Christopher Leon Johnson on opposing City of Yes for Housing Opportunity due to concerns about luxury housing and community board influence
5:06:24
·
3 min
Christopher Leon Johnson, a Queens resident and self-described public citizen, expresses strong opposition to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative. He argues that the proposal primarily benefits developers and promotes luxury housing rather than truly affordable options for low-income residents.
- Johnson claims the initiative is backed by developers and will result in unaffordable luxury units rather than housing for those at 30% Area Median Income (AMI) or below
- He criticizes the influence of community boards, particularly those he believes are infiltrated by lobbyists, and calls for term limits and elected rather than appointed board members
- Johnson urges rejection of the initiative, referring to it as 'City of Mess' instead of 'City of Yes'
- The City of Yes initiative will result in unaffordable, luxury housing
- The plan caters to developers and those with higher incomes (80-120% AMI) rather than those with lower incomes (30% AMI or less)
- The initiative will displace current residents
- Community boards are influenced by lobbyists and developers
- Calls for term limits and elected positions for community boards
- Labels the initiative as 'City of Mess' instead of 'City of Yes'
[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
"What they want is, oh, look. 3 units where you wanna pay, like, 25, like, 5000, 6000 dollars a month. That's all they want. They're not they're not they don't care about the person that can't afford that."
While the speaker doesn't explicitly mention UAP, they are discussing affordability concerns related to new housing units, which is directly related to the UAP element of the proposal.
"They want people that can make 80 percent AMI, like like, Missus like, Missus Samir, who is a member of Oklahoma overall, could live with places like that, and they will get built put that put that type of stuff."
The speaker mentions specific AMI percentages, which is directly related to the UAP element of the proposal. They are criticizing the proposal for not targeting lower AMI levels.
"This is more about, you know, built for people that make 80 AMI, 90 AMI, 90% 80%, 100 percent, 120 percent AMI. It's not about the people that fix it, that make it 30% AMI or 4% AMI, and less than less than 30% AMI."
The speaker is directly discussing AMI levels, which is a key component of the UAP element. They are criticizing the proposal for not targeting lower AMI levels, which relates to the affordability aspect of UAP.
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 Benjamin requests respectful testimony without personal attacks
5:09:36
·
17 sec
Commissioner Gail Benjamin requests that speakers refrain from making personal attacks or derogatory remarks about individuals, whether present or not. She emphasizes that such comments are unhelpful and detract from understanding the speaker's concerns.
- The commissioner stresses the importance of respectful discourse during the public hearing
- Chair Dan Garodnick agrees with Commissioner Benjamin's statement
- The request aims to maintain a constructive and focused discussion on the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative
- The City of Yes initiative will result in unaffordable, luxury housing
- The plan caters to developers and those with higher incomes (80-120% AMI) rather than those with lower incomes (30% AMI or less)
- The initiative will displace current residents
- Community boards are influenced by lobbyists and developers
- Calls for term limits and elected positions for community boards
- Labels the initiative as 'City of Mess' instead of 'City of Yes'
[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
"What they want is, oh, look. 3 units where you wanna pay, like, 25, like, 5000, 6000 dollars a month. That's all they want. They're not they're not they don't care about the person that can't afford that."
While the speaker doesn't explicitly mention UAP, they are discussing affordability concerns related to new housing units, which is directly related to the UAP element of the proposal.
"They want people that can make 80 percent AMI, like like, Missus like, Missus Samir, who is a member of Oklahoma overall, could live with places like that, and they will get built put that put that type of stuff."
The speaker mentions specific AMI percentages, which is directly related to the UAP element of the proposal. They are criticizing the proposal for not targeting lower AMI levels.
"This is more about, you know, built for people that make 80 AMI, 90 AMI, 90% 80%, 100 percent, 120 percent AMI. It's not about the people that fix it, that make it 30% AMI or 4% AMI, and less than less than 30% AMI."
The speaker is directly discussing AMI levels, which is a key component of the UAP element. They are criticizing the proposal for not targeting lower AMI levels, which relates to the affordability aspect of UAP.
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.