Indiana Porta from Manhattan Community Board 9 on procedural questions and concerns about the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
14:02:04
·
3 min
Indiana Porta, speaking in her personal capacity as a Manhattan Community Board 9 member, raises procedural questions about the availability of public testimony and seeks clarification on specific aspects of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal, particularly regarding the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) and recently rezoned areas.
- Inquires about the public availability of written and oral testimony from the hearing
- Requests clarification on the fixed percentage of affordable housing units required under the UAP
- Asks about the implications for buildings in recently rezoned areas that haven't yet been constructed
- Emphasizes the importance of accessibility features as a wheelchair user
- Requests for public availability of written and oral testimony
- Clarification on the universal affordability preference proposal, specifically the fixed percentage of affordable housing
- Suggestion to set a base minimum of affordable units (20%)
- Question about recently rezoned areas and how the new initiative would affect them
- Support for accessibility features as a wheelchair user
[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
"Specifically for the universal affordability preference proposal, I am hearing different things. Right? It sounds like in the materials that were provided by DCP that the 20% additional housing that would be required to be affordable."
The speaker directly mentions the Universal Affordability Preference proposal and discusses the 20% additional affordable housing requirement, which is a key aspect of this element.
"So just clarity on that, is it a fixed percentage of the affordable housing? And I would encourage the commission and if not, the council members when they vote on this to set a base minimum of deformable units. Right? I think 20% seems fair."
The speaker is asking for clarification on the percentage of affordable housing required and suggests setting a minimum, which directly relates to the UAP proposal.
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 addresses process questions about testimony publication
14:05:24
·
47 sec
Chair Dan Garodnick and other officials respond to inquiries about the publication and availability of public testimony for the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative.
- Written testimony is not typically posted on the website but can be requested from the department
- A response to comments will be included in the final environmental impact statement
- The CPC report will provide an overview of all testimony and comments received
- The public hearing video will be available on YouTube for viewing
- Requests for public availability of written and oral testimony
- Clarification on the universal affordability preference proposal, specifically the fixed percentage of affordable housing
- Suggestion to set a base minimum of affordable units (20%)
- Question about recently rezoned areas and how the new initiative would affect them
- Support for accessibility features as a wheelchair user
[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
"Specifically for the universal affordability preference proposal, I am hearing different things. Right? It sounds like in the materials that were provided by DCP that the 20% additional housing that would be required to be affordable."
The speaker directly mentions the Universal Affordability Preference proposal and discusses the 20% additional affordable housing requirement, which is a key aspect of this element.
"So just clarity on that, is it a fixed percentage of the affordable housing? And I would encourage the commission and if not, the council members when they vote on this to set a base minimum of deformable units. Right? I think 20% seems fair."
The speaker is asking for clarification on the percentage of affordable housing required and suggests setting a minimum, which directly relates to the UAP proposal.
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.