When the politicians had had their turn, the public began their three-minute speeches. I can’t possibly mention everything that was said, but I’ll summarize as best I can. An old woman from Greenwich Village began—It was sort of an odd that the first public response would come from a little old lady from the Westside of Manhattan, but in many ways I love that things like that are possible. Anyone from anywhere can talk and give their view. Her speech wasn’t monumental. She had done her research and read the Draft Scope of Work and said it was lacking. She asked for more information about the project, like details and numbers on affordable housing. I couldn’t agree more. A man from RPA then spoke, but I couldn’t really understand anything he said. The fact that RPA sent someone, however, shows that this rezoning is a big issue. There were some crazy Manhattan-based preservationist and cultural organizations that spoke as well. These groups all seemed to be represented by old women from Manhattan. I had had my fill of preservation talk when the “Society for Industrial Archaeology” began. I’m all for preservation—and I think that old industrial buildings kick ass. I love to photograph them and I’ve even written before about how I want to selfishly keep them for myself as a private playground and wilderness for industrial exploration. Those reasons by themselves, however, are sort of selfish and short sighted. You need to know more than the history of the Domino buildings to fight for their preservation. You need to know all about the proposal and the community and its concerns. If you go in and talk about the importance of preserving New York’s industrial past, but you don’t know what the community wants and have no idea how to fund and use a preserved site then I think you’re arguments pretty weak. If an organization like Waterfront Preservation Alliance (WPA) had said something or if these preservation organizations had worked/talked with local community organizations than I would’ve had more respect for what they said. Talking about the importance of viewing the site from all Manhattan-Brooklyn bridges just seems kind of hollow. Preservation—by itself—is a profession of nostalgia.
A water taxi company owner gave an interesting speech on the need for waterfront accessibility to private water taxi businesses. He envisioned a public-private partnership to make waterfront transportation along Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan viable. The fact that so many different topics are discussed as these hearings is what makes them great.
Stephanie Feinberg (?) a community member seemed irritated by the insufficient data of the Draft Scope. Apparently the traffic analysis does not mention that Kent Avenue is one of the boroughs main truck routes and doesn’t analyze the impact on the Williamsburg Bridge or the Midtown Tunnel. Also all of the data is based on census numbers from 2000, which is insufficient in a community that is transforming everyday. NAG and some community members all gave similar speeches. They pretty much expressed concern about the study that was being done and the CPC proposal in general. There were two interesting points that were brought that I had never known: 1) M1 allows for commercial uses. This means that CPC doesn’t only want to create a buffer from existing manufacturing, but also wants to allow a mega-Whole Foods to buy property next door. 2) Small study areas have an inherent bias for large-scale development. Studying a half mile around a six block site that brings in 2400 households and affects an entire community favors developers enormously. Also, some community members wanted to see the Adant House and Powerhouse preserved.
Interspersed throughout all of this were some speeches from pro-CPC organizations. Churches United had a few people talk about the dire need for affordable housing in the Southside. This need is certainly undeniable, but some of the stuff that they said was unjustifiably naïve. One member said that affordable housing is needed immediately and that there should be no deliberation, objections, or delay in the EIS process. This kind of comment is just stupid. He was suggesting that the community should just blindly follow a developer as soon as they hear the words, “affordable housing.” A priest from a church right next to the site gave a great speech, and for the first time I really got an idea of the great extent of displacement going on. Peter talked with Churches United outside of the building after the hearing and tried to tell them that NAG wanted the same thing as Churches United. NAG’s first concern is for affordable housing as well, but fully endorsing CPC’s proposal so early in the process is a bad strategy. Why not ask for more affordable housing like Diana Reyna? Why not ask for as much research and studies to be done since the project and its effects will certainly be monstrous? Their strategy seems to be selling themselves short. It’s saying the Waterfront Inclusionary Housing Program is good enough when in actuality it could be better. This is the opportunity to make it better.
There were also some non-community organizations that spoke in support of CPC. Housing Partnership’s head, Dan Martin, praised CPC’s affordable housing legacy and the benefits of their proposal. I didn’t think much of this, but Peter said it was odd since Housing Partnership has been extremely critical of CPC in the past. Also representatives from Enterprise Community Development and Citizen’s Housing and Planning Council both spoke about the city’s housing crisis. They were each convincing—the city does have a housing crisis for both affordable and market rate housing—but I still think that the housing crisis cannot justify any project.
There was also a retired police officer and cancer survivor from the East Village who talked about how great CPC was. CPC had helped him build a cancer treatment center and private residence. I don’t doubt that CPC has done some great stuff and they seem to have a great track record. Nonetheless when a not-for-profit’s for-profit wing goes into business on residential development with Isaac Katan (huge developer), you still have to be concerned.
Lastly, an EVIDCO representative reiterated the earlier made point that Kent Avenue is a major truck route. He asked if million dollar condo owners know that trucks will be rumbling below their towers. At this point, I was a little tired from the two and a half hours of talk, so Peter and I left. Unfortunately the community might have come across as divided. A consensus that asks for more affordable and more research would’ve made a stronger impact, but ah well. We said what we had to say and CPC at least has to listen to it. Hopefully in the future, a community-wide collective action will force the city and CPC to create the most positive proposal. I should mention that there were only four city planning people at the hearing (I’m pretty sure that’s only a third of the usual council) and I think three of them were just staff people representing city planning officials. I don’t know what that means.
No comments:
Post a Comment