Press Conference on Tuesday, March 16th at noon, near City Hall.

Press Conference to save our single family zoning in NYC.

If that doesn't stop bill, Rally will be next.

Testimony worth reading, from a NYC Civic Organization

Introduction 2186-2020 is a far-reaching, complicated piece of legislation that could have profound effects on the city. It is not a task to be taken hastily and without a significant amount of deliberation and public review. It is certainly not legislation which should be enacted by a lame-duck legislature and Mayor.
� Under this legislation, when a rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive goals of the Final Plan, it can be approved without using the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. It would allow a developer to proceed with construction without much further review. The rezoning could be fast-tracked with a minimal Environmental Impact Study. It also could result in spot zoning. It will significantly reduce public participation.
� Determining future capital and infrastructure needs under long-term planning is reasonable for major work such as sewers, water supply, and similar structural interdependent projects. Committing capital funding on a strict timetable is very problematic due to inconsistent funding. The ten years plan should be reduced in length.
� The task of developing this comprehensive plan as outlined in Int. 2186-2020 will require a significant number of new resources and no dollars have been identified. This Intro has been submitted in a time of severe fiscal crisis and population fluctuations. It is irresponsible to make long-term plans when the financial stability of the city and state have not been addressed. If enacted, funds will need to be diverted from essential services.
� Before Covid-19, we saw a decrease in the city’s population, and we have seen an exodus from the city as well as a high death rate since the arrival of Covid-19. It would be prudent to determine what our population status is before a bill of this nature is considered. A delay would also provide time to get the final 2020 Census figures.
� The position of Director of Long-Term Planning has been given very extensive authority and power with significantly excessive discretion. The amount of redistribution of responsibilities raises questions about whether such changes can be made legislatively. The Intro creates significant changes to the City Charter without a referendum.
With a mandate to reach a certain quota of housing units each decade, up-zoning may have to occur. This can potentially reduce or eliminate one-family and low-density zoning which could lead to an exodus of middle-class families to the suburbs.
� The report identified several strategic issues that could benefit from more coordinated data sharing and analysis which could be provided by various agencies.
� The report made several conclusions that are not supported by accurate or complete data. Such conclusions could have significant and lasting negative implications on communities throughout the city.
� There are misleading and irrelevant comparisons made in the report to other municipalities compared to low-density residential communities in New York City. New York City has a very low percentage of low-density zoning compared to other cities.
� There are certain incorrect assessments presented in the report regarding rezoning actions by the city in recent years showing, contrary to facts, that down zoning has benefited “white and wealthy” communities. Contrary to the report’s conclusion, the elimination of low-density zoning and parking requirements and legalization of basement, attic, and garage apartments would, in fact, disproportionately negatively affect minority communities in outlying and under-served areas of the city.
� The Intro is very much a top-down approach that is very cumbersome and bureaucratic. Its structure will discourage public participation.
� Planning Together (Int. 2186-2020) was introduced without prior consultation or notification of key stakeholders. It was advanced to a Public Hearing rapidly.
This is hardly an illustration of its namesake “Planning Together”.
� The Charter Revision Commission considered putting Comprehensive Planning on the ballot as a referendum but voted it down. Charter revision this significant
by should be approved by the voters.
�
Calls for the immediate withdrawal or defeat of Int. 2186-2020.