City of Yes is bad for the outer boroughs

To the editor:

On July 10, I along with hundreds of New Yorkers testified at the marathon city planning commission public hearing on City of Yes for Housing Opportunity. There were few surprises in the insufferable 15-hour hearing. Chair Garodnick tended to fawn over speakers in favor of the proposed zoning plan, while at times belittling plan opponents. 

It was David versus Goliath. Those in suits employed by the real estate, housing, banking and related industries versus residents and civic associations from the outer boroughs. While developers praised the City of Yes PR mantra, “a little bit of housing in every neighborhood,” others decried it as, “a little bit of Manhattan in every neighborhood.” 

I spoke in opposition and used my alloted three minutes to criticize both the absence of affordable housing and the lack of a complete environmental review.  They have denied any impacts on critical categories such as land use, infrastructure, climate change and neighborhood character. 

It was a surreal experience watching the commissioners bob their heads in approval as they listened to housing advocates pontificate on the city’s housing crisis and dire need for affordable housing. Their strategy of heaping praise on City of Yes somehow managed to blind everyone to the fact that there isn’t any plan for affordable housing in its proposals. On the contrary, the plan is designed to largely promote luxury and market-rate apartment buildings where currently prohibited. The plan offers developers in R6 to R8 zones a 20 percent bonus if they voluntarily provide a small number of affordable units. This is similar to current policy.  

I was struck by common themes expressed by droves of outer-borough residents and civic leaders. They spoke passionately about their neighborhood’s character, quality-of-life impacts from overdevelopment and reduced open space, flooding and lack of infrastructure to deal with increased density. They bemoaned the loss of public review of construction projects that, under City of Yes, will be deemed “as of right.” Many noted the lack of any mandated affordable housing units, where rents would actually be in reach of the average family. 

There was overwhelming contempt for the City of Yes mandate that eliminates current off street parking requirements for new buildings. It was notable how many speakers from Manhattan, generally young, spoke in favor of this proposal. Meanwhile, speakers from the outer boroughs decried the lack of public transportation in their communities, necessitating car ownership, and described parking deserts which will worsen. Chair Garodnick disingenuously attempted to discredit such testimony by saying City of Yes does not prohibit a developer from voluntarily providing parking. Seriously?

The next step is the city planning commission will cast its vote, where it is expected to pass. Chair Garodnick reported that, thus far, out of 59 community boards citywide, 15 voted to approve City of Yes, while 35 voted to disapprove.

Bronx Community Board 8 voted to disapprove.

The commission has the ability to change or modify the 1,000 plus pages of zoning text changes based on feedback. Pray they do. 

Next, City of Yes for Housing Opportunity heads to the City Council, where negotiations will continue with city planning. The council will hold a public hearing and final vote, probably in the fall.

As constituents it’s critically important to communicate our concerns to our city councilmember and urge him or her to vote no.

Let’s give a Bronx cheer to Manhattan centric zoning.

Laura Spalter, co-chair, Broadway Community Alliance