Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ceeyell t1_j64c52l wrote

Reply to comment by York_Villain in NY attorney general weighs in: Harlem truck depot could be illegal by ctnutmegger

And now nobody gets any apartments, and instead everyone gets more truck pollution. Fantastic logic.

20

York_Villain t1_j64caht wrote

You're rooting for the person that's doing, "I'll take my ball and go home."

Okay.

−14

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.

20

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.

−10

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.

10

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.

−1

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.

2

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.

9

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.

−1

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.

9

ceeyell t1_j64zovk wrote

Absolutely all of this. Very well said.

3

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.

3