Submitted by ctnutmegger t3_10mm3pa in nyc
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64jc5b wrote
Reply to comment by York_Villain in NY attorney general weighs in: Harlem truck depot could be illegal by ctnutmegger
>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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments