Q&A
Garodnick addresses concerns about overdevelopment and neighborhood character
4:13:24
·
68 sec
Daniel Garodnick responds to Council Member Ariola's concerns about overdevelopment and changes to neighborhood character in her district. He argues that the proposal is more targeted and limited than Ariola suggests.
- Clarifies that the proposal does not allow development 'of any kind anywhere'
- Explains that transit-oriented development and commercial overlays have specific location requirements
- Points out that there are already 1,653 multifamily homes in 1 or 2 family zones in Ariola's district
- Argues that the proposal aims to match existing character rather than drastically change neighborhoods
Daniel Garodnick
4:13:24
You know, I I would only say that that's just not that's not what the proposal does.
4:13:31
We have defined specific locations where things can take place.
4:13:35
As it relates to transitory into development, you have to be on certain qualifying sites.
4:13:39
As it relates to commercial, on commercial overlays, you have to be on a commercial overlay.
4:13:43
You cannot be just anywhere to do that.
4:13:45
And as it relates to the character of fragile neighborhoods, I will just observe to you that in your council district, there are 1653 multifamily homes in 1 or 2 family zones.
4:14:04
I have I have the whole whole list here for you.
4:14:07
The list goes on and on 1653 buildings in 1 and 2 family districts.
4:14:15
That to me is our matching the existing character of your district with buildings that are already there and have been made illegal since 1961.
4:14:26
So I understand your point.
4:14:28
I understand the concerns, but I do wanna note that that is not what this proposal does.
