Eugene Falik from Bayswater Civic Association on opposition to City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative
11:04:14
·
14 min
Eugene Falik, representing the Bayswater Civic Association in Far Rockaway, Queens, expresses strong opposition to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative. He challenges the notion of a housing crisis and criticizes various aspects of the proposed zoning changes, particularly focusing on parking issues and transit-oriented development.
- Argues that removing council approval is undemocratic and questions the existence of a housing crisis
- Criticizes the lack of parking in new developments and the concept of transit-oriented development as impractical for outer borough residents
- States that Queens Community Board 14 voted unanimously against the proposal
- Removing council approval is antisocial and undemocratic
- There's little evidence of a real housing crisis
- Many apartments are vacant or held off the market
- The argument about thousands of applications for affordable housing is misleading
- New housing in Rockaway has inadequate parking
- Transit-oriented development is impractical for suburban areas
- The proposal doesn't consider the needs of older residents or those carrying groceries
- Builders will only do the minimum required, not what's best for residents
- Queens Community Board 14 voted unanimously against the proposal
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- Parking Mandates
- Transit-Oriented Development
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.
Parking Mandates
"In Rockaway, where shopping is across the line in Nassau County, new housing as inadequate parking, and people often walk a mile to park their cars when they live in the nitrole projects at Redfern."
This quote indicates that the speaker is discussing the issue of parking, which is related to the proposal's element of removing parking mandates. The speaker is arguing against reducing parking, citing examples of inadequate parking in new housing developments.
"I will spend $25,000 and remove 100 of square feet of vegetation to install a driveway. Because I now have little to no parking."
This quote further emphasizes the speaker's concern about parking issues, which relates to the proposal's element of removing parking mandates. The speaker is expressing that due to lack of parking, they feel compelled to install a driveway at personal expense.
"We were acquire cars. And if you expect builders to put in anything that they're not required to, builders wouldn't put fire alarms in, They wouldn't put smoke stop doors, and they wouldn't put self closing doors if they didn't have to. Builders do the minimum."
This quote indirectly relates to the removing parking mandates element. The speaker is arguing that without requirements, builders will not provide necessary features like parking, implying opposition to removing parking mandates.
Transit-Oriented Development
"Transit oriented development is also a sham. Because while it may mean that you can get to Manhattan in an hour or 2, it doesn't mean that you can get to other facilities in the city or even in Queens. And certainly, it doesn't mean that you can get to shopping."
This quote directly addresses the transit-oriented development element of the proposal. The speaker is criticizing the concept, arguing that it doesn't effectively solve transportation issues for all daily needs.
"Now, I'm seventy seven years old. You this city planning commission argues, well, a half mile walk is reasonable. I don't think so. And carrying a gallon of 2 of milk and a load of groceries."
This quote continues the speaker's criticism of transit-oriented development, specifically challenging the assumption that a half-mile walk to transit or amenities is reasonable for all residents, especially older adults or those carrying groceries.
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
Chair Garodnick responds to concerns about transit-oriented development and parking requirements
11:19:04
·
96 sec
Chair Dan Garodnick of the City Planning Commission addresses two main points raised by Eugene Falik of the Bayswater Civic Association. He clarifies that the proposal does not require seniors to walk long distances to transit and emphasizes that developers often choose to provide more parking than required.
- The proposal aims to incentivize housing near transit, not force seniors to walk long distances
- Developers frequently seek to provide more parking than the minimum required
- Other cities that have removed parking mandates have seen developers continue to provide parking when needed
- Removing council approval is antisocial and undemocratic
- There's little evidence of a real housing crisis
- Many apartments are vacant or held off the market
- The argument about thousands of applications for affordable housing is misleading
- New housing in Rockaway has inadequate parking
- Transit-oriented development is impractical for suburban areas
- The proposal doesn't consider the needs of older residents or those carrying groceries
- Builders will only do the minimum required, not what's best for residents
- Queens Community Board 14 voted unanimously against the proposal
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- Parking Mandates
- Transit-Oriented Development
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.
Parking Mandates
"In Rockaway, where shopping is across the line in Nassau County, new housing as inadequate parking, and people often walk a mile to park their cars when they live in the nitrole projects at Redfern."
This quote indicates that the speaker is discussing the issue of parking, which is related to the proposal's element of removing parking mandates. The speaker is arguing against reducing parking, citing examples of inadequate parking in new housing developments.
"I will spend $25,000 and remove 100 of square feet of vegetation to install a driveway. Because I now have little to no parking."
This quote further emphasizes the speaker's concern about parking issues, which relates to the proposal's element of removing parking mandates. The speaker is expressing that due to lack of parking, they feel compelled to install a driveway at personal expense.
"We were acquire cars. And if you expect builders to put in anything that they're not required to, builders wouldn't put fire alarms in, They wouldn't put smoke stop doors, and they wouldn't put self closing doors if they didn't have to. Builders do the minimum."
This quote indirectly relates to the removing parking mandates element. The speaker is arguing that without requirements, builders will not provide necessary features like parking, implying opposition to removing parking mandates.
Transit-Oriented Development
"Transit oriented development is also a sham. Because while it may mean that you can get to Manhattan in an hour or 2, it doesn't mean that you can get to other facilities in the city or even in Queens. And certainly, it doesn't mean that you can get to shopping."
This quote directly addresses the transit-oriented development element of the proposal. The speaker is criticizing the concept, arguing that it doesn't effectively solve transportation issues for all daily needs.
"Now, I'm seventy seven years old. You this city planning commission argues, well, a half mile walk is reasonable. I don't think so. And carrying a gallon of 2 of milk and a load of groceries."
This quote continues the speaker's criticism of transit-oriented development, specifically challenging the assumption that a half-mile walk to transit or amenities is reasonable for all residents, especially older adults or those carrying groceries.
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.