BrooklynSpeaks session tomorrow night addresses affordable housing; what's their take on 421-a revamp? will they acknowledge 2014 missteps?
Tomorrow night's session, the third in BrooklynSpeaks' four-week Crossroads initiative to generate a new plan for, and improvements related to, Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, concerns Housing, notably the plans for more certain and more affordable income-restricted "affordable housing," of which 876 more units (of 2,250 total) are required by May 2025, a deadline that seems in doubt.
It's at 7 pm; the slideshow should be posted during the presentation, with the opportunity to comment, and the video should be posted soon after.
As explained below, BrooklynSpeaks, a coalition of neighborhood and advocacy groups in 2014 helped accelerate previously delayed affordable housing. But it was misleading about the level of affordability--which it now criticizes, given the disproportionate amount of units for not-so-needy middle-income renters.
In 2005, developers and the State agreed to build 2,250 affordable apartments at Atlantic Yards. 60% of them were supposed to go to households earning less than $62,800.
It took eleven years for the first of those apartments to be delivered. Most of the 775 units that have been occupied since then have gone to households earning well over $100,000. And all of the 591 affordable apartments under construction now are expected to be marketed to households earning over $150,000 for a family of four. This gulf between promise and reality has grown at a time when working people from neighborhoods surrounding the project are facing increasing pressure of being displaced.
Atlantic Yards was supposed to bring neighborhoods together, not tear them apart. Keeping the project's commitment to real affordability is vital to maintaining diverse communities at the crossroads of Brooklyn.
Clarity on history
To clarify that statement, the project was approved by Empire State Development Corporation (now Empire State Development, a gubernatorially-controlled state authority) in 2006 and re-approved in 2009.
Rather, May 2005 marked non-binding public promises via a private Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that original project developer Forest City Ratner signed with advocacy group ACORN. That was incorporated a month later in the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), a private contract Forest City signed with eight "community" groups, most astroturf.
(Yes, the Area Median Income, or AMI, for a family of four was $62,800 as of 2005.)
Crucially, after that 2009 re-approval, Atlantic Yards, long said to be a ten-year buildout, was given a 25-year construction deadline by the state. Delay translate to ever-less-affordable housing, given rising AMIs, from which low-, moderate-, and middle-income eligibility and rents are calculated.
The 2021 AMI--which is calculated by adding adjacent counties to New York City--for a four-person household is $119,300.
Moreover, rather than require the project to adhere to the income configuration in the MOU--40% low-income, 20% moderate-income, 40% middle-income--the state after that 2009 approval allowed a broad definition of affordable housing: adhering to a city, state, or federal agreement with a restriction on rents and incomes.
Missing: reflections on 2014
However, as I wrote earlier this month, that settlement, revealed in an overblown New York Times exclusive, deserved skepticism, since it ignored affordability, and BrooklynSpeaks was less than candid.
Announcing the settlement 6/27/14, BrooklynSpeaks' Michelle de la Uz, Executive Director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, said, "We’re pleased that our tireless efforts to ensure public accountability have paid off, and that we were able to come to an agreement with Forest City and the State to ensure the community finally gets the affordable housing it was promised 10 years ago."
But it wasn't the promised housing, as BrooklynSpeaks now acknowledges. The first "100% affordable" tower, 535 Carlton (B14), had 65% middle-income units. Upon the groundbreaking, though, de la Uz 12/15/14 called it "a meaningful step forward in fulfilling that need" for affordable housing.
 |
| Income/rents for 18 Sixth Ave. (B4) |
Brooklyn Crossing affordable studios are $1,905, 1-BRs $2,390, and 2-BRs $3,344.
Today, does BrooklynSpeaks look back more critically?
Yes, the 591 affordable apartments under construction, at B12/B13 (615 Dean St. & 595 Dean St.), likely will be marketed next year to middle-income household. It's worth noting that the current income range extends well below $150,000 for a family of four (as cited in the BrooklynSpeaks message above), and that the income floors/ceilings are lower for smaller households.
What's now on the table? From BrooklynSpeaks' third principle, Create affordable housing that meets the community’s needs:
In 2005, Atlantic Yards developers promised to provide 2,250 affordable apartments to address the shortage of housing in northwest Brooklyn, and to create an opportunity for tenants facing pressure from rising housing costs to remain here.
Over the next sixteen years, that promise has been chipped away until nothing other than pieces remain. During the long wait for apartments to be completed, tens of thousands of families have been displaced from neighborhoods surrounding Atlantic Yards. Most of the “affordable” housing that has been built–and all of the new units that are about to become available–are intended for households earning more than $100,000 per year. And since 2016, residents of the community districts next to the project have not even received preference in lotteries for its affordable housing.
This is not what Brooklyn was promised, and we shouldn’t be asked to accept it when now more than ever, our communities’ historic social and economic diversity is in danger of disappearing.
- The remaining project affordable housing to be constructed must be leased to tenants earning no more than an average of 60% AMI, with a minimum of 40% of such housing being affordable to tenants earning an average of 40% AMI. Affordability must be permanent. The affordable housing unit mix must meet community needs for the targeted and lowered AMI levels and minimally adhere to New York City's requirements under its Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program.
- The City must allow persons displaced from community districts 2, 3, 6, and 8 after 2006 to receive community preference in lotteries for affordable housing at Atlantic Yards.
- At least 25% of affordable housing to be constructed must be allocated with preference to senior citizens.
- At least 25% of affordable housing to be constructed must be allocated with preference to the homeless.
(Emphases added)
Separately--and somewhat inconsistently--BrooklynSpeaks' fourth principle, Be accountable to the public, includes three asks related to affordable housing;
- Until at least 75% of the project’s affordable housing units have been completed, approval for any new building to begin construction must be contingent on its use of not less than 25% of its floor area for affordable apartments.
- Any future transfer of development rights to a parcel within the project must be approved subject to a binding public commitment by the transferee to provide the number of affordable apartments called out for that parcel in the then-current plan provided by the developers.
- Programming for a modified Site 5 must also include new, additional commitments for affordable housing targeting very low- and extremely low-income tenants who have been left behind by the Atlantic Yards housing completed to date.
Note that the retroactive preference was proposed in 2014 but rejected by the city--perhaps as opening up too many bureaucratic complexities?--but certainly has a logic.Create affordable housing that meets the community’s needs
Participants at this session, led by Bernell Grier and Michelle de la Uz, focused on the gap between the housing produced so far at Atlantic Yards versus the needs of current community members at risk of displacement. Dissatisfaction was voiced at the relatively high income levels at which the project’s affordable apartments have been indexed. Some suggested that increased subsidy from [city] HPD and [state] DHCR could play a role in increasing affordability. It was proposed that average affordability for future units must be indexed to 60% of Area Median Income (AMI), with 40% of the units being indexed to 40% AMI. Permanent affordability should also be required. Affordable rents should be indexed to 20% of income, not 30%.
In addition to preference for 50% of the affordable apartments for residents of Brooklyn community boards 2, 3, 6 and 8, it was suggested that at least 10% of the units be reserved for senior citizens. People who have been displaced from the four community districts receiving preference since the project’s approval in 2006 should also receive preference in lotteries.
The requests today mostly reflect the 2019 discussion, notably regarding the level of affordability. But they're no longer asking for affordable rents to be indexed to 20% of income, rather than 30%, perhaps because that would be a departure from current practices.
Rather than suggest a 10% preference to senior citizens, they now ask for 25%, which makes some sense, given that 25% of the remaining units might help the project fulfill the original promise of devoting 10% (225) of the 2,250 affordable units. None have been built so far.
As to 25% allocated to the homeless, that sounds like a stretch, given that the developers are probably very skittish about that. (Presumably, they'd have housing vouchers.) But these requests are likely points of negotiation rather than hard demands.
It makes sense to tie future construction to ongoing commitment to affordability, but surely the $2,000/month fines also should be incentive. Will BrooklynSpeaks emphasize these potential fines in the session tomorrow? Or does an absence of emphasis suggest recognition that the penalties might be delayed?
As to putting affordable housing on Site 5, that could mean more overall housing, and affordable housing for the project, and thus more than 2,250 affordable units total.
But it also means the developers could find a way to meet the 2,250-unit quota and then... not build the rest of the project. Stay tuned.
If you can people, try to move to New Jersey, there are a lot of safe real affordable housing there, just do your research, as for Atlantic yards apartments, by the time they complete these units, black and brown people will already be pushed out the surrounding areas, and this is what the developers and some democrats politicians want, don't be fooled, remember again this is needed at the atlantic yards apartments AMI, 20%,30%,40%,50,%60%70%AMI, this is extreme, very low, and low income,all low income earners need affordable, resourceful areas like the atlantic yards apartments, but instead as I seen, the only thing that changed this year, is adding on 2, for 2022, republican and dems politicians filling up there pockets, and purses, smh
ReplyDelete