As DNAinfo reports, CB3's Land Use, Zoning, Public and Private Housing Committee drafted two resolutions against the city's Zoning for Quality and Affordability and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing amendments last night.
You can read Lisha Arino'a full report at DNAinfo here.
CB3 will formally take a position on the proposed text amendments on Tuesday night (6:30) at its full board meeting at P.S. 20 Anna Silver School, 166 Essex St.
The Post reported that, as of Monday, at least 22 of the city’s 59 community boards have voted against de Blasio's affordable-housing zoning plan.
Here's a summation of the plans via Capital New York:
The first of the two proposals would require that developers who build in an area rezoned by the city reserve 25 or 30 percent of their apartments in any given project for below-market rents. The second would allow an additional five feet be added to buildings in certain areas (as long as that extra height does not create a penthouse), would limit required parking for affordable housing in some places, and enable parking lots attached to affordable senior housing developments to be torn down to make way for more residential units (based on the notion that senior citizens are less likely to drive).
When asked for reaction about the Community Board opposition this week, de Blasio said, as reported by Capital New York:
"I am never surprised when a community board raises concerns and particularly local concerns. But we're going to keep moving full speed ahead to make these reforms, because we must create a vast amount of more affordable housing. We must preserve a huge amount affordable housing or else people will not be able to live in this city. It's as simple as that."
The plan requires advisory input from Community Boards and borough presidents as well as approval from the City Council.
So basically his message is, screw what the community boards, neighborhoods and people who will actually be impacted by this plan want, I need street cred for my future presidential run, so I'll see that it's railroaded through regardless. Nice.
What are the reasons and points of opposition?
He's destroying the city's best schools by allowing barely qualified students entrance. He destroyed morale on the police force by siding with the rabble. Now he wants to destroy neighborhoods by allowing a hog-pog of laws that will permit the real estate industry to destroy most of the hoods of the city except where the rich live. Thank God we only have 2 more years of this misguided man.
Good intentions pave to way to hell. From what I have read this plan would neuter all many hard fought landmarked blocks and open up places like the EV up to even more City sanctioned vampier developer's many of which take the "I'll build it against the laws then let the city try to sue me" approach. Look how long it has taken for the city to get Shaoul to take down that penthouse in the neighborhood. Let's not forge the surprise 2 additional floors on Ave A near 6th Street. This will become even more common, the city will just be spending money suing these developers. The Mayor is trying to undo 12 years of a billionaire's unraveling of our city's neighborhoods and give it back to the people that actually work and live here 365 compared to the jet set which use their apartments perhaps 2 weeks per year.
^^ Who are these "barely qualified students"? Our schools exist to serve all students.
And I hate to be a grammar nun, but it's hodge-podge.
de blasio on what he thinks is his path to the white house.
god help us all.
So now the haters on EV Grieve are against affordable housing? I'm starting (not really, I've known for a long time) most of you haters hate everything. You're just like one of my coworkers who I play games on all the time just to prove she's just a hater: no matter what position I take on anything, she hates it.
You folks are clearly just miserable. You must be horrible to be around in person.
I was at the meeting -- there were a variety of objections, from too much extra building height to the affordable housing not being affordable enough to the lack of analysis underpinning some of the proposals. A lot of it boiled down to the fact that City-wide blanket changes did not respect the long-negotiated zoning changes already implemented here, nor did they fit the "facts on the ground" here. And some lack of trust in the Dept. of City Planning and administration.
"Barely qualified students" are those that don't meet the academic standards of the school but are accepted into the school for other than academic reasons.
There would be affordable housing if the city got rid of the antiquated rent control and rent stabilization laws. While the people that live in these places love them, they are not the intended beneficiaries as those are mostly dead. What this has done was keep about 1 million apartments off the free market which would actually lower the rents across the board if they were free market.
Saying no one would be able to afford to live in the city is about as dumb a statement one can make and shows why socialists on't understand the free market. If people couldn't afford the rents they are paying they would all start going down as landlords would lower prices according to demand. Granted the city does not want that because then they can't hike property taxes, water and sewer taxes every 15 minutes. Guess where all those hikes get reflected? Yup, the rent.
Okay, so sounds like the gist of it is CB3 feels this plan doesn't go far enough. As I understand it, most of the objections elsewhere have been around concerns about lost parking space (!).
Hey, he's trying to do *something*, albeit with a very limited set of tools. He can't strengthen tenant protections without Albany's say-so, and Albany ain't going there under our closet Republican governor and the Republican state senate majority he's helped to preserve.
And no, libertarian mush-for-brains, ending rent controls will not magically create affordability by unleashing the market fairy. There's just not much housing stock under rent control anymore, and demand would still far exceed supply, so owners would charge "market" rates unaffordable to most and happily let units sit vacant for a month or three until some rich kid from Connecticut or Qatar gets daddy to spring for his or her $4,000-a-month rent.
"There would be affordable housing if the city got rid of the antiquated rent control and rent stabilization laws. While the people that live in these places love them, they are not the intended beneficiaries as those are mostly dead. "
So the middle working class is dead?
"What this has done was keep about 1 million apartments off the free market which would actually lower the rents across the board if they were free market."
What this would do is force 1 million families out of New York City which in many cases is their home for decades. It would also allow landlords to rent those apartments to the constant influx of wealthy college students, young urban professionals all of which would move out in 1 - 2 years for better apartments and leaving behind a destabilized neighborhood with no long term residence. Activism would be dead, community boards would be useless and wealthy landlords and developers would act unopposed by the now transient renters.
@ 1:07 -- same old story. Once those protections are gone, ALL of those people will be forced out. Their rents will not be proportional to their incomes, especially for seniors. Yes, seniors: invisible to you, perhaps, but still living here.
And to the person who said EVG readers are against affordable housing? It's a matter of scale.
P.S. I've been around long enough to see multiple downturns here. Don't be lulled into thinking another one won't occur.
I could go on, but it's time to make more coffee.
What is wrong with these people? When are they going to learn that people need to come before money?
Enough with the "free market" argument. A real estate market manipulated by lobbyists, tax incentives and other giveaways to developers, and legal loopholes that only the wealthy can afford to exploit is not a free market.
I've also become more and more disappointed with DeBlasio. His affordable housing plan is almost a joke. There were 90,000 people competing for less than 1000 apartments at Hunters Point and there were no apartments available for anyone who made between $45-$55K a year. Like the rest of this affordable housing initiative, 80% of the building is luxury development. The developers and people who can afford to buy a $750K apartment get a big tax break. When the tax abatement expires in 15-20 years, anyone living in an "affordable" unit will be forced out, and by that time the surrounding areas,including Queens, Brooklyn and soon the Bronx will be completely unaffordable to anyone who makes less than a 6+ figure income.
Post a Comment