The City Council Speaker has proposed PLANNING TOGETHER: A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR NEW YORK CITY (linked).
Formally Intro 2186, this legislation proposes a requirement for the City of New York to undertake periodic, comprehensive planning for all areas of the city and details a completely new process for the city to accomplish this task.
This will be heard by the Committees on Governmental Operations and Land Use along with the subcommittee on Capital Budget Tomorrow, Tuesday, February 23rd beginning at 10am
We are not against planning! In fact, quite the opposite! But this proposal is not inclusive nor comprehensive. The report cites rising sea levels and equity as reasons to justify this unprecedented shift of responsibility in shaping our city’s future. Read on for a joint statement from LANDMARK WEST! and our colleagues: FRIENDS of the UES Historic Districts, Historic Districts Council, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Preservation League of New York State, and Village Preservation.
While preservation groups have long supported long term planning, Speaker Johnson’s proposed bill further erodes community input and pushes development into already dense areas instead of adding amenities throughout neighborhoods.
Here are some of our questions and concerns:
• A full public engagement process has not taken place with all the City’s Community Boards.
• Will the Community Boards be provided adequate resources to properly engage with this additional work?
• With the final adoption of the Comprehensive Long-Term Plan, the Mayor & the City Council explicitly have the authority to overrule community planning.
– How does layering another level of bureaucracy which sidelines community input improve planning?
• How does the reduced public review of proposals which align with the Comprehensive Long-Term Plan benefit the communities it is meant to serve?
• What role does the Department of City Planning play in all this planning?
• The focus on areas of rich opportunity within our city’s core, many of which are designated historic districts, could have unforeseen consequences. It will do nothing to improve the comparatively less-advantaged areas but further starves them, displacing residents to statistically “better” neighborhoods.
– How does this plan guard against the consequences of new development which might meet growth goals but damages neighborhoods?
• Why are growth goals a priority for this bill?
• Term limits will ensure a lack of continuity of elected officials and agency staff over the establishment of a single 10-year plan. What guarantees do we have that this long-term project will remain adequately and consistently funded?
As preservationists, we believe that long-term comprehensive planning by New York City is a laudable goal. However, the structural flaws in this plan and its implementation make it an inadequate roadmap to New Yorkers’ best future.
Attend the Hearing, or Submit Comments:
Written testimony may be submitted up to 72 hours after hearing has been adjourned.