Christopher Leon Johnson as Bob Martin, McDonald's worker from Flatbush, on City of Yes affordability concerns and displacement fears
14:42:16
·
179 sec
NOTE: This testimony is fake. Christopher Leon Johnson is testifying a second time under a pseudonym. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ae96qYm2Y.
Bob Martin, a low-wage worker from Flatbush, expresses strong opposition to the City of Yes initiative, citing concerns about affordability and potential displacement. He argues that the program's income requirements are far beyond what he and many working poor New Yorkers can meet.
- Martin emphasizes his annual income of $20,000 is well below the 80% Area Median Income (AMI) threshold reportedly required for City of Yes housing.
- He criticizes organizations supporting the initiative, questioning their motives and expressing fears of displacement in neighborhoods like Flatbush and Jamaica.
- Martin highlights the challenge of securing housing in New York City despite having good credit, due to his low income, and calls for more attention to the needs of low-income workers.
- Cannot afford housing under City of Yes due to low income ($20,000/year)
- City of Yes will not benefit poor people like him
- New developments in his area are unaffordable despite having good credit
- City of Yes will only benefit the wealthy
- Works multiple jobs (McDonald's and construction) but still can't afford housing
- Concerns about displacement of current residents
- Criticizes organizations supporting the plan (Open Plans, Open New York, Tri-State, Regional Plan Association, Transportation Alternatives)
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- Small and Shared Housing
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
"I was doing some research and these I see the rules said that yet to make 80% AMI to be able to live in the city of yes."
The speaker is referring to the affordability requirements of the City of Yes proposal, which includes the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP). While the speaker mentions 80% AMI instead of 60% AMI, this still indicates a discussion of the affordability aspect of the proposal.
"I cannot afford that. I make I make $20,000 a year. I don't make $89,000 a year."
The speaker is discussing his inability to afford housing under the City of Yes proposal, which relates to the UAP element aimed at providing affordable housing options.
Small and Shared Housing
"I had to live with a roommate. I don't live in a little room."
While the speaker doesn't directly mention the Small and Shared Housing proposal, he is discussing his current living situation which involves shared housing (living with a roommate). This relates to the element of the proposal that aims to re-legalize housing with shared facilities.
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.