It's a cheap post because I already put this up on the Yahoo listserv, but it says what I was going to say. Also, Nancy's smart comments are below, and I'm referring to them when I write. (Though I'm no so sure I would take Charles Barron's words at face value. He may be inflating his efficacy in the fight to build affordable housing in his district):
(As written to the 1,000 comments written before it on the Lefferts Listserv)
Thanks for the solid thoughts on the issue. None of your evenness of tone was on display tonight at the ULURP meeting. It was the same horrorshow it's been for some time. Cumbo and Boyd nearly brawled. I'm not kidding - it could have come to blows. She baits, and baits, and baits...patient as a fisherman. Then when she hooks you in the lip, she pulls tight and won't let go.
"Unaffordable" is the catchword. Market rate is now, in Brooklyn, unaffordable. We are officially the least affordable City in America (were we our own) because median cost of housing is so many multiples of median income.
So...if I read Nancy's analysis right, we shouldn't be building ANY market rate apartments. They'll all be unaffordable, so what's the point? Well, for one, so say the perfessers, the "laws" of economics suggest downward pressure on market rate prices if you build enough. This is likely to happen, oh, in the next downturn, but not until. Which could be sooner; could be later. Whenever people start imagining a world where prices keep going up indefinitely, there's usually a correction. That's been true my whole life. Now, if you OWN you're probably set for the long haul. And ironically, most of the people I talk to in this debate OWN. Because if you don't, you get pushed out of the neighborhood eventually because your income doesn't keep pace with rents. If you're new, you're not here long enough to get settled and involved! If you're old, well, the City's got a lottery system. About a 1 in a hundred chance at this point, and apparently people are turning on the City for trying to up folks chances.
Tonight, Pearl Miles and I commiserated. We see the writing on the wall. The power of Alicia Boyd and her scare campaign is just too strong. She has gotten normally reasonable people screaming at the Community Board for disrespecting them, when the Board itself gets no respect, even when it TRIES to do the right thing. Look, the CB is made up of neighbors - volunteers, mostly just there to listen and take notes and parse the issues. It's phenomenal the hate that gets thrown at them. I guess people just want a punching bag for their frustration. And this particular punching bag, CB9, is pretty depressing - so deflated it hardly bounces when you try to dribble.
It's over folks. Plain and simple. It's clear that consensus is not on the horizon. City Planning will walk away from this one. HOWEVER, Alicia so got Laurie's goat tonight that I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see Laurie Cumbo put ULURP in motion herself - she actually threatened to do so, and I found myself joyous at the thought. We will, of course, have very little say. But I like Laurie. She'll probably handle it better than we could anyway. Then she'll have to answer to her constituency at her next election. But let's face it (don't I know it) it's REALLY hard to knock out an incumbent.
Laurie, go for it. The silent majority has your back. But don't take the bait. Just ignore Alicia and do what Ben Edwards should have done last night. Throw her out if she can't settle down. I've seen it done all the time. Why can't we follow through on our threats? Hasn't anybody been a parent of a toddler before???
People seem to forget that doing this through the Community Board is the only chance we have of having ANY say in the process. Look at East New York. That plan was designed top down. When I was talking with Winston from Planning it was very clear we were going to be able to help design a plan, as long as it met certain goals. Most of those goals were pretty reasonable too, given the City's current growth projections. C'mon guys, you want to help make choices or have them made for you? What a lot of hubris. But nobody seems to want to be reasonable right now. Anxiety is too high, tensions are too high. Reasonable doesn't sell. I know it's nice to imagine a calm and rational consensus emerging (Alan Berger I'm talking to you!) But I'm really close to the fire and I'll tell you in all my years on the planet I've never seen more chaos and dysfunction. There's not even a "consensus" position in any of it. Some folks want to firebomb the whole thing, burn down the house, not let the conversation start. And it's not fun. It's really just not fun at all. Even Kenya Sollas, god bless her, couldn't reassure me with her impassioned speech at the end of the night. (She's got a future that one, though, I'll tell you. Though I wish she would state what she wants. Seems she's playing all sides right now, and it's hard for me to imagine she hasn't formed an opinion yet.)
CB9 will remain in chaos til we get new leadership. It might be a year or two before it gets up and running again. In the meantime, maybe MTOPP will follow through on its threat of a study. Maybe Alicia will break her jaw while working on her garden and be unable to speak for a few months. I suspect this whole "Hunter College" study idea is hot air though, a gimmick. And I GUARANTEE even if their study comes gift-wrapped in bon-bons, Planning won't give Alicia anything at all. They'll shut that study down as fast as you can say kiss my bureaucratic booty.
Jessica and Nancy and others are right to be cynical of the City's goals in all this. But it's the only game in town. And sometimes (don't shoot me) they get it right. Now, as Laurie warned tonight, just watch and see what happens when you don't play ball with them. They will rezone as needed, and it won't be what you or I or anyone else wants and we will be relegated to voting on someone else's plans. We might say no, but that won't mean much.
You know, the City isn't in the business of building affordable housing for working people anymore - maybe someone can convince them too? They spend their clout convincing developers to build it for them. The City IS building some housing for the least able to fend for themselves - through CAMBA-style non-profits and with special grants and tax breaks - it's like outsourcing the building of Projects. Lots of units are coming online if you suffer from various conditions and circumstances. That's the bright side in the current system. Seriously it is. You can't just turn your backs on the most vulnerable. Then you'd be Texas.
I'm through. Seriously, it's just a waste of time at this point. And mark my words, zoning is not going to solve gentrification if that's your issue, which seems to be the cause of all the race-baiting. Two dozen new market rate projects are already happening in the area with exactly ZERO affordable units. The war is on to evict rent stabilized tenants, and the tenants are being routed. The neighborhood becomes wealthier and whiter every day. If you take issue with that, I'm sorry, but you're not going to be able to stem the tide. I think it's time that all we homeowners woke up to the fact that the soul of the neighborhood is disappearing and a new normal is emerging; we can watch it happen like spectator sport or get involved. And a lot of us white homeowners need to face facts. We just made a ton of money off the bet to live in a predominantly black neighborhood that hadn't "popped" yet. Feeling guilty? I do, though I ain't moving. 12 years is long enough to lay down roots, and I love it here. Still...
So for those who don't have time to make meetings or to volunteer (Tara - great ideas. Who exactly is going to do all those things you request? Video, online chats, outreach, surveys. There's no money for it, and I don't see anyone clamoring to do the work. Maybe you can do the surveys at least? I'll lend you some clipboards), there is a process to follow if you want to plan for the future. That process is broken. And it's a bloody shame.
Though you haven't asked, I'll give you my analysis in a nutshell. You can always count on me for an honest prediction:
1. There will be no study through the Community Board
2. MTOPP will declare victory and try to "lead" the community. No one will follow.
3. The City and Cumbo/Adams/Eugene etc will go case by case - spot rezoning buildings and projects they like; or if they really feel like sticking it to Alicia, they'll be the applicants for a rezoning.
4. The gutting of the neighborhood's character and people will continue, though it will start to feel normal and most folks won't care.
5. I'll have to find something else to write about on my blog - new businesses, art shows, the weather, business closings, new ugly buildings, the ineptitude of our councilperson. Oh wait, I already write about those things. Well, more of that then.
G'night y'all. Another evening wasted. Glad to be home with my family, who've put up with a lot of dad going to pointless meetings. Oh, and I got called racist three more times. And the KKK lady said she's sure she saw my face at a rally. To which I must ask: what was she doing at a KKK rally anyway? Good times!
tim
(As written to the 1,000 comments written before it on the Lefferts Listserv)
Thanks for the solid thoughts on the issue. None of your evenness of tone was on display tonight at the ULURP meeting. It was the same horrorshow it's been for some time. Cumbo and Boyd nearly brawled. I'm not kidding - it could have come to blows. She baits, and baits, and baits...patient as a fisherman. Then when she hooks you in the lip, she pulls tight and won't let go.
"Unaffordable" is the catchword. Market rate is now, in Brooklyn, unaffordable. We are officially the least affordable City in America (were we our own) because median cost of housing is so many multiples of median income.
So...if I read Nancy's analysis right, we shouldn't be building ANY market rate apartments. They'll all be unaffordable, so what's the point? Well, for one, so say the perfessers, the "laws" of economics suggest downward pressure on market rate prices if you build enough. This is likely to happen, oh, in the next downturn, but not until. Which could be sooner; could be later. Whenever people start imagining a world where prices keep going up indefinitely, there's usually a correction. That's been true my whole life. Now, if you OWN you're probably set for the long haul. And ironically, most of the people I talk to in this debate OWN. Because if you don't, you get pushed out of the neighborhood eventually because your income doesn't keep pace with rents. If you're new, you're not here long enough to get settled and involved! If you're old, well, the City's got a lottery system. About a 1 in a hundred chance at this point, and apparently people are turning on the City for trying to up folks chances.
Tonight, Pearl Miles and I commiserated. We see the writing on the wall. The power of Alicia Boyd and her scare campaign is just too strong. She has gotten normally reasonable people screaming at the Community Board for disrespecting them, when the Board itself gets no respect, even when it TRIES to do the right thing. Look, the CB is made up of neighbors - volunteers, mostly just there to listen and take notes and parse the issues. It's phenomenal the hate that gets thrown at them. I guess people just want a punching bag for their frustration. And this particular punching bag, CB9, is pretty depressing - so deflated it hardly bounces when you try to dribble.
It's over folks. Plain and simple. It's clear that consensus is not on the horizon. City Planning will walk away from this one. HOWEVER, Alicia so got Laurie's goat tonight that I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see Laurie Cumbo put ULURP in motion herself - she actually threatened to do so, and I found myself joyous at the thought. We will, of course, have very little say. But I like Laurie. She'll probably handle it better than we could anyway. Then she'll have to answer to her constituency at her next election. But let's face it (don't I know it) it's REALLY hard to knock out an incumbent.
Laurie, go for it. The silent majority has your back. But don't take the bait. Just ignore Alicia and do what Ben Edwards should have done last night. Throw her out if she can't settle down. I've seen it done all the time. Why can't we follow through on our threats? Hasn't anybody been a parent of a toddler before???
People seem to forget that doing this through the Community Board is the only chance we have of having ANY say in the process. Look at East New York. That plan was designed top down. When I was talking with Winston from Planning it was very clear we were going to be able to help design a plan, as long as it met certain goals. Most of those goals were pretty reasonable too, given the City's current growth projections. C'mon guys, you want to help make choices or have them made for you? What a lot of hubris. But nobody seems to want to be reasonable right now. Anxiety is too high, tensions are too high. Reasonable doesn't sell. I know it's nice to imagine a calm and rational consensus emerging (Alan Berger I'm talking to you!) But I'm really close to the fire and I'll tell you in all my years on the planet I've never seen more chaos and dysfunction. There's not even a "consensus" position in any of it. Some folks want to firebomb the whole thing, burn down the house, not let the conversation start. And it's not fun. It's really just not fun at all. Even Kenya Sollas, god bless her, couldn't reassure me with her impassioned speech at the end of the night. (She's got a future that one, though, I'll tell you. Though I wish she would state what she wants. Seems she's playing all sides right now, and it's hard for me to imagine she hasn't formed an opinion yet.)
CB9 will remain in chaos til we get new leadership. It might be a year or two before it gets up and running again. In the meantime, maybe MTOPP will follow through on its threat of a study. Maybe Alicia will break her jaw while working on her garden and be unable to speak for a few months. I suspect this whole "Hunter College" study idea is hot air though, a gimmick. And I GUARANTEE even if their study comes gift-wrapped in bon-bons, Planning won't give Alicia anything at all. They'll shut that study down as fast as you can say kiss my bureaucratic booty.
Jessica and Nancy and others are right to be cynical of the City's goals in all this. But it's the only game in town. And sometimes (don't shoot me) they get it right. Now, as Laurie warned tonight, just watch and see what happens when you don't play ball with them. They will rezone as needed, and it won't be what you or I or anyone else wants and we will be relegated to voting on someone else's plans. We might say no, but that won't mean much.
You know, the City isn't in the business of building affordable housing for working people anymore - maybe someone can convince them too? They spend their clout convincing developers to build it for them. The City IS building some housing for the least able to fend for themselves - through CAMBA-style non-profits and with special grants and tax breaks - it's like outsourcing the building of Projects. Lots of units are coming online if you suffer from various conditions and circumstances. That's the bright side in the current system. Seriously it is. You can't just turn your backs on the most vulnerable. Then you'd be Texas.
I'm through. Seriously, it's just a waste of time at this point. And mark my words, zoning is not going to solve gentrification if that's your issue, which seems to be the cause of all the race-baiting. Two dozen new market rate projects are already happening in the area with exactly ZERO affordable units. The war is on to evict rent stabilized tenants, and the tenants are being routed. The neighborhood becomes wealthier and whiter every day. If you take issue with that, I'm sorry, but you're not going to be able to stem the tide. I think it's time that all we homeowners woke up to the fact that the soul of the neighborhood is disappearing and a new normal is emerging; we can watch it happen like spectator sport or get involved. And a lot of us white homeowners need to face facts. We just made a ton of money off the bet to live in a predominantly black neighborhood that hadn't "popped" yet. Feeling guilty? I do, though I ain't moving. 12 years is long enough to lay down roots, and I love it here. Still...
So for those who don't have time to make meetings or to volunteer (Tara - great ideas. Who exactly is going to do all those things you request? Video, online chats, outreach, surveys. There's no money for it, and I don't see anyone clamoring to do the work. Maybe you can do the surveys at least? I'll lend you some clipboards), there is a process to follow if you want to plan for the future. That process is broken. And it's a bloody shame.
Though you haven't asked, I'll give you my analysis in a nutshell. You can always count on me for an honest prediction:
1. There will be no study through the Community Board
2. MTOPP will declare victory and try to "lead" the community. No one will follow.
3. The City and Cumbo/Adams/Eugene etc will go case by case - spot rezoning buildings and projects they like; or if they really feel like sticking it to Alicia, they'll be the applicants for a rezoning.
4. The gutting of the neighborhood's character and people will continue, though it will start to feel normal and most folks won't care.
5. I'll have to find something else to write about on my blog - new businesses, art shows, the weather, business closings, new ugly buildings, the ineptitude of our councilperson. Oh wait, I already write about those things. Well, more of that then.
G'night y'all. Another evening wasted. Glad to be home with my family, who've put up with a lot of dad going to pointless meetings. Oh, and I got called racist three more times. And the KKK lady said she's sure she saw my face at a rally. To which I must ask: what was she doing at a KKK rally anyway? Good times!
tim
From Nancy H. at PPEN:
When I first got involved with neighbors and helped to form PPEN a year and a half ago, we were focused on 626 Flatbush. We hoped to get Hudson Companies to build out instead of up so that we wouldn't end up with a luxury high rise in the middle of our affordable low-rise community. (They could have built the same amount of apartments if they had stayed low and used the whole lot instead of opting for a skinnier taller building.) We were told by the developer that 626 had to go high because the the great views of the Park would give the building its best profits (and by the way there will be profits for Hudson Companies!), but, not to worry: 20% of the units would be affordable!
As the months went by, we became more and more educated about this question of affordable housing.
David Kramer, the head of Hudson Companies, likes to think of himself as someone who is deeply concerned about affordable housing. 626 Flatbush is, for him, a case in point: 20% of the units will be "affordable." But, as my husband likes to say, that means 80% of the units are....well...unaffordable (also known as market rate). With 254 apartments slated to be built at 626, that means the neighborhood (and the de Blasio administration) will get 51 affordable apartments. The Mayor will be adding that to the "affordable" housing tally he is keeping. But what about the other 203 "unaffordable" apartments? Right now our neighborhood has one of the highest percentages of rent stabilized apartments in the city. But as more market rate apartments are built, there is an upward pressure on the rents at nearby apartment buildings and the end result is that we will lose more affordable housing than the 51 units we gain.
In short, we at PPEN came to the conclusion that building 80% market rate/ 20% affordable is a Trojan horse for gentrification. This is the problem that the article in the New York Times is getting at.
The reason that PPEN has suggested to CB9 that the area to be rezoned have a rather restricted height limit is to make sure that developers of outsized projects have to ask for a variance to build higher than the height limit. To build beyond the height restriction, they would need to consult with the Community Board and the area's City Council Member. This gives the community more power and a chance, going forward, to ask for more of what it needs including a higher ratio of affordable housing or other amenities than we could get out of 626 which didn't need a variance to be built.
Former Council Member Charles Baron explains that when developers came to him because they needed a variance to build in his district, he was able to get them to build much higher ratios of affordable housing (sometimes even getting all-affordable buildings) and to give the community other benefits as well. Developers often cried poor at the beginning, but, he said, in the end they still wanted to build and so the community was able to get much more of what it wanted and needed out of the project.
By the way, on the topic of tone, I agree with Duane and others who have called for more neighborly conversation and sharing of information and ideas. I'm going to aspire to the "We are Neighbors not Sheep!" approach. When the atmosphere gets too caustic, it silences those who might have a good question or idea and would like to speak up but feel intimidated. It also limits the depth of the conversation because everyone is focused on the personality fight rather than on the issues and their possible solutions.
When I first got involved with neighbors and helped to form PPEN a year and a half ago, we were focused on 626 Flatbush. We hoped to get Hudson Companies to build out instead of up so that we wouldn't end up with a luxury high rise in the middle of our affordable low-rise community. (They could have built the same amount of apartments if they had stayed low and used the whole lot instead of opting for a skinnier taller building.) We were told by the developer that 626 had to go high because the the great views of the Park would give the building its best profits (and by the way there will be profits for Hudson Companies!), but, not to worry: 20% of the units would be affordable!
As the months went by, we became more and more educated about this question of affordable housing.
David Kramer, the head of Hudson Companies, likes to think of himself as someone who is deeply concerned about affordable housing. 626 Flatbush is, for him, a case in point: 20% of the units will be "affordable." But, as my husband likes to say, that means 80% of the units are....well...unaffordable (also known as market rate). With 254 apartments slated to be built at 626, that means the neighborhood (and the de Blasio administration) will get 51 affordable apartments. The Mayor will be adding that to the "affordable" housing tally he is keeping. But what about the other 203 "unaffordable" apartments? Right now our neighborhood has one of the highest percentages of rent stabilized apartments in the city. But as more market rate apartments are built, there is an upward pressure on the rents at nearby apartment buildings and the end result is that we will lose more affordable housing than the 51 units we gain.
In short, we at PPEN came to the conclusion that building 80% market rate/ 20% affordable is a Trojan horse for gentrification. This is the problem that the article in the New York Times is getting at.
The reason that PPEN has suggested to CB9 that the area to be rezoned have a rather restricted height limit is to make sure that developers of outsized projects have to ask for a variance to build higher than the height limit. To build beyond the height restriction, they would need to consult with the Community Board and the area's City Council Member. This gives the community more power and a chance, going forward, to ask for more of what it needs including a higher ratio of affordable housing or other amenities than we could get out of 626 which didn't need a variance to be built.
Former Council Member Charles Baron explains that when developers came to him because they needed a variance to build in his district, he was able to get them to build much higher ratios of affordable housing (sometimes even getting all-affordable buildings) and to give the community other benefits as well. Developers often cried poor at the beginning, but, he said, in the end they still wanted to build and so the community was able to get much more of what it wanted and needed out of the project.
By the way, on the topic of tone, I agree with Duane and others who have called for more neighborly conversation and sharing of information and ideas. I'm going to aspire to the "We are Neighbors not Sheep!" approach. When the atmosphere gets too caustic, it silences those who might have a good question or idea and would like to speak up but feel intimidated. It also limits the depth of the conversation because everyone is focused on the personality fight rather than on the issues and their possible solutions.
Best,
Nancy