Not one member of the committee seemed to express any interest in the City's best market-aided efforts to get rid of Fedders & Billyburg style buildings, build more homes for seniors, or require means-tested set-asides. We heard a lot of nonsensical comments about the "right way" to build affordable housing. And maybe, sometime next decade, there'll be the money and political will to do some of it, too little to late. By then, building affordable housing for the poor might be twice as expensive. Actually, by then the poor may have moved on, and the working poor will be commuting from Poughkeepsie. Maybe we can get them a discount on Metronorth tickets? The whole thing is so depressing. I don't know why I sit there and take the abuse, especially the 5 minute tantrum from Boyd who called me a punk, racist and coward for pointing out what a hypocrite she is for claiming her anti-gentrification bonafides all the while playing them up to Airbnb renters. She's a phony, but that doesn't matter. She gets what she wants. Just like my toddler. Lotta similarities actually.
It's enough to make me think that people in this neighborhood really DO want to be Park Slope. That's the way they're voting. They want downzoning ONLY, just like the Slope so successfully did through the years, selling out 4th Avenue because, you know, it really isn't the Slope, not the REAL Slope. See any black or brown folks over there? See any affordable housing? Have you seen that average incomes are over $120K? Did you know the Slope used to have huge black and brown populations? Couldn't happen here, though. Of course.
Am I the last person standing who wants downzoning on inner-blocks, with height-limited upzoning on the Avenues to allow for the building of affordable housing? Probably. Alicia says she wants REAL affordable housing. Something tells me she won't go for it on Empire Boulevard though. Why? Hypocrite. Light and garden and Euro-sensibility and parking loving hypocrite. What's sad is that the true righteous crusaders, like Crown Height Tenants Union often align themselves with her. If they only knew.
That's where we're heading folks. Park Slope. And tonight, we sealed the deal. What was hilarious was that many people on the Board and in the community actually made the arguments tonight FOR a Planning Study, though you best bet they won't be for it when the rubber meets the road. After years of wanting more affordability, the real cowards are the people who look the future in the eye, and say no to change, positive policy change that might just save not only OUR neighborhood, but the whole damn City.
Here's a fact, Jack. It's a Great Big City.
Sounds obvious, right? And it's getting denser. Community Districts all over the City are watching and feeling helpless as developers gobble up land and build the most profitable buildings for their investments. And right now business is very, very good indeed. Though land and building prices have skyrocketed, so have rents and the costs of owning a piece of America's greatest urban experiment - NYC. In a wild reversal of fortune from both post-9/11 New York and the financial crisis of '08-'09, for better or worse, we have become THE place to be, as an investor or a worker, business or resident. And so we come to the present moment.
I've lived here in BK since 1988. In all that time I've never seen a mobilization of forces that can only be called anti-housing. I make that distinction (anti-housing) because groups like Concerned Citizens or MTOPP have many arguments for their claims. But the one consistent complaint is - don't build denser or higher. Not even a little bit. We've got enough people. City and developers, please move on to the next "it" neighborhood. Why do I call this NIMBYism? Well, because that's what the acronym was coined for. Go ahead and build your damn housing. Just not here.
We have a request in to City Planning to do a study of our neighborhood, and even the Study is vehemently opposed by a few loud and omnipresent citizen activists. But that issue has been set aside for the moment by the City agency charged with such matters because they've created a series of what are called "text changes" that are meant to work throughout the City, not on any one block or neighborhood. They are, in the words of the professional planners, intended to:
a) spur or require the development of affordable "means tested" housingTonight you heard people speak out against it, and the nays have it. Oddly, what most people WANT - affordability and a diverse neighborhood - are the very things they voted against.
b) spur the development of seriously discounted housing for low-income seniors
c) incentivize smarter, better architecture with taller first stories - spurring first floor commercial uses and going back to the pre-war model of higher first floors (don't like Fedders buildings? this one's for you!)
d) mandate (as in you HAVE to) build affordable units in any area that's been rezoned
And that, my friends, is what I call lunacy. And really good propaganda.