Barika Williams from the Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development on Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) modifications
10:09:34
·
3 min
Barika Williams, Executive Director of the Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD), expresses support for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative with some proposed modifications. She focuses on recommendations for the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) aspects of the proposal.
- Suggests adjusting income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability proportions, matching Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Option 1
- Recommends extending the higher 77% density bump across all UAP areas, noting that many communities prioritize affordability over density concerns
- Proposes requiring mandated affordability in Transit-Oriented Development areas to ensure lower density areas also produce affordable housing
- Support for the text amendment with modifications
- Recommendation to adjust income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability
- Suggestion to extend the higher 77% density bump across the board in UAP areas
- Concern about lack of required affordability in lower density areas under current framework
- Recommendation to require mandated affordability in DOD (Detached Only Districts)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
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
"Around specifically UAP so wait actually, let me say this part. We support the intention of the text amendment to introduce more opportunity for housing development and importantly affordability in New York City Neighborhoods and across New York City Neighborhoods, particularly and importantly, in those that have not done their fair share in the recent decades."
This quote directly mentions UAP and discusses its intention to introduce more housing opportunities and affordability across NYC neighborhoods.
"On UAP specifically, one of the things that we're recommending is that the income averaging, as Cherilyn, pointed out, it's not a 60% it's a percent averaging be adjusted to include a mandated deaffordability proportion, right?"
This quote discusses a specific recommendation for modifying the UAP proposal, suggesting changes to the income averaging component.
"The current UAP program takes the errors framework and it stems it from senior to affordable and from supportive to senior affordable. That means that the range in UAP stays the same. And so while you've heard a lot about a 20% density bump, in reality that range of how much extra you can get, ranges from 20 to 77 percent of a density bump because that's what exists in errors."
This quote discusses the details of how the UAP program works, including its relationship to existing zoning frameworks and the potential density increases it allows.
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.
Follow-up discussion/remarks
Commissioner Orlando Marin inquires about affordability requirements in TOD and UAP
10:13:24
·
179 sec
Commissioner Orlando Marin asks Barika Williams about her recommendations for affordability requirements in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) projects. Williams explains the need for consistent affordability across different neighborhoods and clarifies the distinction between deep affordability and supportive housing requirements.
- Williams advocates for mandated affordability in TOD areas to ensure consistent implementation across neighborhoods
- She emphasizes the importance of permanent affordability to avoid future costs or loss of affordable units
- Williams distinguishes between the need for supportive services in supportive housing and deep affordability for low-income individuals who don't require additional services
- Support for the text amendment with modifications
- Recommendation to adjust income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability
- Suggestion to extend the higher 77% density bump across the board in UAP areas
- Concern about lack of required affordability in lower density areas under current framework
- Recommendation to require mandated affordability in DOD (Detached Only Districts)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
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
"Around specifically UAP so wait actually, let me say this part. We support the intention of the text amendment to introduce more opportunity for housing development and importantly affordability in New York City Neighborhoods and across New York City Neighborhoods, particularly and importantly, in those that have not done their fair share in the recent decades."
This quote directly mentions UAP and discusses its intention to introduce more housing opportunities and affordability across NYC neighborhoods.
"On UAP specifically, one of the things that we're recommending is that the income averaging, as Cherilyn, pointed out, it's not a 60% it's a percent averaging be adjusted to include a mandated deaffordability proportion, right?"
This quote discusses a specific recommendation for modifying the UAP proposal, suggesting changes to the income averaging component.
"The current UAP program takes the errors framework and it stems it from senior to affordable and from supportive to senior affordable. That means that the range in UAP stays the same. And so while you've heard a lot about a 20% density bump, in reality that range of how much extra you can get, ranges from 20 to 77 percent of a density bump because that's what exists in errors."
This quote discusses the details of how the UAP program works, including its relationship to existing zoning frameworks and the potential density increases it allows.
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.
Commissioner Benjamin inquires about mandating affordability in town centers
10:16:24
·
62 sec
Commissioner Gail Benjamin asks Barika Williams if she would recommend mandating affordability in town centers, similar to her suggestion for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas. Williams agrees, but notes that town centers present a different framework due to lower density.
- Williams explains that town centers might have less incentive for affordability due to lower density
- She cites Montgomery County, Maryland as an example where affordability is required regardless of density
- Williams expresses concern that under the current proposal, town centers and TOD areas may not contribute their fair share of affordable housing compared to other areas
- Support for the text amendment with modifications
- Recommendation to adjust income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability
- Suggestion to extend the higher 77% density bump across the board in UAP areas
- Concern about lack of required affordability in lower density areas under current framework
- Recommendation to require mandated affordability in DOD (Detached Only Districts)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
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
"Around specifically UAP so wait actually, let me say this part. We support the intention of the text amendment to introduce more opportunity for housing development and importantly affordability in New York City Neighborhoods and across New York City Neighborhoods, particularly and importantly, in those that have not done their fair share in the recent decades."
This quote directly mentions UAP and discusses its intention to introduce more housing opportunities and affordability across NYC neighborhoods.
"On UAP specifically, one of the things that we're recommending is that the income averaging, as Cherilyn, pointed out, it's not a 60% it's a percent averaging be adjusted to include a mandated deaffordability proportion, right?"
This quote discusses a specific recommendation for modifying the UAP proposal, suggesting changes to the income averaging component.
"The current UAP program takes the errors framework and it stems it from senior to affordable and from supportive to senior affordable. That means that the range in UAP stays the same. And so while you've heard a lot about a 20% density bump, in reality that range of how much extra you can get, ranges from 20 to 77 percent of a density bump because that's what exists in errors."
This quote discusses the details of how the UAP program works, including its relationship to existing zoning frameworks and the potential density increases it allows.
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.
Commissioner Osorio questions ANHD director on public land and affordability mandates
10:17:30
·
3 min
Commissioner Juan Camilo Osorio engages with Barika Williams, Executive Director of ANHD, about mandating affordability on public lands and how to incorporate this into the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal. Williams emphasizes ANHD's position that all public lands should be used for 100% affordable housing.
- Williams explains that zoning cannot mandate specific uses based on land ownership, but suggests accompanying legislation to ensure public land is used for public good.
- The discussion explores the possibility of excluding public land from the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP), though Williams believes this may not be feasible through zoning.
- Williams clarifies that zoning regulations apply to land parcels regardless of ownership changes, limiting the ability to mandate specific uses for public land through zoning alone.
- Support for the text amendment with modifications
- Recommendation to adjust income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability
- Suggestion to extend the higher 77% density bump across the board in UAP areas
- Concern about lack of required affordability in lower density areas under current framework
- Recommendation to require mandated affordability in DOD (Detached Only Districts)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
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
"Around specifically UAP so wait actually, let me say this part. We support the intention of the text amendment to introduce more opportunity for housing development and importantly affordability in New York City Neighborhoods and across New York City Neighborhoods, particularly and importantly, in those that have not done their fair share in the recent decades."
This quote directly mentions UAP and discusses its intention to introduce more housing opportunities and affordability across NYC neighborhoods.
"On UAP specifically, one of the things that we're recommending is that the income averaging, as Cherilyn, pointed out, it's not a 60% it's a percent averaging be adjusted to include a mandated deaffordability proportion, right?"
This quote discusses a specific recommendation for modifying the UAP proposal, suggesting changes to the income averaging component.
"The current UAP program takes the errors framework and it stems it from senior to affordable and from supportive to senior affordable. That means that the range in UAP stays the same. And so while you've heard a lot about a 20% density bump, in reality that range of how much extra you can get, ranges from 20 to 77 percent of a density bump because that's what exists in errors."
This quote discusses the details of how the UAP program works, including its relationship to existing zoning frameworks and the potential density increases it allows.
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.
Chair Garodnick clarifies no proposal to rezone Central Park
10:20:56
·
14 sec
Chair Dan Garodnick of the City Planning Commission addresses a misconception by emphasizing that there is no proposal to rezone Central Park as part of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative.
- The clarification comes after a long day of testimony and discussions
- The statement is made to ensure clarity and prevent misinformation
- The exchange highlights the fatigue experienced by participants in the public hearing
- Support for the text amendment with modifications
- Recommendation to adjust income averaging in UAP to include mandated deep affordability
- Suggestion to extend the higher 77% density bump across the board in UAP areas
- Concern about lack of required affordability in lower density areas under current framework
- Recommendation to require mandated affordability in DOD (Detached Only Districts)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
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
"Around specifically UAP so wait actually, let me say this part. We support the intention of the text amendment to introduce more opportunity for housing development and importantly affordability in New York City Neighborhoods and across New York City Neighborhoods, particularly and importantly, in those that have not done their fair share in the recent decades."
This quote directly mentions UAP and discusses its intention to introduce more housing opportunities and affordability across NYC neighborhoods.
"On UAP specifically, one of the things that we're recommending is that the income averaging, as Cherilyn, pointed out, it's not a 60% it's a percent averaging be adjusted to include a mandated deaffordability proportion, right?"
This quote discusses a specific recommendation for modifying the UAP proposal, suggesting changes to the income averaging component.
"The current UAP program takes the errors framework and it stems it from senior to affordable and from supportive to senior affordable. That means that the range in UAP stays the same. And so while you've heard a lot about a 20% density bump, in reality that range of how much extra you can get, ranges from 20 to 77 percent of a density bump because that's what exists in errors."
This quote discusses the details of how the UAP program works, including its relationship to existing zoning frameworks and the potential density increases it allows.
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.