Joel Siegel, a former president of a neighborhood association and current member of Community Board 14, expresses strong opposition to the City of Yes zoning changes in Victorian Flatbush. He argues that residents feel blindsided by the proposed changes and that the city failed to properly engage the community, unlike the 2009 Flatbush rezoning process.

• Siegel highlights the successful 2009 Flatbush rezoning, which resulted in increased housing along commercial corridors while preserving historic Victorian homes.
• He criticizes the lack of community engagement in the current City of Yes proposal, calling it a 'kick in the teeth' to neighborhood residents.
• Siegel challenges city officials to visit Victorian Flatbush and work directly with community leaders to develop alternative plans for increasing housing units while preserving the neighborhood's character.

• Residents of Victorian Flatbush feel blindsided by the proposed changes
• Lack of proper communication and community engagement from the city
• Previous successful rezoning in 2009 resulted from good faith collaboration with city planning
• Current proposal is seen as unnecessary and destructive to the neighborhood
• Willingness to work with city planners to create housing while preserving neighborhood character
• Challenge to city planners to visit Victorian Flatbush and engage with community leaders
• Offer to upzone and create housing units in a way that preserves the neighborhood

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

• ADU
• 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.

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.

Commissioner Joseph Douek engages with Joel Siegel to clarify his specific objections to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal. Siegel confirms his primary concerns are with the transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and district fixes aspects of the plan.

• Siegel expresses no objection to the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) component of the proposal
• The discussion reveals Siegel's willingness to work with city planners on alternative solutions for creating housing units in Victorian Flatbush
• Siegel suggests the city should prioritize less controversial aspects of the plan, such as office-to-residential conversions

• Residents of Victorian Flatbush feel blindsided by the proposed changes
• Lack of proper communication and community engagement from the city
• Previous successful rezoning in 2009 resulted from good faith collaboration with city planning
• Current proposal is seen as unnecessary and destructive to the neighborhood
• Willingness to work with city planners to create housing while preserving neighborhood character
• Challenge to city planners to visit Victorian Flatbush and engage with community leaders
• Offer to upzone and create housing units in a way that preserves the neighborhood

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

• ADU
• 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.

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.

Commissioner Gail Benjamin asks Joel Siegel about concerns raised by Victorian Flatbush residents regarding development pressures and potential tear-downs of historic homes. Siegel expresses worry about the impact on landmark designation and the character of the neighborhood.

• Siegel highlights the uniqueness of Victorian Flatbush and fears beautiful homes will be demolished
• Concerns are raised about narrow streets being considered wide streets, allowing for larger developments
• Siegel emphasizes the neighborhood's diversity and its role as a park-like setting for the community

• Residents of Victorian Flatbush feel blindsided by the proposed changes
• Lack of proper communication and community engagement from the city
• Previous successful rezoning in 2009 resulted from good faith collaboration with city planning
• Current proposal is seen as unnecessary and destructive to the neighborhood
• Willingness to work with city planners to create housing while preserving neighborhood character
• Challenge to city planners to visit Victorian Flatbush and engage with community leaders
• Offer to upzone and create housing units in a way that preserves the neighborhood

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

• ADU
• 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.

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.

The City Planning Commission engages in a brief discussion about landmarking efforts in Victorian Flatbush following Joel Siegel's testimony. Commission members inquire about the timeline and challenges of the landmarking process in the area.

• Joseph Rosenberg asks about the timing of landmarking applications for Victorian Flatbush
• Joel Siegel mentions a pre-pandemic meeting with the Landmarks Preservation Commission
• Chair Dan Garodnik and other commissioners acknowledge the presence of Victorian homes in various neighborhoods

• Residents of Victorian Flatbush feel blindsided by the proposed changes
• Lack of proper communication and community engagement from the city
• Previous successful rezoning in 2009 resulted from good faith collaboration with city planning
• Current proposal is seen as unnecessary and destructive to the neighborhood
• Willingness to work with city planners to create housing while preserving neighborhood character
• Challenge to city planners to visit Victorian Flatbush and engage with community leaders
• Offer to upzone and create housing units in a way that preserves the neighborhood

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

• ADU
• 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.

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.