Brad Lander’s office recently sent out via email an announcement reopening his Bridging Gowanus initiative – the “next step” in the reshaping of our neighborhood.
It asks to complete a survey. The Bridging Gowanus website has a little button on top labeled, ‘WEIGH IN”—this is not an accident since your opportunity to weigh in can hardly be called a survey at all. In fact, the definition of the word, “survey” is to examine or look at comprehensively; to inspect carefully, to scrutinize.
Indeed, this is NO SURVEY. Instead you are expected to respond to a series of suggestions with either a plus or minus response. Unfortunately, you are only allowed two or three pluses, and only one minus. You also cannot enter a minus unless you enter at least one plus. In addition, there are many categories and pages and ideas lumped together and that you are restricted to use only your predetermined pluses and minuses.
Are you confused yet? That’s too bad because before you even can begin you must click on the ‘UNDERSTOOD” button, which explains the rules before you even see the entire format. To be fair, you are able to go back and forth and reread the instructions, etc and there are reminders as you proceed that you are either plus or minus deficient/excessive.
We didn’t know we would need such deep boots to wade through this and we quickly got stuck in the muck. And frankly, given the limited choices and the deliberately constrictive mode of responding, we were wary of submitting anything at all. So, we didn’t.
Did we mention that it had to be submitted by Sept 15th? Wouldn’t it allow for a broader response if its circulation and expiration dates were during the time of the year when most people are actually here to weigh in?
Labor Day was the 5th. Neighbors returning from summer holidays are often very busy the first few weeks of September when so many things are beginning again.
Sure, you can argue that an online survey allows you to participate no matter where you are, but is it really fair to distribute an exercise as convoluted, confusing and time consuming as this and expect people who are on vacation to respond?
What is the reason that the cut off date cannot be extended till the end of October, November or even December? This is so important—what’s the rush?
Why wouldn’t Brad Lander, our representative in the City Council, which is responsible for zoning changes, want the most thoughtfully considered responses possible? He is either including us in the process or not.
We have some questions for Lander and comments for regarding these socalled “overreaching goals”— below is just a small sampling:
Why is it necessary to build multistory housing along the banks of the Canal when the Canal is the epicenter of the flood zone?
Why are there no suggestions regarding a broader area of manufacturing/work/living spaces?
The “weighin” talks about “strengthening” manufacturing but does not talk about expanding more manufacturing and artist living space.
Haven’t we learned that people who live and work in the same place have a deeper investment in the area and enrich the fabric of the entire community?
Why are we not talking about thoughtful improvements to infrastructure?
We have a chance here to try something genuinely unique, practical and exciting; Not to mention less taxing on our current infrastructure which we all know darn well will never catch up with Brad’s plan!
Why is it necessary to add more and more stories to residential buildings in order for the city to provide adequate transportation, education, sanitation, and recreational facilities to the people that are already here?
How does increasing an already densely populated area accomplish what cannot be accomplished now? New York’s municipal government is not going to do any better—the only thing besides the population that will expand will be the inadequacies.
Why is it necessary for developers who are in the business of making money to receive tax abatements? Most times, they do not live here. They do not ultimately deal with the effects of their developments on the community.
As a friend of ours in the construction business once told us, “the cellar, the first floor and roof are your real costs—every single story you add to that is more and more gravy.”
Yet whether their product(s) impact the neighborhood positively or negatively—they are given extended relief from paying property taxes.
Where is OUR relief? We are, after all, the ones who put up with the noise, the dirt the grime the inconveniences of their construction phases. And quite often, there are negative effects on the neighboring homes and businesses once projects are complete. In spite of this— good, bad or indifferent, our property taxes go up every year.
There is something wrong with that. Rising home values and our rising property taxes in our community tell me that we are more than helping to support NYC.
The “some is good, more is better” attitude is sometimes true—and when it comes to money, let’s be honest—its real. But the “more and more” should not have to come from us alone—those who wish to make money here should be willing to pay what it takes or there is no deal.
You would think someone who is supposed to represent us would be the most interested in US.
It appears however, as though it’s Lander’s plan or the highway.
You can see the survey for yourself by googling “Bridging Gowanus Online Survey.”
No matter what you call it or how you frame it—whether you punch in plusses and minuses with whole hearted fervor or mild amusement—understand that this “exercise,” just like the earlier phase of the Bridging Gowanus process, is skewed to obtain a desired result and it is going to be used to justify that result.
Rita Miller, LucyDeCarlo, Triada Samaras are the cofounders of CG CORD/Coalition for Respectful Development. They can be reached at cgcord@gmail.com
Author
