, AND INDEED IN THE STATE UNTIL IT WAS BANNED.

SORT OF UNDERSCORING YOUR POINT HERE.

LET ME JUMP IN ONE SECOND IF I CAN.

LET'S SAY I'M TALKING WITH MICHAEL HENRY ADAMS, PRESERVATIONIST AND HISTORIAN.

AS YOU MENTIONED BACK RECENTLY AS 2007 THE COMMISSION SAID NO TO PROVIDING THIS HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY.

WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, DO YOU THINK?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY THAT ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL AND WHAT IS CONVERSELY TRUE IS THAT EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.

SO BY HAVING A NEW ADMINISTRATION FROM THE BLOOMBERG ADMINISTRATION, BY HAVING THE FIRST LADY OF NEW YORK, SHERRILYN McCRAY, AND ALSO BY HAVING OUR PUBLIC ADVOCATE AND NOW OUR WONDERFUL SECRETARY OF STATE, LETITIA JAMES -- I'M SORRY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT SECRETARY OF STATE, LETITIA JAMES, SHE AND MRS. McCRAY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN CHANGING WHAT HAPPENED AT DUFFIELD STREET AND WE'RE JUST SO GRATEFUL TO THEIR INTERVENTION BECAUSE THEY MADE ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK.

>> THE ATTORNEY FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE OTHER PROPERTY, HAD INTENDED TO DEVELOP IT, APARTMENT BUILDING, SAID WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE A MUSEUM FOR BLACK HISTORY IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THE ATTORNEY HAD SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY HIS CLIENT WAS FINANCIALLY DEVASTATED BY THE DECISION.

SO WHAT DO YOU SAY, CRITICS WHO SAID, IS IT FAIR TO LIMIT SOMEONE'S USE FOR THEIR PROPERTY BASED UPON A FINDING IT IS AT BEST PROBABLE THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS USED OR MAYBE EVEN JUST POSSIBLE THIS PROPERTY WAS USED, WHAT'S A SHORT ANSWER TO THAT CRITICISM?

>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS THERE'S A HARDSHIP PROVISION IN THE NEW YORK STATE LAW, AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS, YOU CAN OPEN YOUR BOOKS AND PROVE THAT WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT YOU INTENDED TO DO, THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO SURVIVE.

IF YOU CAN DO THAT, YOUR BUILDING CAN BE DEMOLISHED.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU SINCE I LIVED IN NEW YORK IN 1985, THERE HAVE BEEN FEWER THAN A DOZEN PEOPLE WHO AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THAT HARDSHIP PROVISION.

SO IT'S JUST NOT A LEGITIMATE THING.

PEOPLE BUY PROPERTIES OFTENTIMES JUST TO SPECULATE THAT THEY MIGHT SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO MAKE MORE MONEY IN THE FUTURE THAN THEY ARE MAKING NOW, AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GREAT HISTORY ENVIEWED IN THIS PLACE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PLACE THAT WAS OWNED AND LIVED IN BY ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT ABOLITIONISTS OF HIS TIME, YOU DON'T IMAGINE THAT A PERSON LIKE THAT DID NOT AVAIL EVERY RESOURCE AT HIS -- AVAILABLE TO HIM -- >> RIGHT.

>> -- IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE HIS BUSINESS OF -- OF TRANSFERRING SLAVES, FORMER SLAVES, TO FREEDOM IN CANADA.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO IT GOES WITHOUT QUESTION THAT, OF COURSE, SOMETHING THAT WAS UTILIZED TO BE USEFUL TRANSFERRING PEOPLE OCCURRED IN THIS HOUSE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU TWO QUESTIONS, ARE THERE OTHER PARTICULAR SITES THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BE GRANTED THIS DESIGNATION?

AND IS THE CITY DOING ENOUGH WITH REGARD TO THAT?

>> TWO THINGS, THERE'S A HOUSE AT NUMBER 857 AND IT WAS JUST AS MERITORIOUS AS BEING DESIGNATED AS THIS HOUSE AS BEING A CENTER OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT.

IT WAS BUILT BY A LEADING ABOLITIONIST NAMED DENNIS HARRIS.

HE DIDN'T LIVE THERE.

HE LIVED NEARBY, ACROSS THE STREET.

HE LOOKED DOWN ON THIS HOUSE WHICH WAS VACANT FOR TWO YEARS, THEN HE TOLD IT TO HIS PARTNER, ANOTHER PROMINENT, FERVENT ABOLITIONIST NAMED JUDGE JOHN N NEWNOUSE.

AND NEWHOUSE LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

SO THERE'S NO WAY AGAIN HE DID NOT UTILIZE THIS HOUSE SOMEHOW, SOME WAY FOR THIS NOBLE EFFORT HE WAS INVOLVED IN.

THE CITY, UNFORTUNATELY, THE MAYOR SAID RECENTLY THAT EVERY AGENCY OF THE CITY, INCLUDING THE POLICE, SUFFERED FROM SYSTEMIC RACISM AND THAT HE WANTED TO BOTH IDENTIFY AND ROOT IT OUT.

THE WAY THAT MUST BE ROOTED OUT IN TERMS OF LAND MARKING IS FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TO BE GIVEN THE SAME NUMBER OF LANDMARKS THAT EXIST IN PROSPEROUS WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE NOW.

YOU LOOK AT GREENWICH VILLAGE, TWO-THIRDS OF THE BUILDINGS PROTECTED BY LANDMARKING AND IN MANHATTAN SOMETHING LIKE 10% OF THE BUILDINGS.

>> HOPEFULLY THIS MIGHT MOVE THAT CONVERSATION ALONG.

OUR THANKS, MICHAEL HENRY ADAM, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING ON AND HELPING US UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS PROCESS.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

WE WILL HOOK UP WITH YOU AGAIN DOWN THE ROAD.

YOU BE WELL.

>> I'M SO GRATEFUL TO YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> TAKE CARE.

>>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

AND BY -- JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION.