Testimony

Crotona Park East/West Farms Rezoning and Text Amendment

Testimony to the City Planning Commission

Elena Conte, Organizer for Public Policy Campaigns

July 27, 2011

Commissioners, Chair Burden, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Elena Conte and I offer these comments on behalf of the Pratt Center for Community Development and in support of those made by our community-based partner, the Bronx River Alliance.

The Crotona Park East and West Farms neighborhoods have undergone tremendous change in recent decades, in large part due to the activism of local people working in productive partnership with government agencies to create a diverse and healthy community that supports long-time residents and welcomes new ones. The developments that will be made possible by the proposed rezoning are the direct beneficiaries of the increase in land value and desirability of the neighborhood born from these efforts. They are also the direct beneficiaries of the $120 million investment of City, State, and federal money in the restoration of the Bronx River and the creation of the Bronx River Greenway, a significant public investment that seeks a stronger mechanism for its protection.

Yet the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed rezoning reveals that still the existing amount and quality of open space in the area is grossly insufficient for the current population which is majority people of color and majority working class; the ratio of open space access is a paltry .74 acres per 1,000 people, far short of the standard of 2.5 acres that the Department of City Planning calls for. The proposed action would make an already deficient condition significantly worse – decreasing that ratio by 6.6 percent, a result identified by the DEIS as a significant adverse impact that requires mitigation.

The Pratt Center is here to testify today in opposition to HPD’s proposed extension of 421-a eligibility from 36 months to 72 months for projects initiated prior to the 2007-08 extension of the 421-a exclusion zone.

By expanding the exclusion zone, in which affordable housing is required as a condition of the tax abatement, the City Council and State Legislature clearly intended to spur the creation of affordable housing alongside market-rate development in neighborhoods that had become -- and remain -- highly attractive for real estate development. The legislature passed its measure in mid -2007 and proceeded to give developers until mid-2008 to get foundations in the ground without having to include affordable housing as a condition of receiving the tax abatement within the expanded exclusion zone. Since then, projects begun prior to June 2008 have had three years to come to completion and claim the tax benefit under the old rules. Now HPD is talking about changing the rules at the very end of the game, and calling it halftime.

Testimony to the New York City Charter Revision Commission

August 23, 2010

Good evening. I’m Elena Conte of the Pratt Center for Community Development. We want to thank the Charter Revision Commission for its thoughtful recommendations for revisions to the City Charter, and especially for the proposal to include waste transfer stations and transportation facilities in the Atlas of City Facilities. This provision will present a much fuller picture than has existed in the past of the environmental burdens faced by low-income communities across the city, and supports informed decision-making about siting polluting facilities. Ultimately, New York City has a greater opportunity to see a fairer distribution of polluting facilities as a result of this measure.

The Pratt Center for Community Development helps communities across New York City engage in urban planning and promote environmental sustainability. Our partners include community development corporations, civic associations, community boards, affordable housing developers, small businesses and labor unions, all seeking to make sure development meets’ their constituents’ and neighborhoods’ needs. Through 197-a plans and the advisory vote of community boards in the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, the City Charter aims to give groups like these a say in land use decisions. In practice, however, the charter’s land use provisions fall short of providing meaningful public input.

We therefore want to express disappointment at the charter commission staff’s recommendation that land use issues be left for future consideration. We agree with the staff that proposals advanced by the Pratt Center and other groups, including Citizens Union, do indeed call for “substantial changes to the balance in the system of land use established in the 1975 Charter.” And we want to stress that those changes are both urgent and necessary. The commission must give them serious consideration.