The citymeetings.nyc logo showing a pigeon at a podium with a microphone.

citymeetings.nyc

Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY

Brian Shrout on landmark transfer mechanism in City of Yes for Housing Opportunity

11:00:40

·

148 sec

Report an issue

Brian Shrout, a resident of the Upper East Side, expresses support for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal, particularly the Landmark Transfer mechanism. He highlights the historically low utilization of landmark transfers and the geographic limitations of past transfers.

  • Shrout points out that from 1968 to 2015, only 12 landmark transfers occurred, primarily confined to Midtown and Financial District areas.
  • He emphasizes that the rest of Manhattan and outer boroughs have had zero landmark transfers since the mechanism was introduced in 1968.
  • Shrout supports the proposal for providing more flexibility in landmark transfers, potentially benefiting churches, synagogues, museums, and other landmark buildings across the city.
  • Support for the Landmark Transfer mechanism in the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
  • Historical context of landmark transfers: only 12 transfers from 1968 to 2015
  • Geographical limitation of previous transfers to Midtown and FiDi areas
  • Lack of landmark transfers in other parts of Manhattan and outer boroughs
  • Need for more flexibility in the landmark transfer mechanism to benefit landmark buildings like churches, synagogues, and museums across the city

[EXPERIMENTAL]

Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?

I was not able to tie quotes from the testimony back to specific elements of the proposal. Check out another testimony here.

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.

↗ Why are there transcription and diarization errors?
Brian Shrout
11:00:40
Thank you for your time.
11:00:42
Just speaking as a resident of the upper east side, I want to say generally, I'm supportive of the various provisions of this, of the roughly 1386 pages.
11:00:53
Actually, even more specifically, I'm here to speak and so port of the Landmark Transfer mechanism.
11:01:00
Chairman Goran, like you stole a couple of my talking points.
11:01:04
And speaking about the lack of the number of transfers that have happened over the decades.
11:01:10
So with the zoning resolution coming in in 1961, you had the provision for landmark transfers under the zoning resolution of 74.79 was enacted in 1968.
11:01:24
In 2015, there was the department's report that came out.
11:01:29
There was a report about air rights generally.
11:01:32
A page where a component of that report talked about the landmark transfers, where from 1968 to 2015, there are only 12 transfers.
11:01:43
12 transfers in the period of 47 years.
11:01:47
Now there may have been a couple since then.
11:01:49
I had spoken to a knowledgeable and used attorney to say Has there been anything since 2015 in the last 9 years?
11:01:57
His comment without doing a full research, he said no, not off the top of my head.
11:02:02
Giving credit that maybe there's been 1, 2 or 3 over the last 9 years, my point was even for the 47 years up until 2015, there were only 12 transfers, where those transfers geographically were only confined to the areas of Midtown, and FDI due to the specific nuances that make it easier to transfer larger amounts in high density districts.
11:02:28
With the point being the rest of Manhattan and all of the outer boroughs have had 0 landmark transfers since this mechanism has been on the books.
11:02:36
Since 1968.
11:02:38
So I'm speaking in full support of this proposal that would allow Landmark whether they're churches, synagogues, museums, whatever the case may be for why they're specifically landmark buildings to provide more flexibility since mechanism that and theory has been on the books has largely allowed prevented transfers from happening anywhere except for Midtown and for Fidye.
11:03:02
And for that, thank you for your time and your consideration late this evening at roughly 8:45 or something like that.
Dan Garodnick
11:03:08
Great.

Subscribe to the citymeetings.nyc newsletter

Highlights of meeting moments and curious claims every 1-2 weeks.

Read previous issues

Citymeetings.nyc pigeon logo

Is citymeetings.nyc useful to you?

I'm thrilled!

Please help me out by answering just one question.

What do you do?

Thank you!

Want to stay up to date? Sign up for the newsletter.