CM Hudson plans meeting Saturday to shape land use priorities in District 35, invites constituents to complete survey. (I think it should drill down more on renters.)

Updated with location.

There's more land-use discussion before the April 16 rescheduled Community Planning Workshop for the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan (AAMUP), the city-sponsored rezoning of blocks around Atlantic between Vanderbilt and Nostrand avenues (though maybe it should extend farther east, given a proposed spot rezoning).

35th District Council Member Crystal Hudson has proposed a related effort, a public meeting on land use in the district, aimed to "ensure that community priorities are integrated in land use processes in District 35." 

On Twitter, she suggested "Think of it like #ParticipatoryBudgeting, but for #LandUse."

The meeting will be this Saturday, April 1, from 1-3 pm. The location will be the Co-Cathedral of St. Joseph, 856 Pacific Street, between Vanderbilt and Underhill avenues--another location (like P.S. 9, site of the meetings on the AAMUP) toward the western (and more affluent) side of the district.

Hudson is working with Hester Street, "an urban planning, design and development nonprofit that works to ensure neighborhoods are shaped by the people who live in them." 

Note that this push comes before the June 27 primary election. Hudson, thanks to incumbency (and not antagonizing any major constituents or interest groups) at this point faces only one potential rival, who's not a threat, having reported zero fundraising. (I'll write separately about the campaign.)

Plan coming forward

Hudson, during her campaign nearly two years ago, proposed "a series of community conversations" on land use, suggesting that reliance on existing structures like Community Boards don't reach all constituents but prioritizes those most active. (Implicit: those most active are more likely, compared to the District at large, to be financially secure and white.)

That upcoming meeting seems to fulfill that pledge and is premised on this notion:

The current land use decision-making process in New York City is deeply flawed. Community members often do not have a meaningful role in shaping the outcomes of a new building or development project. These conditions do not work towards fulfilling the long-term needs or aspirations of our neighbors.

Our office, in collaboration with Hester Street, is leading a new approach to ensure that community priorities are integrated in land use processes in District 35. To help us best understand your needs and aspirations for our community, please complete a survey about your experience in the district and join us on Saturday, April 1st, for the first of a series of public engagement meetings.

The results from the sruvey and public engagement meetings will inform a Land Use Vision and Prioritization Framework which will establish a set of community-established parameters for development in District 35 for years to come.

About the survey

The survey, in its long version, asks people:

--if they're District 35 residents

--what their connection to the District is

--their housing status & neighborhood

--current address (said to remain anonymous)

--demographics/income

--what change in the neighborhood has impacted them, and how

--their top three needs that are not being met

--how easy or challenging is it to find affordable housing in the neighborhood

--what % of gross income do they pay in rent (30% is considered affordable)

--how easy or challenging is it to find healthy and affordable food options in the neighborhood
--what are the biggest challenges for small businesses 
--what are the greatest barriers that elders face in staying in the neighborhood

--how do they most often utilize the parks and green open spaces

--what they wish their neighborhood had more of

--what accessibility needs are not being met

Several of the questions offer several options for answers.

The survey, in its short version, doesn't go into most of the questions, but asks about neighborhood impacts, and top three needs not being met.

What's missing from survey

I'd take issue with one question in the survey, which gave the following options to describe housing status in the district: renter, public housing resident, unhoused/shelter resident, or homeowner.

Within the status of homeowner, it would be wise to tease out the distinction between owners of apartments (co-op or condo) and owners of houses. 

More importantly, the status of "renter" includes market-rate and rent-regulated tenants, so asking about that is even more important. (Public housing residents are renters, with their rent capped and tenure of occupancy, but that's not the same as a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled lease in private housing.)

That's a big difference, since rent-regulated tenants, who are supposed to have tenure of occupancy, have in some cases been under significant pressure from unscrupulous landlords aiming to remove them, in order to raise rents.

Market-rate renters face their own pressures, as the market ebbs and flows.

In fact, another distinction might be made, even among rent-regulated tenants, asking how much they pay.

In other words, a long-standing rent-regulated tenant paying $1,400/month in an old walk-up faces a different situation than a newer rent-regulated tenant paying $3,000/month for an income-targeted "affordable" unit in a new high-rise enabled by the 421-a tax break.