Editor’s Note: What follows was a letter sent to members of the City Council and the press. Jaworski prefaces the letter with the following:
As you consider the Mayor’s-City Planning (DCP) proposals for Zoning for Quality & Affordability and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, you have heard from many who very knowledgeable about the flaws of the substance of the proposals. (Note, I say “proposal” rather than “plan” since it is not a carefully crafted plan, but more an attempt to embellish a resume and satisfy real estate-developers.) Below, I’d like to present two thoughts with different angles.
But first, I offer a comment on the process: I related my thoughts to City Planning (DCP) representatives at 6 or 7 forums, in different Brooklyn neighborhoods, going back to the March 23, 2015 “scoping hearing” at DCP (the hearing which attracted 2 rooms filled with opposing speakers and which Chair Weisbrod arrived 1 ½ hours late; then, with others, I could not get to the Dec. hearing). Community outreach seemingly evolved as an afterthought; and, the substance went into “fall back”/ “let’s see what sticks” mode because of overwhelming opposition.
Enforcing Regulations.
I question proposing new zoning amendments—even with the very admirable goal of affordable housing— while current zoning and building regulations are violated without real consequences. This is evidenced by the fact that there is approaching $1 billion in unpaid (plus written off) Dept. of Buildings (DOB)/ Environmental Control Board (ECB) violations.
In response to a question on this during the April 10, 2015 Brian Lehrer WNYC radio show, Dep. Mayor Alicia Glen said: “To the extent that there are violations to zoning and building codes, clearly the City has a very robust program of monitoring it and making sure that people are complying with their Certificates of Occupancy and permits.”
“Robust” …is that satirical?
The facts indicate that City agencies, notably DOB, DCP, and the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), are failing in assuring compliance with rules and the intent of permits. And, NYC’s Finance Dept. is worse than failing in collecting fines. Anyone familiar with these agencies knows they are failing to stop and follow-up the illegal work and all the abuses that are occurring. This may be why construction related tragedies continue, and why (according to the Nov. 27,2015, front page, NY Times) even fines from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are being ignored.
There are procedures that encourage very questionable practices at the land use agencies. Are you familiar with Post Approval Amendments (PAA), and “administrative corrections?” They are abused tools at DOB. I became aware of them during an Article 78 case in State Supreme Court for 1882 East 12 St., Brooklyn. In the case, and also at nearby 1610 Ave. S, the BSA essentially provided bandages for DOB mistakes (the Times did stories on both cases—for 1610, the Times sent an engineer who found a major defect). If the BSA fails to protect neighbors to cover the DOB’s back, how can it be trusted with the new proposals?
In Brooklyn’s Dyker Heights, and other neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, issues with illegal conversions of one and two family houses are significant and threatening lives of occupants as well as the FDNY. I suggest you request from the Finance Dept. a list of those who owe, say, more than $20,000 in ECB/DOB fines, and you’ll find at least two single family sites in my Southern Brooklyn Community Board #15 each owing over $200,000!
The point is that it seems ridiculous to provide more developer friendly giveaways, rules to potentially abuse. Instead, immediately, aggressively pursue the bad actors; stop the illegal work; collect the unpaid fines; clear up the violations, Stop Work Orders and graffiti covered plywood fences that have surrounded some blighted sites for over a decade. Please stop long-time residents from enduring further abuse and harassment emanating from non-enforcement. Help NYC’s budget by collecting the unpaid hundreds of millions owed in DOB/ECB fines. I suggest doing this now, at budget time, before you—and, even more so, future Council members– have to consider what the City will do if the developers who are supposed to provide affordable housing don’t.
Define “Character of Neighborhood”
Let me make a suggestion for a question about the ZQA-MIH Citywide Rezoning proposals. Ask how “Character of a Neighborhood” is defined?
A lengthy explanation…
Previous Mayor Bloomberg and City Planning Chair Burden, as well as current Mayor deBlasio and other electeds, often stated how important it is to preserve the Character of Neighborhoods…that neighborhoods are what make the boroughs unique and interesting. The City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual has a chapter on Character of a Neighborhood that includes this sentence:
“Neighborhood character is an amalgam of various elements that give neighborhoods their distinct ‘personality.’ These elements may include a neighborhood’s land use, urban design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic, and/or noise.”
During the past dozen years, I have spent numerous days at the Board of Standards and Appeals listening and speaking to applications for variances and special permits (under ZR73-622). A requirement for such applications is that they not alter the”character of the neighborhood.” But, since the term is undefined and the BSA may apply subjectivity, that body has been bullied by land-use attorneys into accepting a one dimensional view of a block’s character: the streetscape. Plus, those attorneys use conclusory statements as proof.
A few years ago, because we frequently testified that backyards were important to our blocks, the BSA’s then vice-chair suggested that yards be considered in discussing 73-622 Special Permits in our community. The BSA’s attorney at the time said “No” that it would be “arbitrary and capricious” to add a new dimension to decisions.
Imagine a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced to 25 years in prison. A couple of years later, a DNA test proves he is not guilty. He appears in court expecting to being freed. Instead, the judge declares that he will not consider “the newfangled scientific evidence,” and sends the man back to prison. So too, the BSA attorney decided new evidence of a block’s character not admissible. Isn’t not accepting new findings actually arbitrary and capricious?
City Planning made a presentation at Community Bd. 15 last April regarding a resiliency-recovery text amendment. I asked the CP representative for the definition of ”character of the neighborhood”…the one-word response: height. A human’s personality isn’t one dimensional. Is your personality simply your height?
Now, when City Planning made presentations at CB 15 last spring and fall for the ZQA & MIH, I asked for the definition of “character of a neighborhood.” The representative gave what essentially amounted to non-answers before I concluded, “So you have no definition of neighborhood character for this proposal!” Furthermore, I had similar exchanges with DCP reps at other hearings, including Brooklyn Borough Hall.
In short, I submit that many building, land-use, zoning issues we might encounter—including for affordable housing– could be better dealt with if there were an objective, comprehensive definition of “character of a neighborhood.” Of course, it might mean that City Planning would actually have to begin with real public outreach—perhaps guided by each City Council member and involving visiting blocks and speaking to citizens and civic groups, not just community boards– to arrive at substantial, thoughtful, community-based planning for blocks composing neighborhoods, rather than just rezoning.
