At upcoming BrooklynSpeaks session on accountability, talk of new transparency on timetable, and local enforcement. What about the advisory AY CDC?

Tomorrow night's session, the fourth in BrooklynSpeaks' four-week Crossroads initiative to generate a  improvements related to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, concerns Accountability.

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.

(I've previously covered sessions on Urban Design, focusing on proposals for Pacific Street and for Dean Street; Traffic and Transportation; and Affordable Housing.

The entire effort is keyed to an expected effort by the developer and state to move the bulk from the unbuilt "Miss Brooklyn" tower, once slated to loom over the arena, across Flatbush Avenue to Site 5, long home to Modell's and P.C. Richard, to enable a giant two-tower project. 

(As I wrote, the previous session didn't address the issue of Site 5's scale.)

Looming are the $2,000/month fines for affordable units missing by the May 2025 deadline, given the requirement to build 876 more to fulfill a settlement agreement BrooklynSpeaks--a coalition of neighborhood, housing, and advocacy groups--reached in 2014.

The proposals, as previewed below, are generally sensible, though the political leverage, and funding, to achieve them all varies. 

And certain things are left out.

And, as noted in the preview email (screenshot at right), none of the people at the 2010 arena groundbreaking are still associated with the project,  "coordination between the State, the City and the developers is practically non-existent," and oversight as failed.

What about the AY CDC?

It's notable that BrooklynSpeaks, in announced proposals regarding accountability (discussed below), ignores the role and record of the advisory Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC), which was set up as part of the 2014 settlement the coalition negotiated that delivered that new 2025 deadline.

BrooklynSpeaks in 2015 hailed it as progress, which I thought overoptimistic--which has since been borne out.

Not only has the gubernatorially controlled AY CDC not met its supposed quarterly schedule, most members are uncurious and uninformed/underinformed. It's sometimes been used as a rubber stamp to endorse project changes requested by the developer and supported by the state.

At previous sessions in the Crossroads series, attendees have suggested that a new oversight entity be created, though that requires state action--and in 2014 the governor's office nixed that kind of more muscular entity, instead allowing this advisory body.

Complicating this is that BrooklynSpeaks leader Gib Veconi, who helped negotiate the 2014 settlement,  was in 2019 named to the AY CDC. How much will BrooklynSpeaks criticize the body?

2019 proposals

More than two years ago, BrooklynSpeaks made some proposals re accountability, some of which didn't come to fruition. After that 2019 session at the Montauk Club; BrooklynSpeaks posted its summary, After 16 years, it's time for a new plan:

Be accountable to the public

Regina Cahill and Gib Veconi facilitated this discussion, which also included Assembly member Walter Mosley and City Council member Brad Lander. Participants sought ways to achieve better responsiveness from ESD and developers, perhaps through the Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation, created as a result of the settlement of a 2014 lawsuit threatened by BrooklynSpeaks against the State and Forest City Ratner. A previous bill in the State legislature to remove ESD from its role in project oversight passed in the Assembly, but did not come to a vote in the State Senate. Assemblyman Mosley suggested a legislative hearing on Atlantic Yards to highlight risks to the project’s affordable housing deadline.

Current shortcomings in environmental oversight and enforcement were discussed. Participants expressed a desire for better cooperation from ESD and the developers in resolving issues relating to Atlantic Yards’ environmental commitments. Reporting such incidents as noise and illegal parking through 311 has not proven to be effective in resolving problems on a timely basis. It was suggested that a reporting solution specific to Atlantic Yards that would allow for the identification of trending issues for resolution by City agencies could be useful. Council Member Lander proposed a hearing by the City Council that could delve into City subsidies, and the City’s role in addressing environmental impacts from the project.

(Emphases added)

There have not been any legislative hearings (were the legislators blocked? didn't try?), which sometimes can elucidate answers, or justifications for policies. Nor has any "reporting solution" come to light, though it's now proposed by BrooklynSpeaks.

Current proposals re accountability

From BrooklynSpeaks:

Before any consideration of another change to the Atlantic Yards general project plan, the developers must present their strategy for fulfilling the project’s affordable housing obligations by the agreed-upon deadline of May 31, 2025, including details of where buildings containing affordable apartments will be located, how their construction will be financed, how many affordable units will be located in each, and when construction of each will commence. The developers must commit to providing an updated plan on a six-month basis.

That's an important request, given that developer Greenland Forest City Partners has so far been saying "trust us," even as their announced plan, for example, to start the first phase of the two-block railyard platform in 2020 hasn't come to fruition.

Timing and commitments

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• 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.

Those are both reasonable, and a recognition of the long leash that's been given. That said, it presumes an agreement regarding the scale and scope of Site 5. And that's key.

Public engagement

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• Transfer of density from other locations in the project to Site 5 as part of a change to the general project plan must be contingent upon the developers engaging the community in a meaningful way regarding the design of the site prior to requesting any necessary modification to the Atlantic Yards General Project Plan.

The design of the site, or the design plus the scale? 

Also, that implies a public process before the state-led public process regarding the transfer, since a change in the guiding General Project Plan would be enacted by Empire State Development, the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project.

New public space?

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• Programming for a modified Site 5 with increased density must include space for large community gatherings, to be administered by a non-profit steward not affiliated with project developers, or by a City cultural institution such as Brooklyn Public Library.

It's not unreasonable to require some more public benefit--and the concept of such a "placemaking" project was once proposed by former Atlantic Yards Project Manager Arana Hankin.

Note that that might mean a somewhat larger tower, with the public space not counting against the overall project size (just as with 100,000 square feet for a school at the B15 tower).

Deeper affordability?

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• 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.

The implication is that there'd now be more than 2,250 affordable units, thanks to Site 5, which also would add market-rate units. 

Note that extremely low-income means households at 30% of Area Median Income or lower, according to the city, and BrooklynSpeaks requests for affordability include "a minimum of 40% of such housing being affordable to tenants earning an average of 40% AMI." That doesn't preclude lower AMIs, but it doesn't guarantee them.

But additional commitments translate into additional scale, and that deserves discussion.

Open space

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• All eight acres of project open space obligations should be designated Public Park, Public Playground, Private Park, or Private Court, and plans developed for each condition in consultation with the community, with a schedule of incremental completions.

That deserves elaboration, since there's already a (private) conservancy in charge of the project's open space.

Reports of impacts

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• The City must provide a system for collecting reports from community members of environmental impacts from construction. The developers must participate in this system so as to resolve the maximum number of reported complaints possible before enforcement by City agencies is required.

So far, nothing has worked, and the city's 311 process has been unhelpful. See the example of the noise from 38 Sixth Ave. And neither the developer nor the arena offer 24/7 responses (other than regarding oculus malfunctions).

New enforcement?

From BrooklynSpeaks:

• The City must create and fund a Special Enforcement District bounded by a five-block radius around the project footprint. It should be staffed by a dedicated team of enforcement officers from select City agencies to manage the disruptions from ongoing construction development and arena event activity. The District will be an important administrative mechanism to reduce their negative impacts on residents’ quality of life. The enforcement team will be able to respond to reported incidents in real time, a long unmet community need. During the business hours, it will patrol the service area to monitor and enforce construction, parking, environmental, and health/safety violations. During arena events, the team will ticket illegal parking/loitering violations, provide traffic flow management and public safety.

Because the project is on multiple blocks, the challenge here would be to disentagle project impacts from non-project ones. 

That said, it would be much easier to assess arena-related impacts, notably illegal parking and idling. As I've suggested, the funding for this could come from fines. But is the political will there? After all, arena operations rely on lack of enforcement.