The Q at Parkside

(for those for whom the Parkside Q is their hometrain)

News and Nonsense from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Lefferts and environs, or more specifically a neighborhood once known as Melrose Park. Sometimes called Lefferts Gardens. Or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens. Or PLG. Or North Flatbush. Or Caledonia (west of Ocean). Or West Pigtown. Across From Park Slope. Under Crown Heights. Near Drummer's Grove. The Side of the Park With the McDonalds. Jackie Robinson Town. Home of Lefferts Manor. West Wingate. Near Kings County Hospital. Or if you're coming from the airport in taxi, maybe just Flatbush is best.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Why You Must Come To the CB9 Meeting This Tuesday

The Deets. To sign up to speak for up to three minutes, you must call or email the district office by noon on Tuesday.
 
Date: September 23rd, 2014
Time: 7:00pm
Venue: Medgar Evers College, Edison O Jackson Auditorium
Address: 1638 Bedford Avenue, corner of Crown Street
Phone: 1-718-778-9279
Email: bk09@cb.nyc.gov

'Twill be quite a show, imagines the Q. After a summer of protests and community meetings the Community Board meets on Tuesday with its first new chairman in a couple decades. There'll be our local firebrand Alicia deadset on destroying the Board's reputation and insisting it's in the pocket of the Borough President. A minion of her followers will be ready to pounce; a whole host of social issues seem to be wrapped up in a simple letter (resolution) sent to City Planning last spring asking to update zoning to reflect community preferences, i.e. lower heights and affordable housing for displaced residents, and increased opportunities for economic development - you know, commerce and jobs and the like. Sound innocent enough? Think again. It's not sitting as pretty with some as you'd have thunk.

For those who were there last March when the decision was made to send a letter to City Planning asking for a rezoning, the Q was one of the voices adamantly opposed to slowing things down, sending it back to committee for further discussion. Why? Because we'd already had multiple meetings on the issue over a year, including district-wide listening sessions, and the concerns had been heard, and developers were already taking advantage of outdated zoning to build against the wishes of many. We had to get going; the process takes awhile. Just look at what's happening all around the borough, people were saying. And after all, it was the letter that needed to be written in order to set in motion the REST of the process, the hard part - determining WHERE to study and HOW best to manage the City's goals of increased housing stock, new affordable units, more jobs, and growth along transit corridors - frankly the only growth that makes sense, given the world's over-reliance on cars to commute. (And, let's face it, in this City cars spend an awful lot of fossil fuel just looking for places to park and idling during alternate side parking. Makes me almost as mad as diesel Fresh Direct trucks...what a middle finger to the environment that is. Clean, tasy, organic, local food sent by a gas guzzling smog spewer? Gag me.)

So de facto, we were going to look at Empire all along...and Nostrand, Flatbush, Ocean, New York Ave and anywhere else that needed a review. A lot of folks mentioned Empire throughout the process, complaining that such a low-grade commercial zoning (C8) ought be left to areas not so close to public transportation and the beautiful Park and Garden. Think about it... how dumb is it to have fast food places with drive-thru, and grocery stores with giant parking lots, on such a perfectly located piece of ground? It wasn't the BP, or the Mayor, or City Planning leading the charge. Any idiot could tell you that Empire was a potential place to build if you're gonna build affordable units, and by extension, market rate units. Not to piss anyone off...but because people deserve a decent place to live, whether market or subsidized. And hey, you live here! Isn't it awesomely situated? Why not share the love? We prefer Big Macs to new neighbors and housing the displaced? (Well, I guess it depends on your level of hunger, but you know what I mean. And don't give me that yarn about how low income folks need McDonalds. It's patronizing to suggest that just because someone's poor they can't cook healthily and on a shoestring. Besides, there's plenty of fast food around to make up for a space hog on the Boulevard. Ever seen the menu at the Chinese joints? Way more food for the buck and the big corporate dollar-suckers.)

As for the process, once approved by CB9 and Planning, the expensive and lengthy environmental review would happen, and Planning would make recommendations. What could one expect, given Planning's and the Mayor's prior successes and mistakes? Calls for MORE affordable housing for each development built, maybe 30%. Or 20-30-50, with the 30 being middle-income. The 20, 30 etc would be stabilized. NEW units stabilized. And we would look for height restrictions - real ones - in exchange for greater density. I know this is possible because it's happened elsewhere, even just north of hear in West Crown Heights last year. (WeCro? Ugh.)

Btw, the term "affordable housing" is now being hissed at. Do people even know what it is? I'm not talking about the "middle income" housing that's being balked at with Ratner Center. We're talking about affordable to people making UP to 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) of about $45,000. That means, if you make more than $22,500 you're TOO RICH to qualify. Even at 626 Flatbush, that's the breakdown. Hiss all you want, unless you're the one lucky enough to win the CB9 preferenced lottery.

Do we all realize what an enormous opportunity that is for someone who doesn't want to be priced out of this nabe now, or even in two or three years? Priceless, I'd say. And remember, the only kind of affordable housing that anyone is building anymore (except for special needs populations thru non-profits) is being built by private developers through incentives like low-cost financing and tax breaks. The City stopped building projects decades ago. This is it folks. These are the cards that have been dealt. Do we play them, or do we fold and go home, screwing everyone who doesn't own their home? Look around the room sometime at these community meetings. It's predominantly homeowners, whom I would argue have way more conflicting concerns than the Borough President.

This is the first all-liberal administration and Council in decades. And, I might add, the first liberal administration since the real estate and Wall Street run-ups of the '90s and '00s. Where once you couldn't beg developers to build, now you can extract affordable units in places like Crown Heights and (gasp) East New York. If you are following the news and the political process, you know all this, and you've probably come to some conclusions on how best to manage the new normal. Maybe you think the Mayor is a sell-out? Well, he's doing EXACTLY what he campaigned on. There are no surprises here. If you voted for him thinking he was going to do something MORE liberal and less about building more and denser, you made a bad bet.

But some came late to the zoning party, and they are on a scorch and burn mission to stop the process dead in its tracks. and are insisting on a no-new-development strategy and/or unachievable visions for low-rise non-residential landscapes on Empire, ones that no one is going to pay for let alone entertain, pretty much disabling any attempt to manage a housing crisis through the use of governmental innovation. And if you imagine Empire as a row of small ma and pa shops and leisurely strolling folk on  beautifully landscaped broad sidewalks...well who the hell is going to be the customer base? Commerce along Empire is doing just fine. There is absolutely no incentive for any landlord to do anything other than what they're doing right now. You want McDonald's to sell to a ma and pa green grocer and a local ethnic restauranteur? Be serious. This is Ronald McDonald here, and he's no clown when it comes to profits.

MTOPP has also pissed off every elected official and accused everyone who even breathes the phrase "affordable housing" as an enemy to the people, and to people of color in particular. That claim is an insult to intelligence. You can't house people who have been displaced if you don't offer up any new housing. Right now the current housing stock is becoming less affordable by the day. Is it somehow gonna grow new units because the community says no to rezoning?

If you're looking for conspiracies, a better bet would be the strangely aligned incentive of certain Sterling homeowners and their current quality of life. But as I've said before, people have mixed motives, and some hide them beneath deep layers of denial. I'm not crass enough to point fingers and demonize people. As you can see, I like a good fight as the next civic-minded dude. My hats off to good warriors, but I'm calling bullshit when I see it.

Somewhere down the line, Alicia Boyd and MTOPP decided that a great conspiracy was afoot to build giant high-rises along Empire, specifically Empire. She lives on Sterling. It's natural to think that she might be forced to endure a massive building IN HER BACKYARD, much like folks on Chester Court and Flatbush and Ocean near 626 are enduring right now. Lord knows she's not special in having to put up with construction in this borough. Or, at this point, just imagining it. It can't be fun. And it's always scary to imagine the future, especially when you see the rest of the borough changing so radically so quickly.

But then there's the issue of race and class, which I was told I am not qualified to discuss, because I am a racist who can't see his racism, and therefore irrelevant to the conversation. This, in a scathing personal email from Ms. Boyd. Fine. I'm not qualified. In which case, ignore everything I've said. 

The real nemesis here, if I may be so bold, is not Eric Adams, City Planning, Laurie Cumbo, Mathieu Eugene, Tim Thomas, Pearl Miles, Jake Goldstein, Mike Cetera, half of CB9 or any of the others who have been called out by Alicia for sleeping with the enemy. Nor does the blame lie with Alicia herself or anyone else with a bullhorn and a bone to pick. Capitalism and racism have always been bedfellows in this country. And they are wreaking havoc right now on low income black neighborhoods. And none of us who've escaped, not through grit but by birth, the scourge of generational poverty can sandpaper our hands thoroughly enough to exfoliate the dirt. It's all blood money. Your house, Alicia's, mine. The taxman, the tax cheat, the landlord, the cigarette seller, the check-casher, the non-voter, the look-the-other-way-er, the miser, the right-winger, the banker, the drug dealer, the therapist, even the teachers bless-their-heart teaching the system to yet another generation of eager cadets. So before casting stones, one might want to look at one's own glass house. Is the glass house half full or half empty? Well, at least it has a nice garden and good bones and is "dripping" with period details (ew...reminds me of Helter Skelter). And hopefully, it would seem by the drawings of the future Empire w/out people, no new neighbors. A brick Shangri La wrapped in limestone. Blood money, the lot of it. So what you gonna do? More landscaping and a prayer?


I'm expecting that Tuesday will involve much earthy rhetoric, and I hope some sane and reasonable voices will come to offer different perspectives than the one currently carrying the loudest message. It should be possible to have a thoughtful conversation about how to house the hundreds, probably thousands, of residents being priced out. Looking at my Gentrification Steam-punk Timepiece, we have mere hours before the full-blown forces of gentrification come to the avenues. But if we can't figure out a way to be a PART of this great experiment called New York City, if we can't put aside our own (self) satisfaction for at least an honest conversation...we're faring way worse than I imagined.

Here's what the Q believes. We were late rezoning Flatbush - we didn't stay on top of the issue when it became malignant in 2007 then oddly into remission (recession), and now we must move to keep the Flabenue from becoming a canyon along the park. And here's where we should be working WITH the powers that be. Build. Create jobs. Improve schools, amenities and services. Don't fuck over our neighbors in the process. Recognize cultural difference, don't exploit it or condemn it. Use whatever tools are at our disposal to keep people in their homes and work to create better housing laws and curbs on despicable landlords. Recognize that (as I learned Friday) there's been a 20% jump in homelessness in six months. Recognize that right now everyone and their aunt wants to live here, but who's to say it's gonna last? Booms aren't booms unless there are busts before and after. And so, the WAY WE PLAN NOW IS GONNA MATTER. BIG TIME.

If nothing comes of rezoning and the brute force of propaganda rules the day, I won't be surprised. But whatever your thoughts, please come out and share them. I already know what one person's gonna say; I'd like to hear some others.


29 comments:

IKB said...

Tim, I have been reading your blog for 2 years. It was my go to place for information about what is going on in our little part of Brooklyn. Lately though, you sound more like a politician consolidating influence and less like the advocate I thought you were. I find your recent dedication to slandering Alicia Boyd completely alienating and offensive.

Your blog could a forum where readers with ideas about what they want for this community could come together with a plan. I wish it were. Instead, at least on the issue of rezoning Empire, it's an echo chamber devoid of examination. Bring on the affordable housing!

In this post you're telling us that there were multiple meetings already held in the community about this issue. What meetings? You've told us about other meetings organized by other groups and individuals so why are we only hearing about these meetings now? You're on the community board and on the ULURP committee, whose mandate is land use. I don't recall you telling us readers about such meetings. Many of us, had we known, would have attended any meetings that could reshape the future of our neighborhood. When did they occur? Who was there? Whose voice was heard?

You told your readers that a City Planing study is 'just a study', no reason to question it. But that information was untrue. The study will study exactly what is asked. Community Board 9 has given City Planning a carte blanche with the current resolution. They can study any form of residential zoning and will do so. Have any of your readers been to 4th Ave., the "canyon of mediocrity"? What City Planning determines will then be used in the application for rezoning. After which, we in this community have absolutely no power.

The mayor's agenda supports height and density. 20 story buildings will be 'in context' because of the 25 story Ebbets Field Houses 1 block away. How many of the residents here actually want that kind of height? Most people I have spoken with say that want roughly six stories at most. THAT should be reflected in the Community Board's resolution.

The resolution needs be specific with its request. There should height and density limits to what we're asking! There should requirements of commercial space on the ground floors of new buildings. And more. Where do we want people to park? What about store sizes? The lot sizes are conducive to towers. Do we want those or do we want to prevent them? That is the kind of language is in resolutions coming out of community boards on the UES and UWS in Manhattan. That is kind of language coming out of community boards that are taking the time and seeking the knowledge to make a plan that is in the best interest of their communities. Why aren't we doing that here? Why are we acting like City Planning is doing us a favor by coming to our district? We're doing them the favor if we agree to zone Empire residential!

IKB said...

What we have on the table is reckless. We should push it through in order to protect Flatbush? We have seen Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Atlantic Yards, Long Island City, 4th Ave., etc. – the list goes on. No one is happy with the results. Well, no one communities that were supposed to be served. Ask them about transit services that have not been increased to accommodate the new density. How about over crowded are schools? What about sewage lines? What about small businesses that can't afford new rents and have lost their customer base anyway? Who is living in these new "affordable" apartments, most of which are studios and one bedrooms? Who has the good credit, the salary requirements, the ability to negotiate the application process? How many of them are the types of people currently in subsidized housing here and how many are young career track people who can avoid having to endure roommates? These are the types of questions we need to have answered before we move forward.

How much do we have to see before we understand that no, we can't just leave it in the hands of City Planning, City Council and the mayor. We have to be smart about this. Please stop telling us that everything is going to be fine if we just follow you and the process.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

Great questions.

I examine very thoroughly, IKB. You just don't agree. Which is fine.

Ask the thousands of people in the "20" of 80/20 if they're satisfied. I know some; they're thrilled.

Don't assume 20 stories. That's hogwash. We can zone with a 12 story limit.

The resolutions does NOT have to be specific. The specifics will be determined throughout. The community doesn't know jack about zoning; sorry, I've sen them hack through it with a chain saw and lies.

Services? Up the trains a bit. It's a lie to say they're overcrowded, except for an hour in the morning, and even then it ain't bad. I ride it every day. Do you? We're not going to become Williamsburg. There's not enough buildable space.

Schools: YES! Bring it on. That's part of the environmental review. They're building them all over, and it's a great fresh start for the miserable district we currently have.

We can ask for height and density limits but it's moot until the review is done.

FYI, plenty of people are happy with the results on the areas you mention. You, clearly, are not. Speak up. You've got points to make, so make them at the mtg.

It's just plain patronizing to suggest that poor folk can't negotiate a simple application. They can and do. If you have terrible credit, you should get a longterm lease on an apartment? Why exactly? These are NOT intended to be housing projects. They're for the working poor and the elderly. Other populations have other options, like the big developments that CAMBA is putting up.

Yeah they're often studios and one-bedrooms. So demand bigger apartments. It's another part of inclusionary zoning that's on the table. I trust you'll be there for that fight.

Got it. I've put your vote in the no column. I'm in yes, for the future, and for height limits. Currently we have NONE dude!

You need to understand that if we go no on rezoning, the developers win. They'll do their own study and build anyway.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

Oh, and slandering Alicia Boyd? That's a joke. She's slandered everybody I know and respect. And written hateful stuff to me personally.

Don't lecture me about slandering.

no_slappz said...

IKB writes: We have seen Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Atlantic Yards, Long Island City, 4th Ave., etc. – the list goes on. No one is happy with the results. Well, no one communities that were supposed to be served.

You're sounding like Yogi Berra -- "The place is too crowded. Nobody goes there anymore."

Having visited all the places populated by supposedly disgruntled apartment dwellers on your list, I haven't found the disgruntled residents. The was a lot of sound and fury when many of the buildings were under construction and shortly after they were finished. Some needed final adjustments to correct some mistakes, but that's part of every construction project.

Anyway, as you noted, the 26-story Ebbets Field Apartments established neighborhood height guidelines. And, as you noted, the sites along Empire Boulevard are best suited to more 26-story buildings.

Who will pay the rent? The rent will be set at a level that leads to full occupancy. That's not a problem.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

More rebuttals to your accusations.

There were many well-advertised meetings held throughout the neighborhood and CB9. You missed them. Sorry. I can't tell you how often I hear that complaint from people who weren't paying attention til now. Hell, if you've been reading my blog like you said, you'd have seen me beg you to come!

I didn't say it's "just a study" no reason to question it. I said you don't find out what's being proposed by Planning til they do the damn study. Period.

It's conjecture to say the Mayor wants 20 stories. And I have it on good authority that is NOT what's going to happen.

And so, again I say, you apparently want no new affordable units. Bummer to those who won't get one.

You say what we have on the table is reckless. Let me repeat: there is NOTHING on the table but looking at possible up and down zonings to create opportunities. We do NOT get to write the proposal. We can only ask for one.

no_slappz said...

Alicia Boyd is her own worst enemy. The kind of hate festival she provides is a pretty good guarantee she'll receive zero consideration from decision-makers.

In any case, most of the decision-making is contingent on funding and return on investment.

De Blasio is about to impose new environmental rules on buildings. Guess which buildings need the most upgrading and improvement? Right -- Buildings owned by the city. And undoubtedly, buildings supported by outrageous city funding.


Clarkson FlatBed said...

Oh dear. A rare moment of consensus between me and Slappz. Heaven forefend.

If one agrees with a politician on an issue, is that reason to consider them "not an advocate?" Perhaps you've forgotten what de Blasio was when he supported these positions years ago. Now that he's in, everyone's turning. I get it. People don't like to be seen as pandering. Think for yourself though.

What I'm doing is calling it like I see it.

disco princess said...

IKB: NB: The name of the development at 1720 Bedford Avenue is "Ebbets Field Apartments" not "Ebbets Field Houses".

By the way, the development has seven buildings, of which only 3 have 25 stories. (The remainder has 23.)

disco princess said...

Q, sometimes the B and Q can get bad during morning rush hour. Sometimes I can barely squeeze on at Prospect Park.

I don't know whether the MTA can just increase capacity on the Brighton Line. There seems to be a bottleneck just beyond DeKalk Avenue.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

I wonder if another four of five hundred apartments would have a huge effect on that, as opposed to thousands in Williamsburg. I suppose it could. Things are pretty tight at 7th Ave, like I said, for about an hour. Thins out at Atlantic though. Rush hour sux, in Manhattan too.

I will be very disappointed if the Community Board sides with the fear mongers. I've got my own issues further into Flatbush. But I would say that the City "got in bed with the developers" the second they realized it's too expensive, and they're not equipped, to build the new housing of the boom, and to mitigate the loss of affordable housing. I don't think most people get it; if you build no affordable units, you get no affordable units, and folks will build what they can WHERE they can, and without deference to the community's needs ANYway.

One answer, of course, would be to say no to new residents, thereby giving jobs and commerce to other Cities. Hey man, that'd be good for a lot of people's QofL - especially current owners. But I can think of no better way to sell the City down the river. Or up the river. To Poughkeepsie, perhaps? Maybe that's what everyone wants, I dunno. Let's hope they build a subway up there. They could model it on London's. But instead of "the Tube" they could start that word with P for Poughkeepsie. Teehee.

Carmen said...

That's an old article and I'm concerned/suspicious about its recent circulation as a means to rile up the neighborhood.

I've been living in this neighborhood for 8 yrs now and have never had an issue with the building, so I personally see no reason to arbitrarily start worrying now.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

agreed, carmen. the comment has been deleted.

disco princess said...

re: Oh dear. A rare moment of consensus between me and Slappz. Heaven forefend.

Not only that, he got the name of Ebbets Field right. Stop the presses... ;)

G.M. Smith, Jr. said...

Is the 'old article' in question about the halfway house? I keep getting Google alerts about new stories popping up about it (including in today's Daily Eagle).

babs said...

That article was based on an e-mail sent to local media by a former unsuccessful candidate for City Council district 35 (Crown Heights; ran against Laurie Cumbo); he lives on the other side of Empire Blvd. The fact that this was sent out now, when the story is over two years old, as well as the tone of the e-mail (liberal use of all caps and exclamation points) make me think there's a connection here.

disco princess said...

Q, I just came back from the meeting. You missed out on the vote to rescind the resolution (which passed).

Bob Marvin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Marvin said...

I don't THINK that resolution actually passed. They voted, BUT even though the resolution (to rescind THE resolution) got more "yea" votes than "nays" I don't think it was enough. The yeas received 16 votes, a majority, but CBs have complex procedures and IIRC the large number of abstentions was enough to keep the resolution from being carried. I might be wrong though–it's been a good number of years since I served on CB9 and the sh*t show tonight made me really glad to no longer be a member.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

Unfortunately no, Bob. Abstentions hold the majority, in this case to rescind.

An abstention is lowest form of vote. I can handle people who disagree with me. I detest it when people hide their true opinion.

Gutless. Like the whole CB tonight, in my opinion.

Bob Marvin said...

Really? Too bad :-(

Daniel Kristjansson said...

Shit show is right! The Movement To Protect Alicia Boyd's Parking has attracted some useful idiots. The 20 MTOPPers shouting down anyone who didn't support them tonight roundly defeated PPEN and the interests of the other 20,000 or so people who are going to be negatively affected by the community board bowing out of the rezoning process.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

I'll be danged, Bob. You're RIGHT! I just wrote the entire board to tell them their lily-livered abstentions just cost the vote.

babs said...

Really depressing - the worst was that I saw many of my (I thought) friends and neighbors wearing green t-shirts (no comment your sartorial choice for the evening, Q) and even speaking in favor of this whack job. Worst was a seeing a neighbor whom I really respect actually collecting money for Alicia Boyd's personal 501(c)(3) - you know that money is going to defend no-one's housing but her car's. I do hope that enough people were appalled by her frantic antics and blatant racism (How about that slogan, "This black neighborhood is not for sale," white green t-shirt wearers?). So sad - it works for me - I'm out of my non-rent-stabilized apartment when my lease is up (January 2016) and am more than willing to pay more money for more amenities and less hostility. Why should I pay $2100/mo. to have no decent restaurants/bars nearby AND to be treated as a gentrifying racist, even though I've lived here for nearly 10 years, when I could downsize slightly and live in Brooklyn Heights, where no-one will consider me a gentrifier? And my landlord will be able to get much more than that from three gentrifying racists sharing who'll think it's cheap to only pay $900/bedroom (or really a bedroom, a home office, and a dining room, but they'll sleep anywhere) - and who couldn't care less about this community, except to fight to bring in a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. So much for your affordable housing!

Clarkson FlatBed said...

In defense, slightly, I'll say that people are so afraid and disempowered that they're looking for any demagogue with the right complexion to come and waken their restless spirit.

The whole thing will be moot in a few years, because those rent stabilized apts will be a thing of the past unless a miracle happens in the State Legislature. Meanwhile, the pace of gentrification has hit a fever pitch.

babs said...

Also, as pointed out, where does this put us? Back to square 1 (or zero really), meaning that developers can continue to buy parcels, knock down buildings, and sometimes even build big new buildings as of right. For example, it was mentioned tonight that the Associated supermarket on Nostrand above Empire Boulevard has just lost its lease. What is the current zoning there? C2-3/R7-1. Well, you know what R7 zoning means - condos! Or at least luxury rentals, and maybe with that Trader Joe's downstairs because of the nice commercial overlay. Yes to rescission and embracing the status quo of free market development!

babs said...

Even if that right-complected demagogue happens to own a million dollar townhouse - I noticed, Tim, that when you were speaking several people shouted, "Homeowner!" Where do they think their Dear Leader lives? In a $900/mo. rent stabilized hovel? Not hardly! Puh-leeze!

Dynishal said...

Tim, I want to disagree with you strongly about your comment here regarding maintaining strict credit screening for affordable housing qualifications.

The fact that longterm residents have such a hard time getting into new affordable units, even IF they miraculously get through the lottery, is a real unfairness & fulfills the suspicion that new development is meant to benefit newcomers.

I don't think it makes sense to deny a renter who has maintained their rent regulated lease for years the opportunity to rent a new apartment that may be CHEAPER than what they're paying in old housing stock, because their low or unstable income has made them late on other bills.

If we truly value living in a mixed-income, diverse community, we have to recognize that that includes folks with a range credit scores & some who are unbanked or with no credit history at all and advocate for policy changes that will help them.

Daniel Kristjansson said...

I'm not sure what the rules should be with respect to affordable housing, but I agree that the credit check is used to unfairly keep qualified tenants out of a building. 66 Rockwell Place in Fort Greene "couldn't find qualified tenants" within CB2 because the qualifications they have control over were set unreasonably. When a developer does that is dilutes the benefits of the affordable housing program. -- Regulation can be tricky of course. Well meaning lawmakers created the poor door fiasco when trying to address segregation by floor.