Read on Twitter
OK, some very preliminary insta-reactions on the big NYC comprehensive planning report, now that the legislation itself is out. A long, maybe rambling thread to think this through out loud (1/n): https://council.nyc.gov/news/2020/12/16/planning-together/
Overall, I’m optimistic about what this represents.
In the Charter revision process, it was clear that some people thought “comprehensive planning” meant helping the city grow, and thought it meant stopping growth.
This is squarely an effort to do the former.
In the Charter revision process, it was clear that some people thought “comprehensive planning” meant helping the city grow, and thought it meant stopping growth.
This is squarely an effort to do the former.
I also like it as an attempt at a hard reset of the city’s land use politics.
We’re at a point where “stop all rezoning” is becoming a prominent position. A big, visible change to current dynamics is important (the mayoral race is the other opportunity here). (3/n)
We’re at a point where “stop all rezoning” is becoming a prominent position. A big, visible change to current dynamics is important (the mayoral race is the other opportunity here). (3/n)
For housing, the best part is an attempt at a local RHNA-esque process of setting housing growth targets for both the city and each district. This creates a political framework for growth and fair share.
That alone would be a big win, even if it's just words on paper. (4/n)
That alone would be a big win, even if it's just words on paper. (4/n)
It’s also v. wise to reframe public participation as asking “how do we grow,” not “do we grow” - this is where local knowledge is most valuable. Letting CBs choose between multiple scenarios is an elegant way to do that. This is my favorite part of the proposal, I think? (5/n)
But I’ve got some questions and concerns, too. (And someone else will have to speak to the capital budgeting pieces of this, which are also important). (6/n)
Issue 1: The proposal has a very old-school faith in panoptic city planning, what @JDavidsonNYC archly calls “one glorious document,” the “perfect, elusive mechanism” for fixing NYC. That won’t happen (Carol Rose and others demolished this vision decades ago). (7/n)
The practical question is whether that ambition takes down the rest of the proposal. How interconnected are these planning processes - do snags at one step take down the whole machinery? Does it strain the city’s bureaucratic capacity to make more targeted interventions? (8/n)
Issue 2: How will a very particularized zoning code interact with a much more general plan? NYC’s zoning code is famously baroque, and the map now makes distinctions parcel-by-parcel. Is that zoning style meant to survive impact with a much more general plan? (9/n)
Or is the plan, and the land use scenarios for each district, essentially a citywide rezoning? Huge, unresolved stakes here. (10/n)
Issue 3: I am more skeptical than @ProfSchleich that the “carrots” to make the plan stick will work ( https://twitter.com/ProfSchleich/status/1339335408027627521). Making rezonings that are consistent with the plan subject only to an optional Council call-up makes them the same as special permits. (11/n)
But we know that the Council uses special permits to maintain control over zoning (see hotels).
In practice, I don’t think this will change much at all. Any activist’s first demand would be to hold a Council vote — and who could be against that? (12/n)
In practice, I don’t think this will change much at all. Any activist’s first demand would be to hold a Council vote — and who could be against that? (12/n)
The GEIS proposal could help, depending on how Issue 2 is resolved. It’s hard to substantially reduce net amount of environmental review; you can structure the review more efficiently. But if individual zonings still require big SEISs, you might 2x litigation opportunities (13/n)
Issue 4: The new steering committee is not mayorally controlled (4 mayoral appointees, 4 from Council, 5 from BPs). Not clear this is a move towards city-wide planning compared to the DCP/CPC + Council status quo. (14/n)
One other suggestion: the state has a big role to play here. They really could make the environmental review process much more streamlined (inc. via rulemaking). Can also enforce deals, tie Council to the mast.
Council should work with Albany here. (15/n)
Council should work with Albany here. (15/n)
Overall, really excited to see where this goes! It's *absolutely* the right conversation to be having, about growth and fair housing, and a very productive initial proposal. (16/16)
