Why I voted against ZQA

I support community-based zoning.

Community-based zoning is a process where city officials and community stakeholders work together to create zoning that reflects the character of a community.

Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) is not community-based zoning; it is a top-down, one-size-fits-all, citywide zoning. Community-based zoning would best serve our growing City, a melting pot of diverse neighborhoods, not just culturally, but residentially, commercially and geographically. What is good for one neighborhood may not be good for all. It is local residents who know their neighborhood best and community members should lead the way on the zoning of their district.

Packaged together, the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and ZQA proposals comprise over 500 pages of highly technical zoning text, which community volunteers were asked to review in expert detail, in a short amount of time. These proposals should have been divided into separate, distinct proposals, with individual timelines to allow for a comprehensive community review.

As applied to the 11th Council District, ZQA undermines the 197-a zoning plan created and adopted 10 years ago by Community Board 8. It was due to my advocacy and the advocacy of community residents that the City Planning Commission amended the critical component of Continuing Care Retirement Communities in R-1/R-2 zones. The issue of long-term care facilities being permitted as-of-right on 10-acre lots was remedied and now requires application through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).

Additionally, through my advocacy, the transit zone north of Broadway and West 242nd Street was altered to reflect the substantial need for parking. Although these changes are positive developments, based on this top-down approach, I cannot support ZQA.

I do, however, support MIH. This proposal will potentially create greater permanent affordable housing in specifically designated areas. The changes the Council implemented, gaining deeper levels of affordability, including the new fourth option at 40 percent average median income, are significant improvements. Beyond the specifics of MIH, I support this proposal, as opposed to ZQA, because the provisions of MIH can be triggered only through ULURP, which is community-based zoning.

Furthermore, the Council successfully reined in the authority of the Board of Standards and Appeals, thereby allowing for more oversight than was included in the original proposal.

As your Council Member, I have been thoroughly engaged and represented your interests at City Hall throughout this process. For over a year now, my office has had an open-door policy; many of you seized this opportunity to sit with me one-on-one to discuss the proposals. I have reiterated these concerns tirelessly to my colleagues at the Council.

The Council held its own two-day hearing in February. In these sessions, for over 20 hours, I listened and questioned both the Administration and those of you (and your fellow New Yorkers) who came to provide testimony. I have even spoken with Mayor Bill de Blasio directly about his plans and our community.

While my opposition was well known, by the time you read this both the MIH and ZQA proposals are likely to have passed, subject to Council changes. Despite this I remain steadfast in representing your interests. My job as your Council Member is to listen to your concerns and represent you in City government. I stated months ago that ZQA was not appropriate for our community and that remains true today.

Andrew Cohen is the councilman for the 11th district, which includes Kingsbridge, Riverdale, Van Cortlandt Village, Bedford Park, Norwood, Wakefield, and Woodlawn.