Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

CityViews: Real Community Planning in NYC Would Let us Talk About Race

5 Comments

  • native new yorker
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Most New Yorkers just want to be left alone and don’t have the time for endless meetings and discussions. That’s what we pay our council members to do.

  • Harry DeRienzo
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Thanks Tom. A few points of interest. Prior to the 1989 Charter Change, there were no local plans accepted by the city because city planning required an environmental impact statement be done — at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars — prior to certifying any plan for review. Miraculously, after the 1989 charter change, which required that DCP do these environmental assessments, the city responded that the plans do not really matter, so no EIS is required. Likewise, a “major victory” to come out of the 1989 charter revision was the authorization for each community board to hire a planner. Again, after the revisions took effect and community boards sought increased funding for planners, they were told that they could hire any planner they wanted, but had to do it within their existing budgets. These and other similar “concessions” were totally illusory and unfortunately split the progressive community between those supporting the revision and those against. Nothing has changed. Local priorities in communities of color will, one way or another, be disregarded because such plans seek to make investment work for local residents, from whom little profit can be made, except through displacement.

  • Nancercize
    Posted September 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

    Thank you Tom, for this clear-eyed picture. As a resident of northern Manhattan, I’m tired and insulted by deBlasio et all characterizing us as NIMBY’s. We just know a bad deal when we see it, and the ongoing EDC Inwood NYC Neighborhood “plan” community involvement process is an example of the “charade” you so aptly call out in this piece.

  • maggieclarke
    Posted September 29, 2016 at 11:48 am

    This is one of the best articles I have seen on the subject. Thank you Tom. It’s been a long time. The paragraph mentioning the Trojan Horse could have been written by my group, Inwood preservation, which was at the Forefront of beating down the spot-up zoning and proposed behemoth of a building next to Fort Tryon Park in Inwood. We have people who understand zoning and planning and environmental impact and I am sure that we would be pleased to work on serious plans. In fact, it was immediately after one of these charades in February of 2016 put on by the EDC, fat Inwood Preservation was born on Facebook. We knew that there were many in Inwood who we’re upset by the direction things were going as well as the ridiculous process of letting people vent and ignoring what we say. We have been derided in the press since the upzoning was defeated in the city council, by those probably associated with the real estate industry and the mayor, impugning our knowledge of the situation. Thank you Tom Angotti and City Limits for setting the record straight.

  • Marshall Douglas
    Posted September 30, 2016 at 9:57 am

    The function of government should be to meet the needs of the citizens. ‘We’ (yes in quotes) are too preoccupied wrecking the homes of people overseas to attend to housing our people. The simple fact is that relying on developers (who inherently seek a substantial profit) to provide and maintain housing for so many of our existing residents (does it need to be said that they are citizens too?) will not do the job. MIH, pretending to give with one hand, takes far more with the other by fueling rent hikes and harassment whose ultimate goal is displacement. It will stimulate landlords to go on the rampage. We must retake our city and retake our country from those whose only loyalty is to greed.

Leave a comment

0/5

To better help City Limits know and serve our community, please select all that apply: