Wednesday, June 19, 2024

No No No

 Queens Chronicle

Apples to oranges.

That is what one Community Board 13 resident called Mayor Adams’ City of Yes housing proposal versus the possible reality of the actual plan, which promises a “little bit more housing in every neighborhood,” before the board’s Land Use Committee unanimously voted no on the scheme on Monday.

The purpose of the initiative is to create 100,000 units of housing citywide for 250,000 people by allowing new apartment complexes on properties such as church parking lots and the reconstruction of office buildings, garden apartments, commercial buildings and accessory dwelling units in both commercial and residential areas to make them affordable in the future. Residents at the meeting pointed out that there is no actual language in the mayor’s plan that guarantees low-cost homes for those who need it most.

“I’m looking at the numbers associated with increasing the housing stock and reducing homelessness,” Jax Dolly, a CB 13 resident, said during the meeting, held online.

“I’m seeing that 17 percent of the population make $20,000 and below — this is in New York City — and 45 percent make $50,000 and below. When you look at the average rent across the boroughs, it ranges from $3,000 to $5,000 in average rent.”

Dolly went on to say that if 3.9 million, or 45 percent of people in the Big Apple, can’t afford to live in the city, how will upending zoning laws to house 250,000 people address the housing crisis in 15 years?

“It makes no sense,” she said. “It feels like three-card Monte here. You are going to essentially be handing a gift to developers to come and do a land grab where they can build all of these new units, but they don’t have to offer below market rate to anyone or if they initially do they can eventually put it at market rate or above at some point. So how is this going to address the housing crisis long-term?”

Scott Solomon from the Department of City Planning said it’s understandable to have healthy skepticism about 100,000 units putting a dent in the housing crisis, but there is a lack of homes, and the hope is that with more housing stock, prices would go down.

Jackie Wilson, a CB 13 member, said she does not see the benefit of the plan for people who live in Queens or within the board’s area.

 “You’re going to pile a bunch of people [together], you’re going to pile on a bunch of traffic and there’s going to be fewer resources,” Wilson said. “What’s the benefit for us?

“What’s the benefit to homeowners here?”

The idea is that housing would be more affordable because there will be more options and there can’t be more housing options without more housing production, said Solomon.

“The goal is, primarily, to facilitate incremental housing growth so that housing prices can stabilize,” Solomon said.

Wilson said that people in residential areas in Eastern Queens already have homes, so why should the character of their neighborhoods change to benefit others while her neighbors potentially lose parking spots due to the housing development mandate making parking optional wherever any new housing is created?

“There are thousands of people who do live here who are leaving often,” Solomon said. “They are leaving the city because they can’t afford it so they sell their home because they can’t afford living here anymore, or they live in the area, don’t own a home, they want to buy a home, they leave the area, the city, the region, the state.”

Queens Chronicle 


Community Board 9 voted against City of Yes for Housing Opportunity at its monthly meeting Tuesday.

Prior to the vote, during the public forum, residents expressed opposition to the mayor’s sweeping proposal to update zoning laws, citing overdevelopment concerns, quality of life and overcrowded schools. The opinions echoed those of many at a Zoom meeting held a few weeks prior, where residents living in Community District 9 largely spoke against the proposal.

The group’s Land Use and Housing Committee, led by members Sylvia Hack and Andrew Taranto, introduced a resolution against the zoning text amendment.

When the resolution was brought before the board, almost all in attendance voted in favor of the decision to not support the proposal. There were only two abstentions and no dissent.

Queens Chronicle 


Residents of Community District 10 largely do not support City of Yes for Housing Opportunity — and they’re making it clear to their community board.

At Board 10’s meeting last week, the community turned out to make its opposition heard, alongside written notice of residents’ opinions.

The Howard Beach Lindenwood Civic, led by Phyllis Inserillo and Barbara McNamara, had spread the word for weeks about the board’s June 6 meeting, where the Department of City Planning presented the mayor’s zoning text amendment that aims to loosen restrictions and address the housing crisis.

The proposal includes removing parking mandates, legalizing accessory dwelling units and more housing above businesses, adding transit-oriented development and a new Universal Affordability Preference, which would allow developers to add at least 20 percent more housing to buildings if the additional homes are affordable to households earning 60 percent of the area median income.

After the board voted “yes” with conditions to the economic portion of the City of Yes proposal, which passed the City Council last week, Inserillo, who is also the chief of staff for Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Ozone Park) but recused herself from her duties for the meeting, cautioned against a similar type of vote.

She said she had not spoken to a single person within the confines of Board 10 that supported the text amendment. She also said that at a City Council Land Use Committee meeting in April, the chair of the DCP, Dan Garodnick, said a vote of yes from the community board with conditions is still a yes — even if those conditions are not met.

“You did that the last time in the economic portion but you cannot do that again,” Inserillo said. “Our community does not even want a ‘no’ vote with conditions. This plan will be a disaster for this community and the only vote we want to hear from this board is ‘no.’”

“We say no,” said McNamara during the public forum. “We live here because we want our suburban feeling while being close enough to go into the city to enjoy our theaters, museums, restaurants, etcetera. We do not want ADUs or basement dwellers or housing above our stores on Crossbay Boulevard or many apartment buildings in old Howard.”

Both Inserillo and McNamara received loud applause from the crowd following their words.

Other residents spoke on concerns that the new zoning would leave schools overcrowded and put too much pressure on the neighborhood’s firehouse on Cross Bay Boulevard, which would have more units to tend to.

The civic later posted a photo of the meeting turnout on social media, writing, “Howard Beach is saying NO to the City of Yes at the Community Board 10 meeting. We have a packed house with standing room only and there isn’t much more room to stand.

“Together, we have collected over 2,500 signatures on letters opposing the City of Yes and we will continue to collect up until the vote. Thank you to everyone who has signed and a huge thank to all those who have collected letters. Our voices are being heard loud and clear.”



georgetheatheist said...

Happy Thanksgiving. A Pilgrim plays the guitar.

Anonymous said...

This is the "Woke" liberal democrats mantra,

1) create problems where none existed before

2) blame the other side for the problems

3) offer solutions to the problems their policies caused

4) their solutions would make the problems worse

5) dump more taxpayer money into the problems so they may benefit from it

6) blame the other side

7) repeat step 3 through step 6, doubling down

Anonymous said...

Is this all part of the plan to destroy the middle class in the quest to fundamentally change America ?

Angry Taxpayer said...

"100,000 units of housing citywide for 250,000 people by allowing new apartment complexes on properties such as church parking lots

Yea, as in un vetted illegals, rapists, killers, baby making locusts on the New York City taxpayer dole for life.
The Pope is licking his chops on this one!!

You can bet that really means 100,000 units of housing for more like 800,000 people because these illegals have like 4-6 kids each by age 30 not including when they bring the extended family (or anyone else, kids with the same last name willing to $$ pay to pretend) over the border and into that housing.
What a racket, get free housing PLUS collect a rent because YOU KNOW nothing will be verified or enforced.
The schools will never handle it, they cant now!
Is the DOE to put classroom tents and trailer barracks on the roofs, streets and parks?
The city has to at least end this sanctuary bullshit first and citizens get Joe Bidon, Adams and Chuck Schumer out of office, mass deportations enacted by simply enforcing immigration laws already on the books.
---and good luck with that because every college kid, millennial voter has been brainwashed by TV and the school system.
Its the only way this city has a chance to stand a chance to survive.
What pieces of sh*t these democrats are to force this epic disaster experiment on us.
Gotta get the hell out of New York, because I'm not paying for this, I'm sick and tired of hearing Spanish, street thugs on e-bikes who are allowed to carry guns (wile I am banned to carry for life or death self defense)
Now add all the democrat stupid donkeys & sheep!!

Angry Taxpayer

Anonymous said...

Is there any CB (Outside the rarified atmosphere of Manhattan) which actually favors the city of yes proposal? I'll understand if someone brings up CB2Q which is comprised almost completely of dweebs from somewhere else west of here.

Anonymous said...

@“ Is this all part of the plan to destroy the middle class ”

No. Ronnie Reagan started that in the 80s

Anonymous said...

@"This is the "Woke" liberal democrats mantra, "

You really need help, he/she/it QAnon Drone.
By the way, what's your preferred pronoun?

Anonymous said...

I bet the QAnon drone still thinks that Deep Purple are new fangled woke rockers.

Anonymous said...

This could easily be solved by blocking corporations from buying up all housing stock.
Nobody should own more than a few housing units.

Anonymous said...

Aww someone is triggered by the truth.

Anonymous said...

Should Democrat voters be required to pay reparations to rational people ?

Anonymous said...

@"Should Democrat voters be required to pay reparations to rational people ?"

I presume you think that the QAnon drone is a "rational person".

Anonymous said...

People are waking up!