9 thoughts on “Skeptics Say City’s Environmental Studies Understate Damage from Development

  1. EIS is a joke. It’s never taken seriously by developers or the city process. any attempt to derail a ULURP starts and ends at the local councilman. Here in Red Hook we are lucky to have one who cares, and who stopped a recent ULURP by insisting that a nursing home should not be built in a FEMA mapped flood zone. If not for him, it would have happened.

  2. Pingback: BUSINESS, ALL BUSINESS IN LONG ISLAND CITY | LICtalk

  3. Nobody is paying attention to the effect that all these new high-rise developments will have on NYC’s water & sewer infrastructure. Will the system be stressed to the point where water pressure becomes an issue? Will NYC’s aging sewage treatment plants be overwhelmed. The 2 plants here on S.I. are both about 60 years old, and I’m sure the plants in the other boroughs are even older.

    • This 3,000 word essay really dances around this issue. This is what the EIS is all about – ensuring that infrastructure matches the increase in demand that comes with more people.

      But, that really doesn’t have a lot to do with this article.

      Instead, we get crazy social justice ideas that building new housing ins neighborhoods composed of slums and projects is racist.

      This is 21st century America. Witch hunts. Everything is a witch hunt.

  4. What a one-sided article: it focuses entirely on the NIMBY point of view. A better article would have pointed out that:

    1. Most states do not have an EIS procedure for rezonings. The few that do (such as NY and California) tend to have out of control housing prices.

    2. And because of those out of control housing prices, people who can’t afford NYC move to suburbs or other metro areas, where they drive more and have more impact on the environment. So

    3. If anyone should be filing environmental impact statements, it should be NIMBYs who oppose new housing- NOT people trying to build it

    • Nonsense. This article quite eloquently lays out the challenges in our collective land use decision-making. For far too long we’ve been primarily, bordering on exclusively, concerned with what developers and real estate interests want (money), rather than what communities (i.e. people) need. You cast all of these concerns as a NIMBY point of view, but that is truly unfair as it due to the actions of developers, speculators, unscrupulous landlords, other real estate interests, capital interests, and overly friendly regulatory bodies and government that gave rise to what you oversimplify as NIMBYism. If these interests cared about developing communities in way that respected and served residents, met their infrastructure needs, and respected and protected environmental resources, then NIMBYism wouldn’t exist (other than that which is based in racism, but even that could be chipped at). The underlying issue here is greed. NYC real estate interest simply want to make money, and make it fast. This is not a recipe for a great place to live. We can add more housing to the city in other ways which will allow more people of modest means to stay in the city, welcome newcomers and set an example for other cities to follow, which would lead to, not only more urban, energy efficient living, but more socially sustainable, equitable, resilient, and prosperous cities.

  5. Pingback: Some Question Bid to Combine Burial-Ground Memorial with Mixed-Use Development | City Limits

  6. Pingback: News - September 2016 - East Harlem Preservation

  7. So, it was racist to redline black neighborhoods in the 1950s, but now it’s racist to develop new housing in the same black neighborhoods? This makes no sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *