Reviewing the 2008 rezoning

Irrational opposition to NO711 takes me back to the EV/LES rezoning. The supporters of the rezoning were as outraged at me back then as I am towards the one person who maintains polemical objections to NO711 -- not because of his polemic, which is at least interesting, sound or not, but because he lied, then supressed the truth and followed with a string of manipulations and distortions. So I wonder if, in pushing my opposition to the rezoning, I was similarly manipulative. What I said about the rezoning back then was: 

1. The rezoning is an overall upzoning. The EIS bore me out -- 53% more development under the rezoning than under the previous zoning. (Harvey Epstein fortunately managed to mitigate the upzoning plan with an IZ application over the avenues.) 

2. The upzoning of sidestreets will turn townhouses overnight into candidates for demolition and luxury redevelopment. That was an accurate prediction.

3. Developers would often choose not to take the Inclusionary Housing bonus. Also an accurate prediction, although the jury remains out with the largest developments upcoming on Mary Help of Christians and the former theater/deli on A between 6th & 7th. 

4. The height caps were too high, which allows for air rights sales, undermining the inclusionary bonus incentive. We're seeing this at play on Norfolk Street, and there will be more. 

5. The LES downzoning would drive hotel development onto the Bowery and into Chinatown. Hotel development has gone crazy on the Bowery and in Chinatown since the rezoning, although it had already begun before 2008. Hotel development would probably have continued regardless of the rezoning, so it's hard to tell how much the rezoning increased it. 

6. If the EV rezoning is implemented, there would be little political will within CB3 to protect Chinatown and the Bowery. I think I was wrong about this. CB3 eventually came around to support the Bower Alliance of Neighbors zoning plan (although CB3 still features on its website its old Bowery study that BAN rejected), and CB3 has shown support for the Chinatown Working Group's zoning efforts despite its amibitious scope. It's taken time, but it's happening. 

7. CB3 did not push hard enough to protect the Bowery. Here I was completely wrong. The city was and is intransigent on the Bowery. When CB3 members told me this, I simply didn't believe them. I wrongly assumed that they were sacrificing the Bowery for the sake of the rest of the EV. Whether they could have tried harder is irrelevant: they saw (and I did not understand at the time) that the city wouldn't budge, so pushing would get nothing but push back and trouble. So, considering the possibilities, I now think that CB3 cannot be faulted at all for the Bowery and its lack of protection, and I was wrong to fault them then. 

(In my defense, the Task Force leadership undermined its credibility by insisting that everyone had to accept the plan immediately and without change otherwise DCP would walk away from the plan. I responded, btw, that DCP had no intention of walking out. I was right about that as well: CB3 never fully approved the plan, insisting on Harvey's and Paul's 11-points of contention to the end, and yet DCP never walked. It was DCP's plan as much as the Task Force's and DCP wanted it at least as much as the Task Force leadership wanted it.) 

8. Under the previous zoning, most development in the EV was contextual; out-of-scale development was mostly south of Houston. That was true. After NY Law School and TNC, there was a lot of redevelopment in the EV, but only two rose above seven stories, one on 12th & C and one on 13th & B, both about 9 stories, one story taller than would be allowed under the rezoning. Just about everything else capped at 6 stories. 

So was I full of manipulations, distortions and absurd arguments? I'd genuinely like the rezoning supporters to explain. I'm sure I see all this still from my own perspective, so I have to rely on them for a more complete assessment.

Chin, AAFE, development, gentrification and displacement

I posted this originally as a comment at the Villager in response to an article on Margaret Chin's council campaign. 

What troubles me most about Chin is what she's been doing to Chinatown. Despite broad Chinatown protest, Chin supported a Chinatown business improvement district (BID) which will destabilize small property owners, increasing the likelihood of the selling of Chinatown properties and redevelopment that will lead to gentrification and community displacement especially of the low-income community. 

While her association with AAFE and the First American International Bank may be well-intentioned, under city zoning the construction of affordable housing brings 80% market-rate luxury housing, raising real estate values and commercial rents. NYers saw this in Williamsburg -- the community was sold an affordable housing program that resulted in wholesale transformation of the neighborhood. The affordable housing non profits can't back off the city's Inclusionary Zoning program because affordable housing development is their mission and that's what they are funded to do. The result of collusion between upscale development and non profit affordable housing is a net loss of affordable housing, deeper gentrification and low-income community displacement. 

The close relationship created in the law between those non profits and market-rate developers has placed a destructive wedge between community and the non profits that should be protecting those communities. The fault is the city administration's, but the city's gentrification program succeeds by using those non profits. AAFE strongly supported the upzoning of Chrystie Street, Houston Street and Delancey, opening the door to upscale development for the sake of 20% affordable housing, playing the city's game rather than resisting, protesting, refusing and leveraging. 

Supporting NYU development, the demolition and redevelopment of 135 Bowery (for the First American International Bank), the Chinatown BID (promoted by that same bank again) and the SoHo BID -- intended or not, it's a constellation of development and upscaling. Chin is a good-hearted, hard-working activist, but she's been caught in a game that is headed in the wrong direction for community. That's why CSWA, a Chinatown labor organization, and a Chinatown small property owners group oppose her. That's an unusual coalition spectrum -- property owners and labor. Says a lot to me.

Wanna save the Bowery? Send this e-mail real quick

At yesterday's hearing both Council Member Gerson and Council Member Mendez extended support for the rezoning of the Bowery through a Follow Up Corrective Action (FUCA).

The City Council Subcommittee will vote on it Monday. That means we have until tomorrow morning (Friday) to get through to the City Planning Commission. Without CPC consent, it won't happen.
Please send a quick email (text below) to:

aburden@planning.nyc.gov,avella@council.nyc.ny.us,gerson@council.nyc.ny.us,rmendez@council.nyc.gov


RE: FUCA to rezone the east side of the Bowery

Dear Chair Burden:

I write to request that, in conjunction with the current East Village/ Lower East Side Rezoning, a Follow-up Corrective Action (FUCA) be initiated immediately by the City Planning Commission to extend the Special Little Italy District (SLID) from the west side of the Bowery to the east side of the Bowery.

At the November 12, 2008 Subcommittee Hearing on Zoning and Franchises, Chair Tony Avella, Council Member Alan Gerson, and Council Member Rosie Mendez all stated their support for an immediate protective rezoning of the Bowery. In addition, we have the support of Community Board 3, the Greenwich Village Society For Historic Preservation, the Historic Districts Council, the Society for the Architecture of the City, the Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, and the Coalition To Save The East Village.

Although the Bowery has always had a unique place in the history of the City of New York, in recent years we have watched large, out-of -scale development going up on the east side of the Bowery, the result of which has been the destruction of the context, historic character and diversity of the community.

The City has recognized the historic significance of the Bowery by protecting the west side of the Bowery in the Special Little Italy District, and the NOHO Historic District. The East Village/ Lower East Side Rezoning will protect the area just east of the Bowery. However, the east side of the Bowery itself has been left out of all these rezonings.

The east side of the Bowery must be rezoned today to ensure that it is in context with the rest of the community -- the Special Little Italy District, the NOHO Historic District, and East Village/ Lower East Side. If a Follow-Up Corrective Action is not initiated as part of this current East Village/ Lower East Side rezoning the historic Bowery will be replaced with a wall of towers.

CITY COUNCIL HEARING: EAST VILLAGE/LOWER EAST SIDE

This is the final public hearing for the EV/LES Rezoning Plan. Please attend and give testimony to support protection for the east side of the Bowery, which the Department of City Planning has excluded from the Rezoning Plan. This exclusion will result in large, out-of-scale development, destroying the context, historic character and diversity of the Bowery and its surrounding Lower East Side and Chinatown communities. The Bowery Alliance of Neighbors (BAN) is recommending that City Council draft a Follow-up Corrective Action (FUCA) requesting that the City Planning Commission initiate an immediate rezoning of this area or an extension of the Special Little Italy District from the west side of the Bowery to the east side of the Bowery. BAN's position statement is included below. Please arrive early and bring a copy of your testimony for the record. Your attendance is appreciated. THE BOWERY NEEDS YOUR HELP!

Date:	Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time:	9:30 AM
Location:	Council Chambers - City Hall

Zoning & Franchises Committee

Chair: Tony Avella

Brief: See Land Use Calendar Available in Room 5, City Hall

Item		Agenda Note
LU 0923-2008
	Zoning Reso., East Village/Lower East Side, Manhattan (C080397(A)ZMM)
LU 0924-2008
	Zoning Reso., East Village/Lower East Side, Manhattan (N080398(A)ZRM

BOWERY ALLIANCE OF NEIGHBORS - POSITION STATEMENT

Although the Bowery has always had a unique place in the history of the City of New York, in recent years we have watched large, out-of -scale development going up on the east side of the Bowery, the result of which has been the destruction of the context, historic character and diversity of the community.

The City has recognized the historic significance of the Bowery by protecting the west side of the Bowery in the Little Italy Special District and the NOHO Historic District. The East Village/ Lower East Side Rezoning will protect the area just east of the Bowery. However, the east side of the Bowery itself has been left out of all these rezonings. The attached map highlights the area we are concerned with, if nothing is done the result will be a wall of towers http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/evles3.shtml.

The east side of the Bowery should be rezoned to ensure that it is in context to the rest of the community - the Little Italy Special District, the NOHO Historic District, and East Village/ Lower East Side.

We respectfully request that a Follow-up Corrective Action (FUCA) be drafted by City Council requesting that the City Planning Commission initiate an immediate rezoning of this area or an extension of the Little Italy Special District from the west side of the Bowery to the east side of the Bowery.

Correction

GOLES, a tenant protection and advocacy group, is not engaged in the management of affordable housing, so they won't be beneficiaries of the rezoning's affordable housing bonuses. GOLES may, however, receive funding from the legal support fund that the Task Force has asked that the zoning package include.

GOLES provides an indispensable community service to desperate, frightened renters in danger of losing their homes. They represent one perspective on zoning:

zoning is a tool to create affordable housing.

Other grassroots organizations like Movement for Justice in El Barrio, Harlem Tenants Council and Coalition to Save the East Village hold a different perspective on zoning:

upzoning invites development, gentrification and community displacement.

The City has divided these two groups of activists with an ultimatum:

no affordable housing without an upzoning.

That's the bone of contention: which is worse, no new affordable housing or market-rate development that undermines the affordable housing that exists?

The Task Force has asked for mitigating measures against the added market-rate speculation that an upzoning brings, like anti-harassment and anti-demolition regulations, but these are not particularly effective at preserving affordable housing.

The Zoning Hearing

The hearing yesterday showed a community deeply divided. All the influential political and institutional players in Community District 3 lined up in favor of the rezoning. Opposed to the rezoning were the grassroots, especially from areas in immediate danger of luxury hotel development that the plan leaves unprotected, like the Bowery and Chinatown.

Humor was provided by those electeds, including the Borough President, who clearly didn't know the details of the rezoning but spoke in support anyway. The coordination of power was evident throughout.

More cynical was Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE), which packed the hall with a large group in orange T-shirts to shout their support -- for reasons that were unclear since the plan does not protect Chinatown.

Word has it that AAFE is in on recent meetings to plot a rezoning of Chinatown, a feeding frenzy for the developers, their fronts and shills and all the poverty pimps. No doubt AAFE will get their piece of the pie. They know where their bread is buttered.

The only disruption at the hearing occurred when an AAFE supporter in orange T-shirt stood up from the audience and tried to shout down testimony opposing the plan. In later testimony AAFE accused the plan's opponents of being disruptive. The delicate audience was not so impolite as to point out that AAFE's glass house has a broken window.

Perhaps the most significant testimony of the day came from a Judson Memorial chaplain who denounced City Planning's zoning study for failing to address adequately or at all the impact of the rezoning on the communities of the Lower East Side. That zoning study (the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) is the legal basis of the rezoning action. It presents the statistics but ignores or downplays the impacts. Both the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) and Hunter College presented preliminary studies that give a much deeper and clearer picture of the impact of the rezoning.

In the street outside the hall, a large crowd from the Coalition to Protect Chinatown/Lower East Side protested City Planning's refusal to provide any zoning protection to the low-income neighborhoods surrounding the zoning area. Downtown councilmember Gerson addressed them saying he opposes the plan. But his testimony indoors was identical to most of the supporters of the plan: he will support it if the percent of affordable housing is increased. He also asked for protection for Chinatown and the Bowery, but he didn't condition his support for the current plan on it, so it was a feckless, toothless demand, no more teeth than a toad.

The plan provides height caps on new buildings throughout the zoning area but brings a projected 53.9% increase in development (height caps don't limit the quantity of development, they merely redistribute it among more buildings). Only 10% of the total development will be affordable housing.

The plan also ends the community facility bonus which was used to build above current FAR. If there were big money in dormitories and hospitals, the EV would be sprouting huge facilities everywhere, just as the Bowery and south of Houston are growing huge hotels. But there's no money in such facilities, which is why at most we see an occasional doctor's office used to boost FAR a couple of stories. The last dorm built in the residential EV was built with the intent to convert to residential apartments. That's where the big money has been.

Here are the numbers from DCP's study:

Projected development in square feet

NEW PLAN - - - - - - CURRENT
in 10 years (sq ft) - - - - - - in 10 years (sq ft)

commercial sites
396,863 - - - - - - - - 450,928
enlargements
25,374 - - - - - - - - - 25,374
total commercial
422,237 - - - - - - - - 475,302

residential sites
3,891,399 - - - - - - 2,289,681
enlargements
216,853 - - - - - - - - 178,529
total residential
4,108,252 - - - - - - 2,468,210

Total projected development
NEW PLAN - - - - - CURRENT ZONING
4,530,462 - - - - - 2,943,512

53.9% more development under the rezoning than would occur under current zoning.

total affordable units under the new plan:
456 (comes to less than 456,000 sf)
or around 10% of the total development

Testimony on EV/LES rezoning

There are at least four legal, as well as many substantive, problems with the EV/LES rezoning proposal currently before the City Planning Commission.

Four legal problems:
1) CB3 Task Force members who voted on the proposal represented conflicts of interest as they or the organizations they direct stand to gain directly from the rezoning,
2) FIOA-obtained documents show that Chinatown residents were systematically excluded from the discussions of a rezoning that will impact their neighborhood as much or more than the rezoning area itself,
3) the Bowery alternative was not included in the DEIS and
4) the availability of air rights is not clearly rendered or studied in the DEIS.

Re (1), CB3 Task Force members included the Director of LES People's Mutual Housing and the Director of Cooper Square Mutual Housing, both of which will directly gain from the Inclusionary Housing bonuses included in the plan, the Executive Director of GOLES and the Executive Director of Cooper Square Committee, both of which are involved in affordable housing management and will expand their operations and funding base through IZ-created housing in the plan, a partner in the Red Square development, which will receive additional residential market-rate FAR under the rezoning. All voted on the proposal.

Re (2), the Chinatown community was systematically excluded from the Community Board 3 rezoning discussions and process. No less than $50,000 was spent by CB3 on outreach to Chinatown during the rezoning discussions, yet the rezoning was not mentioned or even hinted at in all that outreach. (I have, through the FOIA, all the documents related to the $50,000 grant and how it was spent.)

Re (3), at the June, 2007 Scoping Hearing for the EV/LES rezoning, Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development along with the Coalition to Save the East Village and Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, all requested that inclusion of the Bowery in the rezoning be considered as an alternative in the EIS. DCP failed to respect this community request, although their guidelines require the consideration of alternatives.

Re (4), the availability of air rights is the single most significant determinant in this rezoning. If air rights have been consumed in the development rush south of Houston Street east of Bowery, then this rezoning is too late and will provide little or no benefit to that area.

Substantive problems: As proposed, the rezoning will disperse the communities of CD3 and will result in a net loss of affordable housing. Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development recommends that the East Village not be rezoned until some protection is in place for Chinatown and the Bowery. Reasons are given below.

1. The rezoning will bring 53.9% more development. With the Inclusionary Zoning "A" application amendments, the EV/LES rezoning will add 53.9% more projected development over what would be developed under current zoning (vide: Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pp. S-7,S-8, table S-1 and pp. S-39, S-40, table S-6; adding commercial and residential square footage together).

It is hard to believe that this rezoning is being advertised and sold to the Lower East Side community as a downzoning.

2. Only 10% affordable housing. Worse, only about 10% of the projected new square footage under the amended rezoning will be affordable housing. Subtracting projected commercial square footage, still only 11.6% of new housing units under this rezoning plan will be affordable housing, very little of which will be available to low-income households.

In plain terms, 90% of the development planned under this rezoning will be market-rate intrusion into the neighborhood under the best-case scenario. This rezoning is a give-away of the East Village/Lower East Side to market-rate development that will bury forever the communities of this place and its unique historical character.

3. Wrong area is being rezoned. Current R7-2 zoning appears to be working well to protect the East Village. Nothing out-of-scale has been built in the East Village in the last five years. Development continues at a rapid pace, but it is all contextual. The East Village obviously does not need immediate zoning protection. But current C6-1 zoning is allowing the Bowery and Chinatown to be decimated. The Bowery and Chinatown are in immediate danger of out-of-scale overdevelopment and community displacement. Yet the Bowery and Chinatown are excluded from the rezoning while the EV is being rezoned.


DCP's figures show that the rezoning's "contextual" height caps will not limit development; they will merely redistribute development. Our current low FAR caps have successfully limited development in the residential East Village. 53.9% more development in the next ten years is not protection. We will see warehousing of apartments, phony demolitions and accompanying wholesale evictions and rooftop additions scarring the skyline on avenues that have maintained their context and character since the Civil War.

Why the EV/LES plan should not be implemented as proposed:
The Department of City Planning's DEIS failed to investigate the single most important determinant in evaluating the proposed EV/LES rezoning: the availability of air rights throughout the rezoning area. If air rights are not available in the rezoning area under current FAR, then the rezoning will do little or no good to Community District 3 but will do great and irreversible harm.

Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development asks that the availability of air rights be investigated before any determination be made on this rezoning. In any case, the rezoning should be delayed for the following reasons:

A. The EV is not in current danger of overdevelopment -- nothing out-of-scale has been built there in the last five years, probably for lack of air rights (current FAR is below the local average bulk and upscale speculation is not directed towards community facilities) -- so the contextual rezoning offers little or no protective benefit for the EV.

B. The rezoning will allow a greater as-of-right FAR, encouraging out-of-scale overdevelopment.
i. The entirety of Avenue D and parts of the residential section of Houston Street will be given as-of-right FAR increases, rekindling the kind of out-of-scale overdevelopment that ended five years ago in the residential EV. This overdevelopment will compound displacement pressures on a community already suffering under the onslaught of speculators, the loss of community-oriented businesses and residential displacement.

Even an already out-of-scale development like Red Square on Houston Street, which under current zoning cannot be expanded for residential use, will receive in the rezoning plan a boost of nearly twice its current residential FAR (this was confirmed by personal communication from DCP).

ii. The failure to reduce the FAR to contextual levels on Chrystie and Delancey Streets will encourage upscale developments there that will radically, pervasively and unrecognizably transform those low-income neighborhoods and the low-income neighborhoods surrounding those streets, uprooting unique, historic ethnic thriving low-income communities.

iii. The upzoning of Chrystie Street to 145 ft and 8.5 FAR will profoundly and adversely alter the Chinatown and Bowery communities, bringing rapid gentrification to a low-income but thriving neighborhood in no need of gentrification. Secondary displacement will spread throughout Chinatown and the Bowery uprooting the community and its many businesses.

iv. The end of air right sales entailed by the height caps will encourage owners of small properties to enlarge to the newly increased as-of-right FAR, since they will no longer be able to sell their FAR. We will see gut renovations accompanied by wholesale evictions, warehousing of apartments in anticipation of redevelopment to full FAR and rooftop additions scarring the skyline of avenues that have preserved their context since the Civil War.

C. This rezoning protects the EV at the expense of the Bowery and Chinatown, C6-1 zones vulnerable to upscale hotel development. Leaving Chinatown and the Bowery unprotected will encourage a rash of speculation and overdevelopment there. These historic neighborhoods will disappear before anything can be done to protect them.

D. The rezoning will cause a net loss of affordable housing. The affordable housing brought into the neighborhood by the Inclusionary Zoning provisions also brings with it 80% market-rate housing and as-of-right FAR increases in addition to the IZ bonuses. The rezoning also allows non IZ as-of-right FAR increases which reduce the percent of affordable housing relative to overall projected development to about 10%. The effect of gentrification and community upheaval, offsetting the 10% affordable housing introduced, will almost certainly cause a net loss of affordable housing. Furthermore, most of the newly created affordable housing will be unavailable to the majority of the residents in the Community District 3, whose incomes are below most required levels. Creating affordable housing is a laudable goal but creating it through upzonings and market-rate bonuses that destroy neighborhoods is a sham, the human cost of which is too great to support.

E. Approval of this rezoning will leave the Bowery and Chinatown out in the cold. The political will which created, pushed and realized this rezoning plan originated from the EV, from the dedication of Councilmember Margarita Lopez and the deep-pockets of the East Village Community Coalition located on Avenue B. There has been no evidence of political will, funding or dedication, beyond the will of the residents themselves, to protect the surrounding areas. Meetings concerning the future of Chinatown have specifically excluded Chinatown residents, while various funded development and business interests have been brought to the table.

F. Consequences for the Bowery and Chinatown. It must be abundantly clear to any canny, experienced observer of honesty and intelligence that if this rezoning is approved without a protective plan for the excluded areas, those excluded areas will be left without support, influence and funding for the protection they need. Current gestures to protect . Chinatown and the Bowery will leave them prey to development interests, development fronts, poverty pimps and agents of gentrification.

In other words, approval for this plan, which has money and influence behind it, must be immediately tied to protection for Chinatown and the Bowery or else Chinatown and the Bowery are lost. Protection for Chinatown and the Bowery cannot be left to a separate future plan that will be a feeding frenzy. Once this current plan is approved, and the EV movers and influencers achieve their ends, there will be no political will to offer meaningful protection against that frenzy.

If, however, approval for an EV rezoning is made contingent on a program to protect Chinatown and the Bowery, the EV political will which brought the current rezoning proposal thus far will be brought to bear on the protection of Chinatown and the Bowery. The entire district will benefit by the collective influence of each part of the district in mutual interest, both those in need of help and protection and those capable of helping and protecting.

G. The discriminatory character of this rezoning. Below are figures from the 2000 census which show that the rezoning is geared towards a white population and excludes the overwhelming majority non-white population of the district. If freedom of speech does not include the freedom to speak truths, then that freedom has no purpose. Here is the truth:

According to 2000 census data, 70% of the white people in CD3 live in the area to be rezoned. In fact, in 2000 there were more white people in the rezoning area than Asians and Hispanics combined:
Whites in rezoning area: 32,672
Asians in rezoning area: 16,070
Latinos in rezoning area: 15,572
Blacks in rezoning area: 4,286

We all know that since 2000 upscale whites have flocked to the rezoning area. Now look at who lives outside the rezoning area in the district:
CD3 whites outside the rezoning area: 13,724
CD3 Asians outside the rezoning area: 41,801
CD3 Latinos outside the rezoning area: 28,623
CD3 blacks outside the rezoning area: 7,347

There are 5.6 times more non-whites than whites outside the rezoning area in CD3 (whites: 13,742; non-whites 77,771). Inside the rezoning area, rapid development, though contextual, has brought more whites into the neighborhood; they are no doubt the majority today. Outside the rezoning area non-whites remain the hugely overwhelming majority.

These truths speak for themselves.

Summary and compromise proposal: the rezoning plan will bring at least a 53% and possibly as much as a 124% increase in development than no rezoning, according to DCP's DEIS, only 5% or at best 9% of which will be affordable housing. The rezoning is, according to DCP's DEIS, an upzoning for market-rate development, any way you look at it.

Currently, the residential EV (R7-2) is in no urgent need of rezoning. Chinatown and the Bowery are -- they are C6-1 zones, prone to pervasive and devastating hotel development.

A possible compromise to consider: proceed with the C4-4A rezoning of the C6-1 zone south of Houston, from Forsyth to Pitt Street (included in the DEIS) without the IZ upzonings, and delay the rezoning of the East Village until some protection is in place for Chinatown and the Bowery.

I appeal to the integrity and strength of character of those behind this rezoning plan to support such a compromise.

Respectfully,
Rob Hollander, Ph.D.,
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development

Three pressing issues all at once: rezoning, eviction policy, class-action suit against rent hikes.

1. Rezoning
Deadline tomorrow, August 7, to submit opinions to Borough President Stringer on the rezoning that will bring 53% more development than current zoning, less than 10% of which will be "affordable" housing, and leaves Chinatown and the Bowery unprotected.

City Planning's Hearing on the rezoning: August 13, 9-11am, Tishman Auditorium of Vanderbilt Hall, New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Square South.


2. Eviction policy
DHCR's hearing on their proposal to allow tenants to be evicted for gut renovations with little or no compensation. Tuesday, August 12, 10am-4pm Spector Hall, 22 Reade Street.

Demonstration prior to the hearing, organized with the help of State Assemblymember Deborah Glick, on the steps of City Hall, 10am, then march together to the hearing.


3. Class action on flat-rate rent hikes
Class action law suit against the flat-rate $45-$85 rent hikes for low-rent tenants. The Rent Guidelines Board allows landlords for the first time to impose a flat rate $45/one year, $85/two year lease increases on stabilized apartments. This flat rate discriminates against low-income renters. The Board is unmistakably trying to "cleanse" the city of low-income renters by increasing their rents even above the percentage increases applied to higher-paying renters. Legal aid needs to hear from tenants who wish to participate in the law suit. Call 212 577 3964.

The EV is being upzoned far more than anticipated

According to the Department of City Planning, the proposed EV/LES rezoning is expected to bring 53% more development in the next ten years than current zoning would bring over the same ten years.

That's only expected development. Add potential development and the rezoning will allow an incredible 124% more development than current zoning would allow over the next ten years.

It is hard to believe that this rezoning has been advertised and sold to our community as a "downzoning."

Current FAR in the EV is so low that few air rights are available to build with -- that's why nothing out-of-scale has been built in the EV in the last five years, while huge developments surround us in the commercial zones from 3rd Avenue down the Bowery and south of Houston. The low FAR is a cap on development. The much-touted height caps of the rezoning simply eliminate the transfer of air rights from one site to another. They don't limit development any better than the current FAR caps do. They simply redistribute the development.

The height caps of the rezoning will actually encourage owners of small buildings to build to the new maximum. Under the rezoning they can't sell their air rights, so the only way to add profit is by building to the max. The maximum, under this rezoning, has been increased from 3.44 to 4.0. Expect rooftop additions, demolitions and redevelopment, gut renovations with additions and the accompanying wholesale evictions.

The only downzoning for the EV in this plan is the elimination of the community facility bonus and the FAR reduction of a small area south of Tompkins Square Park.

DCP's numbers tell the true story: we're being upzoned for development. DCP looked at all the available buildable space under current zoning and under the rezoning and found:

53% more expected development and 124% more possible development under the rezoning than under current zoning.

And, btw, less than 10% of the expected total development will be affordable housing. Most of that won't be low-income.

DCP did not study the availability of current air rights. If air rights have mostly been consumed south of Houston, then there is little benefit to this rezoning. It seems to me that no decision can responsibly be made about the value of this rezoning until the availability of current air rights has been assessed.

Here are the actual figures from DCP's DEIS:

4,530,389 sq ft of commercial and residential development expected under the rezoning plan.
2,944,512 sq ft of commercial and residential development expected under current zoning.

Less than 450,000 sq ft of that development will be affordable housing, using DCP's sq ft/housing unit averages.

Source:Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pp. S-7,S-8, table S-1 and pp. S-39, S-40, table S-6.
It is available in pdf here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/evles4.shtml

Borough Prisident's review of the rezoning plan

August 7 is the deadline to submit comments to the Borough President on the EV/LES rezoning, before his draws up his recommendation to the City Planning Commission prior to their hearing on August 13. Send your comments to
comments@manhattanbp.org
or to EV/LES Rezoning, Manhattan Borough President's Office, 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007.

Please ask him to object to City Planning's decision to hold three hearings on the same day in the same room, limiting comments on the EV/LES rezoning to two hours (9-11am).

Last June, the scoping hearings for the EV/LES rezoning lasted all day, including an evening session. Two hours is not enough time for the final public hearing on the future of our community -- it's not even long enough for the elected officials to have their say at the hearing. Holding all three hearings on the same day ensures that the public will not be heard.

Ask the Borough President to demand that City Planning devote a full day to the EV/LES hearing, including an evening session for working residents.

I will post my own comments on the rezoning soon. Below is the BP's notice requesting public comment:



Public Comment on the East Village/Lower East Side Rezoning

Pursuant to the New York City Charter, the Borough President's Office reviews, evaluates and develops
recommendations on land use applications to the City Planning Commission as part of the Uniform Land
Use Review Procedure (ULURP) process. Public input is crucial to Borough President Stringer in
considering and evaluating land use applications.

The Borough President is currently reviewing the East Village/Lower East Side Rezoning, a proposal by
the Department of City Planning to rezone 111 blocks in the East Village and Lower East Side.

If you would like more information on the East Village/Lower East Side Rezoning currently in ULURP
review, please visit the Department of City Planning's website at:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/index.shtml

If you would like to submit comments to the Manhattan Borough President's office regarding the East
Village/Lower East Side Rezoning, please send comments by August 7 to

comments@manhattanbp.org

or to EV/LES Rezoning, Manhattan Borough President's Office, 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor, New York,
NY 10007.

征求关于东村征求关于东村征求关于东村征求关于东村////下东城重新规划的公众意见下东城重新规划的公众意见下东城重新规划的公众意见下东城重新规划的公众意见

依据纽约市政章程规定,作为城市土地统一规划使用审批程序的一部分,区长有职权审阅、评估、拟定土
地规划使用建议书,并上报给城市规划委员会。在区长史静格进行土地规划使用的评估过程中,公众的意
见有着至关重要的作用。
目前,区长正在审阅关于重新规划东村和下东城的项目建议书。该建议书由城市规划部提出,涉及东村和
下东城内111个街区的重新规划。
东村和下东城的重新规划目前正在城市土地统一规划使用的审批过程之中。如果你想了解更多相关讯息,
请查阅城市规划部的网站:http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/index.shtml.

如果您想就东村和下东城的重新规划向曼哈顿区长办公室提出建议,请在8月7日前,将您的建议发送到com
ments@manhattanbp.org。 您也可以送到EV/LES Rezoning, Manhattan Borough President's Office, 1 Centre
Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007。

Solicitud de Comentario Público sobre la Rezonificación del East Village/Lower East Side
De conformidad con la Carta Magna de la Ciudad de Nueva York, la Oficina del Presidente de Manhattan
revisa, evalúa y desarrolla recomendaciones sobre aplicaciones de uso de tierras ante la Comisión de
Planeamiento de la Ciudad como parte del proceso de Procedimiento Uniforme de Revision de Uso de
Tierras (ULURP por sus siglas en Inglés). La participación pública es crucial para el Presidente de
Condado Stringer en su consideración y evaluación de aplicaciones de uso de tierras.
El Presidente de Condado está actualmente revisando la rezonificación del East Village/Lower East
Side, una propuesta del Departamento de Planeamiento de la Ciudad para rezonificar 111 cuadras en el
East Village y Lower East Side.
Si le gustaría obtener más información sobre la rezonificación del East Village/Lower East Side,
actualmente bajo revisión de ULURP, por favor visite la página web del Departamento de Planeamiento
de la Ciudad: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/index.shtml

Si le gustaría presentar comentarios sobre la rezonificación del East Village/Lower East Side a la Oficina
del Presidente del Condado de Manhattan, por favor envíelos antes del final del día del 7 de Agosto, por
correo electrónico a comments@manhattanbp.org o por correo regular a EV/LES Rezoning, Manhattan
Borough President's Office, 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007.

Public hearings on EV/LES rezoning

On Wednesday, August 13, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., at Tishman Auditorium of Vanderbilt Hall, New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012 in Manhattan. Public hearings will be held by the City Planning Commission on:

1. East Village/Lower East Side Rezoning - land use applications for a change to the zoning map (C 080397 ZMM, C 080397(A) ZMM) and zoning text amendment (N 080398 ZRM, N 080398(A)) and a related Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (07DCP078M) submitted by the Department of City Planning.

2. Hunter's Point South – land use applications for a change to the City Map (C 080276 MMQ), a zoning map change (C 080362 ZMQ), a zoning text amendment (N 080363 ZRQ), acquisition of property (C 080364 PQQ), and UDAAP designation, plan and disposition (C 080365 HAQ) and a related DEIS (08DME006Q) submitted by the departments of Housing Preservation and Development and Parks and Recreation and the Economic Development Corporation.
THIS HEARING IS NOT LIKELY TO BEGIN BEFORE 11 AM.

3. Willets Point Development Plan – land use applications for a change to the City Map (C 080221 MMQ), a zoning map change (C 080381 ZMQ), a zoning text amendment (N 080382 ZRQ), urban renewal designation and plan (N 080383 HGQ, C 080384 HUQ) and disposition of city property (C 080385 HDQ) and a related DEIS (07DME014Q) submitted by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the Economic Development Corporation.
THIS HEARING IS NOT LIKELY TO BEGIN BEFORE 12 NOON.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE:
Registering to speak: Anyone wishing to speak on any of the items listed above is requested to fill out a speaker's slip supplied at the staff desk outside of Tishman Auditorium on August 13, 2008. Doors will open at 8:30 AM. Speakers on each item will be called in the order they are registered, with the exception that public officials will be allowed to speak first. If a large number of people wish to speak on a particular item, statements will be taken alternating every 30 minutes between those speaking in support of the proposal and those speaking in opposition.

Length of Testimony: In order to give others an opportunity to speak, all speakers shall limit their remarks to three minutes.

Interpretation of Speaker's Testimony: Interpreters in Chinese (Cantonese) and Spanish will be available for those speakers who cannot testify in English.

Written Material: If you intend to submit a written statement and/or other documents please submit 17 sets of each.

Vanderbilt Hall is located on the south side of Washington Square South (West 4th Street), just east of MacDougal Street.

Persons who cannot testify on August 13, 2008 may submit written testimony to:

City Planning Commission
Calendar Information Office
22 Reade Street – Room 2E
New York, New York 10007-1216

It is requested that such testimony be submitted by August 25, 2008.

Conflict of interest

Tonight the Community Board will approve a rezoning package regardless how broad or loud the opposition.

It concerns me that organizations and individuals on the Task Force will directly benefit from its provisions. Now, those organizations are wonderful, we are lucky to have them in our neighborhood, I support them and I think the community should support them, but I think they cannot be objective in their view of a rezoning package that benefits their institutional projects and directives, regardless how altruistic and beneficial those projects are.

After this process is complete, the Task Force chair plans to bring together a panel for Chinatown. The panel will most likely consist of bank-funded organizations that bring development under the guise of "affordable" housing programs that are 80% market-rate and 100% unaffordable to the average resident of Chinatown. They will devise a plan for Chinatown that suits their institutional interests, while the residents of Chinatown will have no voice. It will be catastrophic for Chinatown and Chinatown's residents.

At the last full board meeting, the question was raised several times why Chinatown residents didn't get involved with the rezoning earlier. Didn't they know about it? The CB Chair stated that he had spent a $100,000 grant on outreach to Chinatown. What he failed to mention was that none of that money was spent on information about the rezoning.

These are some of the reasons I am skeptical of current community board leadership.

But the real culprit in the neglect of Chinatown is Councilmember Alan Gerson. Where Margarita Lopez came up with seed money from the Council for a rezoning of her district, the East Village, Alan Gerson came up with nothing for his district, Chinatown. He didn't even raise the issue of rezoning Chinatown.

Community Board members are unelected and unpaid. But Gerson is elected and paid to represent his constituency. Chinatown's precarious situation is his fault and his responsibility. Where is he? Where? What will he get for Chinatown? And will he involve the Chinatown residents in the process?

The contentious town hall

As I'm sure you've heard, the EV/LES Rezoning Town Hall began with a protest of two hundred or so residents.

Notably absent were the two City Council members who will vote on this plan. That means that they do not support the protesting residents' demands and were avoiding the meeting so as not to find themselves in a difficult situation. Most likely they will soon issue statements in strong support of rezoning the Bowery and Chinatown -- in a separate plan.

Unfortunately, a separate plan will take years to complete and will not be implemented without the inclusion of developer interests unless the council members get a commitment now from DCP to protect Chinatown and the Bowery. DCP is seeking approval now for its plan. The approval process is the last moment for leverage over DCP. Unless that leverage is applied, statements of strong support are meaningless.

The Town Hall was described to me as "a dog and pony show." Not ten thousand angry residents could change one detail of this plan: the city wants it; the community board originated it. DCP is not interested in what protesters have to say, and community board members, less seasoned in their political approach, would like to respond punitively towards their opposition (the community), and will, unless the experienced voices of reason there hold sway.

The Borough President, who ran on community board reform, is committed to pretending that he has reformed his community boards to perfection, so he will support whatever the CB decides. That's politics.

The community board and Councilmember Alan Gerson have this one chance to get a commitment from DCP for the Bowery and Chinatown. The responsibility (especially now that the CB is "deeply offended" -- how dare the community express its needs at a community meeting when they should be listening to DCP promote its plan!) mostly rests with Gerson. The City Council gets the final vote and the areas most threatened by development and most vulnerable to it are in his district.

If you were expecting a detailed report on the Town Hall, sorry to disappoint. Unable to attend except for the first two or three minutes, I can't offer much beyond the second-hand. Having had my say here and at Task Force meetings over the last three years, and knowing that nothing I do will change the outcome of this process, I felt my presence would make not the least difference.

Full disclosure and farewell

LESRRD is not a member of the Coalition to Protect Chinatown/LES and they do not wish me to speak for them.

The views represented on this blog are mine, not theirs or anyone else's.

I do strongly support their goals and I have given them as much information as I have.

Their tactics are not for me to judge. They've got to conduct their own struggles their own way.

If you are looking for an account of Monday's contentious Town Hall meeting on the rezoning, I am afraid I can only supply second-hand accounts. Although I was able to watch the audience assemble, I had to leave before the meeting began. In any case, I have had my say here and in e-mailed posts.

The absence of testimony from local electeds -- except for the State Senator, but the Senate doesn't vote on the plan -- is bad news for Chinatown and the Bowery. It means that they don't intend to use the approval process to get a commitment from DCP to save Chinatown and the Bowery, and so they are hiding from the Coalition's disapprobation.

Btw, my relationship with Bowery Alliance of Neighbors is ambiguous. They consider me a member because I attend their meetings, have helped out and even enunciated their position on the radio. I consider myself a close friend of the group, a helper, but not a member. After all, I live on 11th between B&C, far from the Bowery. I support their goals, too, but I intend to turn my attention to other means than community activism, for which I have neither taste nor talent.

The urgency of the Bowery and Chinatown

In just the last three years we've seen seven (7) huge projects emerge on the Bowery:
Cooper Union's new engineering building
Cooper Square Hotel
Atlantic's 37 E 4th
Bowery Hotel
Scarano E 3rd
New Museum
hotel at Hester.

That's over two giants each year. That's urgent.

Compare the residential East Village from 2nd Avenue to Avenue D. In the last 40 years only two tall buildings, both 15 stories:
New Theater building, 240 E 10
NY Law Dorm, 81 E 3
and nothing tall at all in the last eight years.

Could it be that there is no urgency to rezoning the East Village? Why then won't our "leaders" use their leverage to get protection for the C6-1 zones (Bowery and Chinatown) that need it?

the city's design for Community District 3

Over the last six years of construction boom in New York no tall towers have been built in the East Village area about to be rezoned (2nd Avenue to Avenue D). None. Lots of low construction, nothing out-of-scale.

That's a sure sign that our current R7-2 zoning works.

The rezoning plan does NOT INCLUDE 3RD AVENUE AND THE BOWERY where the tall towers are being built (C6-1 zones)!

The areas that most need rezoning are the zones that the developers are just beginning to look at: Bowery and Chinatown (C6-1 zones). These areas are excluded from the rezoning. The hotel boom from C6-1 Suffolk to Allan appears to be exhausted: the air rights are probably all eaten up; the rezoning will be too late. So the city's rezoning plan includes all the areas that do NOT need rezoning and excludes all the areas that need rezoning! The city's design is plain as day.

Our current R7-2 zoning works -- even without height caps -- for a variety of reasons: 1) the allowable FAR is so low that there aren't enough air rights to build with; 2) tall structures require multiple lots and plaza space under current zoning; 3) developers are not interested in building the large community facilities which the zoning allows. It's not as simple as height caps.

Years ago this rezoning looked like a great way to prevent Gregg Singer from building a skyscraper on the former Charas building next to Christadora House. No one here wants to see a skyscraper there, not just the people on that block or in Christadora House. But the building has already been landmarked, thanks to EVCC, and preventing one building is not an ideal reason to rezone an entire neighborhood. It has resulted in tunnel vision: focusing within the EV, we've overlooked the areas most at risk.

This rezoning is a done deal. You don't need to support it -- it will happen regardless what anyone says at this Town Hall. The political influences here want it, and the city wants it. The only good that can come of it now is using the approval process to get the city to commit to saving the areas that really need rezoning, Chinatown and the Bowery, and getting a higher ratio of affordable housing.

We have leverage over DCP now. Do some good with this rezoning: use the approval process to get a deal for Chinatown and the Bowery. Unless we get a commitment now when we have leverage, the city will never support a protective rezoning of those neighborhoods. Can we think ahead for once?

CB3's excuses for excluding Chinatown and the Bowery from the rezoning

The EV/LES rezoning, by prohibiting huge hotels in the protected area, will push hotel development into the Bowery and Chinatown. Community Board 3 has tried to defend the exclusion with a series of excuses:

1) 'Protecting the EV/LES does not threaten to push development into the unprotected Bowery and Chinatown.'

Yes it does. We saw it in Williamsburg. As soon as their rezoning was implemented, developments sprang up just outside the periphery of the rezoning. Hotels are already appearing along the Bowery. This selective rezoning will accelerate a trend we can already see.


2) 'Wherever the boundary of a rezoning is drawn, there will be a vulnerable periphery, so a line must be drawn somewhere.'

False. The Bowery/Chinatown C6 zones of Community District 3 have clear, undevelopable boundaries:
Little Italy to the west of the Bowery is protected by a special zoning district. The Tombs and huge court houses of Foley Square to the west of Chinatown are not residential and in no danger of development. Neither are the housing projects / residential zones by the river.


3) 'Chinatown lies partly in CB2. CB3 couldn't rezone just a part of Chinatown.'

CB3 itself proved this false. Chrystie Street is a part of Chinatown and CB3 did include Chrystie Street in their plan. If the city can rezone this one street of Chinatown, then it can rezone Baxter to Essex/East Broadway as well.


4) 'DCP won't zone single sides of streets and only the east side of the Bowery lies in CB3.'

DCP rezones single sides of streets all the time. In fact, they protectively rezoned the west side of Bowery in CB2. Why not the east side in CB3?


5) 'Chinatown was left out because the rezoning would have been too large with Chinatown included.'

a) this rezoning is not the largest rezoning DCP has undertaken, and
b) the board never even considered rezoning Chinatown when they were devising this plan.

I expect rank and file community board members to question the validity and motive of these excuses and reject them.

We know the city wants to displace low-income communities from Manhattan. The community board, representing the community, is charged with protecting those communities. There's leverage now, while DCP seeks approval for its plan.

I do not speak for the people of Chinatown or for anyone but myself in this community. Others can speak for themselves. If you want to hear what others think of the rezoning, go to the Town Hall. I can't attend that night, so I'm giving you my two cents here.

TOWN HALL ON EV/LES REZONING
Monday, May 12, 6:30pm,
Public School 20,
166 Essex Street
(btwn Houston & Stanton)

Race and rezoning

The area protected by this EV/LES rezoning is overwhelmingly white. The areas excluded from the rezoning are overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese or Latino. Makes you wonder.

Every area adjacent to those ethnic Chinese and Latino neighborhoods is getting the rezoning's largest luxury bulk (building size) allowances -- Avenue D, Pitt Street and Chrystie Street -- inviting development and facing those communities with gentrification. Still wondering?

The Department of City Planning's intent is clear: the ethnic cleansing of Manhattan.

It's an ugly accusation. But we all know it's true.

TOWN HALL ON LES REZONING
Monday, May 12, 6:30pm,
Public School 20,
166 Essex Street
(btwn Houston & Stanton)

Where is Alan Gerson?

About five years ago, our former councilmember Margarita Lopez got $50,000 earmarked for a rezoning of the East Village. That rezoning is about to be made a reality.

Meanwhile, we've seen the Bowery and Chinatown become targets of luxury hotel development. But Alan Gerson has not come through with a penny or a plan.

Not even an idea to save these neighborhoods in his district.

To the members of Community Board 3 and Councilmembers Alan Gerson and Rosie Mendez,

The Community Board and Councilmembers Gerson and Mendez have a unique moment of leverage with DCP.

DCP is committed to pushing through this rezoning that they've spent millions on already. Now is the only moment when CB3 can negotiate protection for Chinatown and the Bowery.

Currently, CB3 wants to work on a separate community-based plan for Chinatown. That plan will take years and has no guarantee of ever being implemented since there will probably never again be such leverage as exists right now while DCP seeks approval for its plan.

This one is a no-brainer. Now is the time to demand that the EIS be expanded to include Chinatown and the Bowery. This is the last moment DCP can be cornered into a commitment of any kind. This is the last moment for demand. After this, no leverage: no negotiation; it's all over.

Don't throw this game. Play hardball. You know how. You have nothing to lose, and you stand to gain a meaningful commitment to the protection of the C6 zones from luxury hotel development.