City Limits
‘Upon close examination, the speaker’s proposal falls short and
leaves the door wide open for the continuation of City Planning’s
top-down, developer-driven rezonings by offering them a new shroud of
legitimacy: a comprehensive plan engineered by city officials that
fast-tracks rezonings.’
I was pleasantly surprised by the bold new call for comprehensive planning emanating
from the New York City Council. “Planning Together: A New Comprehensive
Planning Framework for New York City” was issued by City Council
Speaker Corey Johnson in December 2020. It is a long overdue and bold
proposal that deserves close attention from community activists and
critics of the Department of City Planning’s zoning policies and their
role in the displacement of low-income communities of color.
However, upon close examination, the speaker’s proposal falls short
and leaves the door wide open for the continuation of City Planning’s
top-down, developer-driven rezonings by offering them a new shroud of
legitimacy: a comprehensive plan engineered by city officials that
fast-tracks rezonings. Both the plan and the planning process would
continue to be controlled from the top, where lobbies with outsized
influence rule. Community involvement would continue to center around
weak, underfunded and often unrepresentative community boards. There are
no guard rails to protect against the city’s shallow community
participation games, disconnected from decision-making. Community boards
remain understaffed, underfunded and underrepresented, and members
continue to be appointees of the powerbrokers sitting in the offices of
the borough presidents.
Planning should be an on-going process at the neighborhood, city and
regional levels. The goal should be transformative planning—dedicated to
socio-economic equality and environmental justice while also being
comprehensive. It should guarantee the participation and enfranchisement
of historically excluded populations, not merely as endorsers but as
central participants. As communities of color and immigrant
communities—the majority of our population—continue to face wide
environmental, public health and economic disparities, transformative
planning must seek to change the balance of political power from real
estate to real democracy, from Wall Street to Main Street, and from a
City Hall overcharged with lobbyists to people power. For comprehensive
planning to be truly democratic and equitable it must be an ongoing
process led by a diverse assembly of those who live and work in the
city, and not a technocratic elite under mayoral control.
I have often pointed out how New York City is the only major city in
the country that has never had a comprehensive long-range planning
strategy. Instead it has relied on zoning, a piecemeal and patchwork
system for regulating the use of land that too often serves the
interests of developers. As the threats of climate change, sea level
rise, and pollution intensify, and the city confronts huge challenges to
reduce energy use and waste, it is now more urgent than ever that
government at all levels break with business as usual and engage all New
Yorkers in the search for deep transformations in the ways we live,
work and play. Comprehensive planning could be the means for undoing and
replacing antiquated and unsustainable environmental policies.
A decade ago City Limits recognized the significance of comprehensive planning in its special issue, Five Boroughs, One City, No Plan.
However, subsequent efforts to put comprehensive planning on the agenda
have been blocked by City Hall. In the most recent Charter Revision
hearings, the chair of the City Planning Commission openly ridiculed
planning. The City Planning Department has long nurtured the myth that
its nearly inscrutable and overly complicated Zoning Resolution is a
reasonable alternative to planning. In reality, zoning encourages the
city’s decision makers to look only at individual proposed projects in
limited areas.
The strongest calls for comprehensive planning come from community
activists, not planning professionals. Starting in 1977, following
community demands for a greater say in planning decisions, the city’s
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) gave 59 community boards an
advisory role by allowing them to review zoning changes. Communities
developed their own plans and in 1989, civil rights, environmental
justice and housing advocates won changes to the city’s Charter allowing
for the approval of community plans. Fulfilling its self-fulfilling
prophecy that planning is just a fruitless exercise, the city’s
political leadership has created one-shot “plans”—really flashy
reports—that mostly end up on the proverbial shelf.
While the new City Council proposal calls for an “ongoing
participatory planning process” to help plan for our infrastructure,
“participation” by itself is no guarantee of democracy. We’ve had enough
of DCP’s “participation games” and tightly engineered ULURP public
hearings. The council proposal foresees the development of “scenarios”
for every neighborhood in the city, but allows community votes to remain
only “advisory,” a term meaning they will not count.
The most unfortunate part of the City Council proposal is its utter
failure to break with DCP’s fixation on growth in real estate
development as the driver of planning. Even when it calls for “equitable
growth,” the implication is that equity will occur only when there is
growth. To understand what is wrong with this philosophy we only need to
look at the results from two decades of both voluntary and mandatory
inclusionary zoning, when the number of people without homes
skyrocketed, public housing deteriorated, and “affordable housing”
became unaffordable.