I am Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal, and I represent the 67th Assembly district, which includes the Upper West Side and parts of Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattan. I would like to thank the City Planning Commission (CPC) for the opportunity to comment on the Zoning for Quality and Affordability and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing plans. As a member of the New York State Assembly’s Committee on Housing and a stalwart housing advocate who has long championed the need for more affordable housing throughout New York City, I am pleased that the City is taking steps to address the affordability crisis that is exacting a huge toll on beleaguered New Yorkers throughout the five boroughs. Unless the City acts, tenants will be priced out of the very neighborhoods they helped to build; however, the City must balance its quest to build and maintain affordability with the economic realities and historical significance of individual communities. Elected officials should not have to ask the City to include the community in this colossal proposal; this plan has been shrouded in mystery from the very beginning, preventing a truly transparent and open process that residents from every borough deserve. While I support the creation of desperately needed new units of affordable housing, this problem is too large and too personal to simply forge ahead with a unilateral policy that blatantly disregards the credible voices and concerns of my constituents and community members. Given that all community boards expressed consternation and downright opposition about the scope and impact it would be wise to go back to them with the changes that were promised by the Administration.

The Zoning and Affordability portion of the plan raises far too many questions without offering any concrete details about the plan’s impact on the surrounding infrastructure and landmarked buildings. My district has observed an unprecedented level of luxury development and an increase in overall building heights over the past few years. My constituents along Amsterdam Avenue in the West 60’s recently saw the addition of a 400-foot luxury apartment complex at 200 West 67th Street, a 185-foot building at 170 Amsterdam Avenue and a soon-to-be 55-story building at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, which will become one of the tallest developments on the Upper West Side. The overdevelopment of those blocks in the West 60’s is a microcosm of what Upper West Siders, especially residents living along Riverside Drive and Broadway, will experience if the Administration does not limit the heights of buildings in both contextual and non-contextual districts. The Administration’s proposal to eliminate the distinction between narrow and wide streets while simultaneously increasing building heights by 5 to 20 feet, will alter the unique character of the Upper West Side, and further increase the density in a neighborhood where the infrastructure is already under great stress.

While I understand the need for action, further encouraging mass development without providing the community with any additional resources to meet those needs is unacceptable. A school in my district has had a waitlist of over 100 children for the past two years. Will new buildings with a certain number of units be required to develop a school for the students they are adding to the district? Will the New York City Department of Education identify additional resources for this and other schools in my district to handle the increase in students? A popular bus route that is used by many elderly residents, the M104, was severely affected by the 2010 MTA’s budget cuts. Seniors frequently lament the M104’s chronic tardiness and unreliability; if additional senior housing is added to the Upper West Side, will the M104 be able to handle an influx of hundreds of additional seniors who rely heavily on buses? The questions I pose are the very issues my community boards handle and discuss with residents every single day; yet, their concerns, and by extension, their hard work and on-the-ground knowledge of their communities have been brushed aside. The Administration’s halfhearted attempts to involve the community are insulting to the men and women who volunteer their valuable time to improve this City.

Despite this plan’s one-size-fits-all approach, Manhattan Community Boards 4 and 7 are unique and distinct in appearance as a result of decades of hard work by dedicated preservationists, residents and community groups, and as a result these districts reflect the values of the people who live in them. This zoning text would diminish the character of the Upper West Side’s historical districts by permitting developers to build on top of landmarked buildings while also eliminating rear yard setback regulations. Creation of a historical district should ensure that a neighborhood’s unique charm and character remain unchanged in the midst of continuous development. Although CPC claims that construction in historic districts would be subject to approval by New York City Landmarks Commission (LPC), I find this situation implausible at best. LPC faced immense criticism months ago for de-calendaring its backlog of 95 properties in a wrong-headed attempt to deal with it. How will the LPC, with a budget of $5.3 million, handle the hundreds, if not thousands of new requests from developers requesting rooftop additions and other modifications? I fear that many of the buildings communities worked so hard to preserve will fall through LPC’s cracks, diminishing many areas’ historical significance. Additionally, the Sliver Law, which would be altered if the zoning plan is approved, ensures that the construction of midblock buildings is limited in height to the width of the street. This revision would foster the construction of out-of-scale projects that both Community Boards 4 and 7 have resisted for years; it would alter the cohesive landscape of each neighborhood.

Although the zoning text would remove barriers to building nursing homes, assisted-living programs and larger senior complexes, I am deeply perplexed by decisions not to call for permanent affordable housing for senior citizens. By failing to ensure the permanence of affordable housing for seniors, we are simply kicking the can down the road. The increased bulk and height will remain long after the 30-year affordability promise ends. This Administration is demanding that communities absorb the impact of increased building heights while promising big giveaways to future owners once the 30-year deadline is reached. Chair Weisbrod wrote in a letter to the Manhattan delegation that, “the additional floor height could not be converted to market-rate housing at any time, including after the expiration of the initial regulatory agreement enacted at the time…” However, the letter fails to provide the details of how this Administration will prevent the loss of senior housing years from now. Without a specific mechanism to safeguard against the conversion of affordable housing market-rate apartments in the future, vague statements of intent does not make for a suitable solution.

With respect to the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) portion of this plan, I have strong concerns over the proposed area median income (AMI) bands, the payment-in-lieu of taxes fund and the placement of offsite affordable sites.

Every month, my office sees dozens of evictions, many of them low-income residents, who are simply trying to stretch their already meager paychecks in order to keep up with their ever-increasing rents. Although my constituents are urgently seeking alternative housing solutions by applying for lotteries, many of them with annual incomes ranging from $20,000 to $35,000 a year, do not qualify for the available lotteries in my district or throughout the City. After reviewing this plan, I am afraid that my constituents who are in need of the most help will not be able to find the relief they desperately need. And it begs the question, for whom is this plan affordable?

The CPC and the New York City Council will have the opportunity to apply one of three affordable options to a development: at least 25% affordability with an average AMI of 60% ($36,300 for an individual), at least 30% affordability with an average AMI of 80% ($48,400 for an individual) or at least 30% affordability with an average of 120% AMI ($72,600 for an individual). Developers continually argue that building affordable housing is simply too costly; however, Community Board 4 has created 2,571 units of affordable housing with 93.7% of developments at 60% AMI or less. In fact, Board 4 has created 1,574 or 61.2% of affordable units at the 50% AMI level ($30,250 for an individual). The community boards possess an expert understanding of the economic realities of the neighborhoods they represent. Using this expertise, community boards advocated for affordability by spearheading tough negotiations with developers; we expect no less from the City.

The three-tiered AMI system is inflexible and does nothing to create housing for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers: those with incomes that fall below the 60% AMI band. A 2014 report issued on economic inequality in New York City by Comptroller Scott M. Stringer illustrates the need for AMI bands that are more representative of an economically diverse constituency: 23.8% of households earn less than $20,000 and 18.8% of households earn between $20,000 to $40,000. To truly change the tale of two cities narrative, it is essential that an additional AMI requirement be included to supplement the middle-income bands, depending on the needs of individual neighborhoods.

A few summers ago, a building in my district, 40 Riverside Boulevard, was the subject of city-wide debate after providing two different entrances for market-rate and affordable tenants. Policy makers at all levels of government decried the ill-advised regulations that sanctioned and even required the separate and unequal treatment of tenants based on income. As offended as everyone was at the time, the current plan would allow developers to build two separate buildings on one lot, one for affordable homes and one for market-rate tenants, or in the alternative, create offsite affordable housing half a block from the development while reducing the distribution of affordable units from 65% of the floors to 50% of the floors in a building.

I have concerns regarding the affordable housing fund that would be operated by the New York City Housing Preservation and Development. Developers who intend to construct developments with between 10 and 25 units would be exempt from the requirement to construct affordable housing units, and would instead be permitted to make a contribution to an affordable housing fund. Though efforts have been made to clarify the details of the fund, it remains unclear as to why the Administration would impose a 10-year deadline for use of the funds collected in a specific community board. Neighborhoods should not have to sacrifice their funding, and community boards should not be forced to sacrifice control over funds they receive in lieu of affordable apartments in their community simple because of an arbitrary deadline. In addition, details about the fund should be finalized before this plan is approved. For example, how will HPD ensure that money collected is spent before the expiration of the 10-year deadline and not held in favor of a future off-site building? Will HPD receive additional funding to maximize the effectiveness of the fund? Will the developer’s contribution be based upon the actual cost of building affordable housing in different housing markets across the City?

Building affordable housing should be a priority; however, a unilateral policy that treats diverse communities as monolithic does not reflect the reality of our communities or the affordability crisis plaguing our City. Over the years, our neighbors and our communities have fought and rallied for zoning changes that reflect their values and concerns. While no easy task, any affordable housing plan must encompass the concerns and questions of specific communities in order to be successful, both in perception and in reality. Before we increase the heights and densities of buildings, we need to ensure our communities can actually handle the new development and the increased demand on services. Before we build senior residences throughout the City, we must to be sure that we are getting the best deal for our communities and the elderly. Before we create a fund to handle millions of dollars, we should all know how that fund will function. Before we allow developers to create poor floors, we should think of the failed discriminatory policies that preceded it. The key word is “before.” There is too much at stake, too many questions, too many vague answers for this plan to be pushed through the CPC and the City Council. I urge the City to put this process on pause and go back to the community boards to discuss the myriad issues that have been brought up since the plan was introduced. That way, the final plan should reflect the needs of the unique and diverse communities it is designed to benefit.