Anita Laremont, Partner at Fried Frank Law Firm, on support and suggestions for City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
5:36:10
·
3 min
Anita Laremont testifies in support of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal, highlighting its potential to address New York City's critical housing supply needs. She focuses on the proposal's approaches to facilitate housing development while raising concerns about the elimination of the voluntary inclusionary housing and inclusionary housing certificate program.
- Laremont suggests a 15-year vesting period for existing certificates and an additional 10 years for their sale and use if the certificate program is eliminated
- She warns that transitioning to Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) in R10 districts may effectively result in a downzoning due to higher costs and less favorable tax treatment
- Laremont urges careful consideration of how changes are implemented to ensure they further housing development rather than diminish it
- Support for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
- Proposal facilitates housing development to address critical housing supply needs
- Concern about the elimination of the voluntary inclusionary housing and inclusionary housing certificate program
- Suggestion for a 15-year vesting period for existing certificates and an additional 10 years for their sale and use
- Concern that transitioning to UAP in R10 districts may effectively result in down zoning
- Urges careful consideration of rules to ensure they further housing development rather than diminish it
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- Residential Conversions
- Parking Mandates
The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.
This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.
Read about this AI-generated analysis here.
UAP
"providing for affordable housing in many additional neighborhoods through universal affordability preference among other changes."
This quote directly mentions the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) as one of the changes in the proposal.
"I'll also note that transitioning to UAP and R10 districts, which are currently our most dense districts, it's effectively a down zoning. It is very unlikely that developers will use UEP in these districts to attain 12 F AR."
This quote discusses potential issues with implementing UAP in R10 districts, showing that the speaker is analyzing the UAP element of the proposal.
Residential Conversions
"expanding opportunities for office to residential conversion"
This quote directly mentions the proposal's aim to facilitate the conversion of office spaces to residential use, which is a key part of the Residential Conversions element.
Parking Mandates
"eliminating costly parking requirements"
This quote directly refers to the removal of parking mandates, which is a key element of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal.
About this analysis:
This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.
All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.
You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.
When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.
But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.
In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.