Submitted by ctnutmegger t3_10mm3pa in nyc
Comments
anObscurity t1_j64kii3 wrote
Levine is the most annoying politician. I follow almost every NYC politician on both sides of the aisle on twitter but I had to unfollow him, it got too dang annoying. The “complain about problem thoroughly under his control” pattern is the worst
CactusBoyScout t1_j65if01 wrote
I worked at a large concert venue when the vaccines first rolled out and distribution was a big logistical question.
We reached out to Levine multiple times to volunteer our space as a mass vaccination site. He never gets back to us and a few days later posts on social about how it’s hard to find spaces in Manhattan that work for this and to reply to his tweet with ideas.
We were like HELLO?? CHECK YOUR VOICEMAIL/EMAIL. Just seemed like he wanted to post on social about being deeply involved with the logistics without actually doing anything.
anObscurity t1_j65n4zp wrote
Yes this is exactly his vibe. Like wants to appear like he is the person calling out dysfunction while simultaneously holding power to curb that dysfunction and doing nothing.
Wowzlul t1_j6740wa wrote
Levine continually shouted about how the city needed to lock itself down, hardcore yo, in the same way you'd find in NE Asia or Europe, well into 2021.
Yet in late 2021 there was such pitiful uptake of covid vaccines among freaking nursing home patients.
Dude just wants to grandstand. He freaks me out. He's always on, always selling, always about Levine.
sternfan1523 t1_j64x2hg wrote
He’s the biggest dweeb in the world
Wowzlul t1_j65fvhk wrote
Well get used to him. He'll probably be the mayor in a few years. Ugh.
ouiserboudreauxxx t1_j66opni wrote
He was my councilperson and I've almost had to unfollow him as well.
Miki_Dash t1_j65co86 wrote
Easy to say if you’re not a member of that ethnic group! Gentrification and demographics should not be legal as they continue to select the chosen few to take over neighborhoods that is a working community and displace families! They contribute to homelessness and give homage to developers that are willing to do this.
People like you can only see this as a win/win. How could you understand as you’re born into “privilege”.
doodle77 t1_j642he9 wrote
This is a permitted use that is found in the city's zoning plan for the site. If the city council decides that it wants something else there, it can change what uses are permitted there. It does not need permission from the land owner to do so. However, if the government acts such that the owner can't use the land for any productive purpose, for example by declaring the use illegal or making the only permitted use parkland, then that is a taking that the owner would need to be compensated for.
mp0295 t1_j63yipy wrote
> While the terms were seen by some elected officials as reasonable, Councilmember Kristin Richardson Jordan, who represents the area, said she disagreed and the negotiations fell apart, resulting in Teitelbaum warning that if he could not build a high-rise, he’d find some other use for the land, a former gas station. By tradition, councilmembers defer to the wishes of individual lawmakers on building projects in their districts.
What I don't understand is how this lady had a veto. Is it just because she was loud? Why not just ignore her and do it anyways.
ceeyell t1_j63zy9k wrote
In NYC the councilmember for their district has an unusually high amount of sway over local projects like this. It’s the main reason why there’s so much NIMBY bullshit happening in NYC over the past decade+
[deleted] t1_j65gx4r wrote
[removed]
Rottimer t1_j65ob6m wrote
High amount of sway - not complete sway. He would have to jump through more hoops.
RW3Bro t1_j64j3n6 wrote
The ULURP exists because of the damage that Robert Moses’ development did to the city, and he wasn’t solely concerned with profit. You’re off your rocker if you think giving land use powers to developers (whose only incentive is to make profit) or an agency in their pocket would result in anything besides the little people getting crushed by those with access to serious capital.
pton12 t1_j64jlz7 wrote
We don’t want another Moses destroying neighborhoods, but we’ve clearly swung too far in the other direction. We need thousands of housing units and NIMBYism is making it that much harder to correct.
RW3Bro t1_j64l036 wrote
I have absolutely no faith that removing the ULURP and offloading the power to a city agency wouldn’t result in immediate and irreversible regulatory capture.
pton12 t1_j64n3di wrote
I mean, you could just remove the veto and have the whole council just vote on it. I don’t think we need to assign veto power to a regulatory agency.
D14DFF0B t1_j66awt2 wrote
I don't think the council should vote on every project. Set (hopefully liberal) zoning rules and let the market fix the problem.
pton12 t1_j66ces5 wrote
Sure, whatever the mechanism, just remove the local veto.
RW3Bro t1_j64v92y wrote
I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers. A councilperson is obviously only accountable to the people who live in their district. They have zero incentive to care about the will of the people who live outside it.
ngroot t1_j64yrer wrote
> I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers.
If the city council votes on it, they have an incentive to not do something that most people in the city hate.
InfernalTest t1_j64n1zb wrote
not for nothing but if ppl have a home and its value will be impacted negatively by some aspect of development its bullshit to insist that ppl should just accept that situation.
pton12 t1_j64neqe wrote
Sure, and that’s why they have representation and hearings. But we are in a borough/city/state/country together. At some point, we need to think collectively to solve collective problems, and this soft veto just completely messes that up in too many instances.
InfernalTest t1_j64o1jp wrote
well if the people who she represents dont seem to think that way.... and theres no indication that they do
again its kind of hypocritical for people from OUTSIDE of the neighborhood she represents to insist they know better whats good than what she/ community wants and declare its NIMBYISM ....
someone from outside making decisions about infrastructure and saying " too bad this is how it is its for everyones benefit " that is the very epitome of why Robert Moses was a dick....
pton12 t1_j64qf13 wrote
It isn’t though, because in representative democracy, there’s not a perfect reflection of community wishes and how the representative acts. I doubt local people prefer zero affordable housing units to 300.
There’s also a big gulf between Robert Moses running roughshod over everything and this level on NIMBYism. The fact is, as a society, we need things (whether sanitation, affordable housing, etc.) and they need to go somewhere. People often don’t want them nearby, but if everyone gets their wish, the society doesn’t get anything. This isn’t about an individual development, per se, but the idea that a single council member can stop much needed development in this instance or others, the whole city be damned.
InfernalTest t1_j64vrsi wrote
ok but its not like the developer CANT develop somewhere else...so there is a reason he wants to develop there and in order to do so it means a trade ....
and its not NIMBYISM to make a demand for what you want for your neighborhood and the needs of its constituents - just because youd prefer " some" over nothing doesnt mean that that standard is good for the neigborhood she represents ...
Empty_Economist t1_j658ug7 wrote
The whole problem is thinking of homes as things to have value and not commodities that naturally depreciate like your car.
InfernalTest t1_j65h5gf wrote
uhhh a home ISNT a commodity - its supposed to be an asset and increase in value...... - its not supposed to be anything like a car....
Empty_Economist t1_j65hdql wrote
That kind of thinking is literally the problem and why we're in the midst of a housing affordability crisis.
D14DFF0B t1_j66arp3 wrote
Homes are depreciating assets with a shitton of wear items. Land is what tends to appreciate.
oreosfly t1_j63zxq1 wrote
There is no law or policy on the books that gives her a veto. The City Council has a practice called “member deference” where the City Council votes in line with how the affected district’s member votes. Since this project is in KRJ’s district, the Council votes the way she votes. The practice exists solely because of tradition.
Each member of the city council has an effective veto on projects in their district due to this practice. Think of it as a back room deal between Council members - “I won’t mess with your district if you don’t mess with mine’s”.
mp0295 t1_j64ensg wrote
Thank you for the explanation. Seems like a tradition that should be thrown away -- gives individual wackos too much power, especially when most people don't know who their council person is.
TonyzTone t1_j64vvsi wrote
>gives individual wackos too much power
Actually, our elections did that.
Member deference might compound the issue but the tradition exists because the city is very large and each member understands that they might not know what's best for a district across the city. Council districts aren't very large so each member should know their district intimately. And some do.
What might be a huge neighborhood issue might not even register on the city's priority list. That's exactly why having a chief neighborhood advocate in the council is so important.
KRJ just massively fucked up here. I don't quite get her thinking, and yes, it's also rippled into a broader city-wide problem.
Empty_Economist t1_j6594xq wrote
That's an argument for why representative process is important, i.e. give people a chance to voice their concerns, not an argument for why we need to give councilors veto power.
TonyzTone t1_j664883 wrote
It's not veto power. The Council has overruled a member's preference before.
It's an understanding among the CM's that they don't know your district well enough so, they defer to your lead. This happens in any organization all the time. One silo might opine on something but ultimately defer on the silo that knows the issue most intimately.
Needs0471 t1_j64kymn wrote
Fwiw, this case has led the leadership of the council to warn members that member deference isn’t inviolable and that they’ll consider asking the council to ignore local members if they’re being unreasonable. There are reasons that councilmember have found compromises on locally controversial projects in the Bronx and queens since this went down.
Pretty sure the council speaker has basically also sidelined any of KRJ’s legislative priorities.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64hxrc wrote
>What I don't understand is how this lady had a veto.
As others noted, the member deference influence is very strong.
For instance, in the past 13+ years, only one council member (Ben Kallos, 5th District) has been unable to use his local influence to stop a rezoning project.
Kallos has since left his position and currently works for the Biden Administration, so don't feel too bad for him.
[deleted] t1_j65g01s wrote
[removed]
prisoner_007 t1_j649vyv wrote
She didn’t veto it. It never went to a vote, Teitelbaum pulled out when negotiations broke down before that even happened.
ceeyell t1_j64bngv wrote
Because she vetoed any offer that wasn’t 100% affordable by her own metrics. Her logic seems to be that having zero affordable apartments is better than 900+. And now she gets a truck depot instead.
Rottimer t1_j65p6tx wrote
The thing is - Teitelbaum, if he was serious, should have kept his request in for a vote. He didn’t. If he did, he could point to it, he could make it a campaign issue in the neighborhood. Instead he pulled out and has lost any good will he might have had in community with this stunt.
mp0295 t1_j64efi6 wrote
I meant veto in a more soft-power sense -- I know she didn't veto in a legal sense. Like why not just go to the vote and outvote her.
prisoner_007 t1_j65mtwq wrote
Because the developer dropped out before it ever went to a vote.
Grass8989 t1_j63us4z wrote
“Jordan, a Democratic Socialist who describes herself on her Council website as “a third-generation Harlemite who has known Harlem since she was four months old,” did not make herself available for an interview. However, on Instagram, she addressed the controversy, writing, “you cannot build a truck stop” and “we want ACTUALLY affordable and low income housing,” while promoting a Jan. 28 rally at what she called “the scene of the crime truck stop.”.”
Aka: “Hey! Even though I openly advocated against 939 new housing units, and it’s perfectly legal to build this truck depot, you can’t do that”
[deleted] t1_j63v97n wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j63welv wrote
[deleted]
pompcaldor t1_j63zhdy wrote
This is the AG doing the political part of her job instead of the lawyer part of job.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j64aimw wrote
A real bad look by the AG. She is undermining her credibility. This smacks of bailing out a politician getting pummeled everyday for trying to force a developer to bend to her political needs then having the developer call her bluff. Now the AG is going after the developer.
The AG needs to at least keep some of the stink off them that everything they do is not for political gain of a particular party. Leave that to Bill Barr.
PiffityPoffity t1_j648qix wrote
Politics and law are inseparable.
The_Question757 t1_j659mhk wrote
The city council has no one to blame but themselves with there nimby racist ass policies. You could've gotten a slice but you wanted the whole cake, now you ain't getting shit. Get fucked
Strong-Middle6155 t1_j64mh9w wrote
If the truck depot goes through, it should be named the Kristin Richardson Jordan truck depot
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j654e36 wrote
So a developer agreed to construct a building with almost 400 affordable housing units but the local councilwoman said no. Total insanity. The councilwoman probably wants all the units to be affordable - so guess what - it will never get built because that would make the building unprofitable for a builder. This councilwoman would rather have no affordable housing units than a new building where almost 400 of the 900 units are affordable. Amazing stupidity.
DLFiii t1_j65lum3 wrote
Right. And she doesn’t care about her constituents. Health issues with more idling engines, etc. Good for her at representing the interests of her district. Clearly a truck depot is worse than a new building, but I don’t blame the developer this time around.
Rottimer t1_j65pm2j wrote
No, he wanted to change zoning and said that’s what he would build in order to get the zoning changed. He would have been under no obligation to actually build anything like that once the zoning changed.
Empty_Economist t1_j644h2m wrote
Oh good the AG is gonna reward James for her shit behavior. How about instead the city council tells James to fuck off and goes back to the developer with a reasonable offer for housing?
DLFiii t1_j65lipx wrote
Such a progressive. She can’t negotiate or make herself available to interviews, nor can she answer any questions, however, she can post comments all day on Instagram and Twitter. What a “representative”.
TetraCubane t1_j64rybg wrote
Imagine buying property and then being told what you can or cannot do with it.
How are zoning laws any different from the HOA bullshit?
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64z0d2 wrote
Zoning laws have their place, especially in cities.
I don't think they are the villain of this story.
If anything, NYC's tradition of member deference, even when that member is a complete moron, is the bigger issue.
112-411 t1_j6ltjna wrote
It’s not imaginary, it’s reality, and just about everywhere—for good reason.
Rottimer t1_j65priq wrote
He bought the place with that understanding.
brownredgreen t1_j668kec wrote
If I buy a gun (my property) can I wave it in your face?
No?
Almost like ownership does not mean other people dont exist.
TetraCubane t1_j66ad57 wrote
Not the same. A bus depot isn’t like waving a gun.
brownredgreen t1_j66b185 wrote
I agree they are not the same
But you abstracted your argument. So i made it concrete.
Your abstract fails.
Try and make a better abstract argument, see if it works
Dont use bad arguments, that's, well, bad.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j67imfr wrote
It’s time to end absolute immunity.
So that NIMBY legislators and NYC Council members can be sued personally for blocking new developments and infringing on the housing rights of New Yorkers.
grandzu t1_j66xdqp wrote
City council members are self-fellating jokes.
InfernalTest t1_j65jrca wrote
reading some of the comments here i see what MalcomX was talking about - white liberals are terrible "allies" for black neighborhoods
Commercial-Impress74 t1_j660i2l wrote
Way too much noise and way too much pollution fora residential area. Find an industrial area to do that. Nonsense
Brooklyn-Epoxy t1_j64krd6 wrote
If it's not illegal it ought to be.
Miki_Dash t1_j658fyl wrote
What you all miss in the total picture: There is already a huge NYC bus depot in that area! The fumes from those buses permeate the whole area and is toxic for the children in that area as the buses are left idling. This area was examined by the NYSDOH as the residents in the area have serious Asthma and COPD medical conditions and no place to move because their homes are being displaced with NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Gentrification for Harlem means: studios starting at $2000/month; 1 bedrooms starting at $3000/month; 3 bedrooms starting at $4,500 a month; 4 bedrooms at $6,000 a month.
How would you feel with having to pay that as this wave of developers come through and run rampant over the home you’ve only known??? When these developers say, “the new development will be XX% affordable housing,” they really mean: I will put whoever in those apartments and they will pay lower rent based on Section 8 Guidelines and they will be white!!! The developer is now eligible for 100% HUD financing and the majority of the original tenants that lived there are now homeless. They can’t get jobs that pay a decent wage so they can live in NYC.
The owners of some of the other apartment houses there, play the dirty tricks on their existing affordable housing tenants to force them to get out: no heat/hot water in the winter; no upkeep servicing, i.e ., no repairs to the apartment or public access points, poor or no lights in the hallways, no exterminating for pests and rodents. They rack up violations on the buildings and many don’t have competent superintendents. Egresses are insecure, never cleaned, no way to contact owners for the buildings. These are people already on Section 8–because they can’t afford the existing apartments!
The NYC Council members already understand what is going on. If you sent a member to be on the Council, how would you feel if they didn’t fight for you? You’d be the first one to complain that they have no power to represent you! “Why did we elect them? This evolved from just that: No respect for the people in the district targeted! It’s the same here: You have no respect for that area, it’s representative, delegates, or the current tenants in that area.”
Empty_Economist t1_j659svq wrote
So Richardson knows all these problems and decided to play such stupid games that instead of adding hundreds of units of affordable housing, the area instead gets a truck stop. How the fuck is that fighting for her constituents???
manila_traveler t1_j65dghj wrote
All of what you've said may be true, but the site in question had been a gas station. How many residents got displaced when it became a truck depot?
IsNotACleverMan t1_j6cctfl wrote
>they will be white
What's wrong with that?
York_Villain t1_j6443iv wrote
Good. The low income apartments proposed in that building were only studios and one bedrooms. That does not benefit families. The councilmember asked for the developer for larger apartments to also be allocated for lower income tenants and the developer responded by pulling the project entirely and whining on patch.com nonstop.
upnflames t1_j646otb wrote
Seems like the result is simply that it will stay an empty lot for the next ten years. Awesome.
meteoraln t1_j648qfa wrote
This is preferable, apparently. If one baby cant get exactly what she wants, no one else gets anything.
[deleted] t1_j64l33n wrote
[deleted]
York_Villain t1_j64cbqd wrote
"I'll take my ball and go home." - Developer
Cool
upnflames t1_j64i6sf wrote
I mean, you'd take your ball and go home too if the other kids refused to let you have any say in what game you were going to play.
York_Villain t1_j64iswv wrote
But that's not what's happening.
Developer: "We have apartments for families"
Councilmember: "The only low income apartments are studios and 1 bedrooms. Familiies need 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. I'll approve if some of the apartments are 2 and 3 bedroom units. "
Developer: "Fuck you I'm pulling the development myself and now proposing a parking lot."
ceeyell t1_j64c52l wrote
And now nobody gets any apartments, and instead everyone gets more truck pollution. Fantastic logic.
York_Villain t1_j64caht wrote
You're rooting for the person that's doing, "I'll take my ball and go home."
Okay.
ceeyell t1_j64cm9s wrote
I’m rooting for housing to be built in the 5 boroughs, period. The government isn’t building it, so we’re gonna have to rely on developers until that changes. Why would a developer agree to build something that is not profitable? You can argue all day that this isn’t how things should work, and I’d agree, but this is literally how things do work right now. Her total refusal to compromise with these developers is why there’s a truck depot now, instead of 900+ affordable homes.
York_Villain t1_j64dlbr wrote
You're rooting for a free license for developers to do whatever they want. Otherwise known as an unregulated market.
Who says it's not profitable to allocate some 2 and 3 bedroom apartments? Are the margins that narrow? Because they aren't. Why should we allow an unregulated mess because some investment fund that owns the majority stake of a development company sees a return on their investment in 25 years as opposed to 20? Trust me, they're all earning.
I want more apartments too. I want them everywhere. But I want it done responsibly. That's what the councilmember is asking for. Instead you got people calling her a racist for asking for it.
neutral_cloud t1_j64gyg1 wrote
Given that these are the developers we have, instead of some imaginary other cohort of developers, if you only want apartments that fit your particular specifications, then you do not really want apartments. We need housing so badly, and so fast, that any unit not built is basically a moral crime.
York_Villain t1_j64iltm wrote
I'm not saying I only want apartments that fit my particular specifications. I never once said this. What I'm saying is that some of the apartments allocated to low income housing should be 2 and 3 bedrooms as opposed to studios and 1 bedrooms. Because actual familes live in multi-room homes. The largest apartment for low income tenants in that development was a 1 bedroom.
That was literally the one thing that the councilmember was asking for. For some two and three bedroom apartments. Instead the developer does this. So who is being unreasonable?
Do we need housing? Absolutely. But there is no reason why we shouldn't have some minimum standards.
ceeyell t1_j64y9w2 wrote
Honestly, I feel like I could have written your exact comment back in like 2015, but my opinion has completely evolved on this issue. Build more housing. All types of housing. Build it now, build it everywhere, including in this woman's district. She is directly standing in the way of over 900 affordable apartments because of semantics. When my in-laws in the Bronx are applying for housing lotteries and there are decade long waitlists for senior housing in NYC, this woman says "nah I don't want 900 affordable apartments. Not good enough for me. Zero is better."
She should be voted out for this, and she only won by I believe a few hundred votes to begin with.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64jc5b wrote
>I'll take my ball and go home
The one who said that was KJR.
The developer increased the amount of affordable units available to 50%, which is well-above the city's requirements and beyond his original plans.
Rational adults would have seen 50% affordable units as a fair compromise.
Between the two parties, only one side negotiated.
York_Villain t1_j64jigt wrote
How many of those affordable units are 2 bedroom apartments? How many of them are 3? The developer randomly announces that they want to offer 50% but then also pulled the project immediately afterwards. Totally posturing because the developer knows that the councilmember was asking for a better allocation of the units and not just a percentage. So now 50% looks a lot better on patch.com than just a bunch of studio apartments that actual families can't live in.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64y942 wrote
>How many of those affordable units are 2 bedroom apartments? How many of them are 3?
70% of all units were going to be studio/1BR.
Why should affordable housing have to be 2-3 BR in a residential building that is majority 1BR/studio?
Even if the proposal was for mostly 2-3BR units, why should most of them be reserved for those making 30% AMI, as KJR demanded?
​
>The developer randomly announces that they want to offer 50% but then also pulled the project immediately afterwards
The amended plans for more housing was introduced on May 10 of last year during a zoning subcommittee meeting where affordable housing was the subject being discussed.
It was not "random". It was in response to KRJ continuing to demand 100% of the units be affordable housing. And it was proposed during an official zoning meeting.
It was killed weeks later, at the end of the month, when KJR said it still wasn't enough.
That isn't "immediately afterwards".
It was killed after the final proposal was dismissed, for a saga that had been going on for months and months before that.
​
>Totally posturing because the developer knows that the councilmember was asking for a better allocation of the units and not just a percentage.
Her allocation demand was 100% affordable units with at least 57% of the units @ 30% AMI.
That isn't just asking for a "better allocation of units". It is asking for 100% allocation of units.
​
>So now 50% looks a lot better on patch.com than just a bunch of studio apartments that actual families can't live in.
Who said a family can't live in a 1BR or studio?
Plenty of young families would have benefited immensely from living in a brand new 1BR or studio in a luxury building.
Then again, such people may not align with the "historic identity and culture" (her exact words) of the neighborhood.
When politicians in Texas dog-whistle about protecting the "historic identity and culture" of their communities, we have no problem calling out the obvious racism.
When KJR does it, somehow people think it is righteous.
ceeyell t1_j64zovk wrote
Absolutely all of this. Very well said.
captainktainer t1_j64l4qf wrote
We put a huge amount of effort into teaching people that disengaging is exactly what you should do when there's no other reasonable solution. KRJ, and KRJ alone, rejected every compromise and negotiated settlement. The developer isn't being unreasonable at all - they want to make productive use of the land, and since no housing solution is acceptable to the city (because of member deference), they're opening a business that the city zoned the property for. They're not even "going home" - they're making productive use of the space, just not the productive use that they and almost everyone except KRJ hoped for.
[deleted] t1_j64l7sv wrote
[deleted]
neutral_cloud t1_j64g0re wrote
The individuals and young couples who would have taken those apartments have to live somewhere, and now they will move into legacy housing instead. So killing this project guarantees more ongoing displacement. ETA: It's also not just the lack of compromise, it's also that these delays and additional reviews themselves cost the developer money that they would have spent on building the project, so the more it drags out, the more they bleed money, and the more they are likely to give up. It's not simply that they have a bad attitude, though of course they may also have a bad attitude!
[deleted] t1_j65lpy0 wrote
[removed]
York_Villain t1_j64j5gf wrote
Yeah. The developer is taking their ball and going home.
The councilmember said they'd vote yes if the developer allocated some of the apartments as 2 and 3 bedroom ones. The developer pulled the project instead. Who is being unreasonable in that scenario?
Lastly, if the developer is so strapped for cash, then why are they now proposing a low margin parking lot? That says they aren't strapped for cash.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64zo6z wrote
>The councilmember said they'd vote yes if the developer allocated some of the apartments as 2 and 3 bedroom ones.
Her official proposal was for 100% affordable units, with at least 57% going to 30% AMI tenants.
She also complained about the project being too large.
To act like this dispute was over the amount of 2-3BR affordable units is not only dishonest, but it is a lie that is contradicted by KJR's own words.
neutral_cloud t1_j64myx2 wrote
Unfortunately, only the developer gets to decide how strapped for cash they are or aren't. The NYT reports that the council member had quite a few other demands, not just adding a couple 2- and 3-beds. Do you have a link to where she says she dropped all her other demands regarding this project except for this one?
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64irye wrote
>he councilmember asked for the developer for larger apartments to also be allocated for lower income tenants
She demanded 100% of the units be affordable housing @ minimum 57% being 30% AMI.
Let's not pretend this was a squabble over the size and number of rooms for the affordable units.
Also, even if every single unit was 1BR or studio, that still means hundreds of new units instead of 0.
PiffityPoffity t1_j6495k7 wrote
This sub is going to be very quiet when Richardson gets a better deal for Harlem as a result of her initial refusal. This sub was gloating over her “loss,” but it’s clear this fight isn’t over yet.
throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j64b5gp wrote
This is some serious ass cope. The truck depot is already built.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j64e97j wrote
And if the AG intervenes, it may get torn down and we go back to square one.
[deleted] t1_j66b1j8 wrote
[deleted]
PiffityPoffity t1_j64nta4 wrote
The truck depot was built specifically because it’s one of the easiest revenue-producing activities to tear down. It’s inherently temporary no matter how this ends.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j63vx5g wrote
>we want ACTUALLY affordable and low income housing
KRJ demanded 100% affordable housing, with over 50% of that at 30% AMI.
There's also the weird, racist "they will not replace us" rhetoric coming from her, but that is a whole different story.
Very interesting how gentrification and demographic changes are considered acceptable and even progressive in Georgia and Texas, but not in NY.
​
Also, Mark Levine is such a weasel. He is whining about the truck depot, while at the same time admitting that the sabotaged residential proposal included his demand of 50% affordable units.
And yet, he refuses to publicly call out KRJ for torpedoing the project, because he is a coward.