Lydia Andre from Chelsea Neighbors Coalition on City of Yes for Housing Opportunity's one-size-fits-all approach and lack of mandated affordable housing
1:03:51
·
110 sec
Lydia Andre, representing the Chelsea Neighbors Coalition and the 300 20th Street Block Association, criticizes the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative as a flawed trickle-down, supply-side approach. She argues against removing local control and implementing a one-size-fits-all solution for housing development across diverse neighborhoods.
- Expresses concern over the lack of mandated affordable housing in the proposal
- Questions the use of Area Median Income (AMI) numbers, stating they don't align with the actual income levels of New Yorkers most in need of affordable housing
- Emphasizes the importance of preserving neighborhood character, quality of life, and open spaces in urban planning
- The trickle-down supply-side concept doesn't work
- Affordable housing should be mandated
- Local control should not be removed from neighborhoods
- One-size-fits-all approach doesn't work for every neighborhood
- Preserving neighborhood character and quality of life should be prioritized
- The market has not succeeded in creating affordable housing
- Open space is crucial to neighborhoods
- The AMI numbers in the proposal don't match the actual income levels of New Yorkers most in need
- The incentives for income averaging are unclear
- The proposal needs improvement to better serve all New Yorkers
[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
"For the life of me, I can't understand why we are not mandating affordable housing"
This quote suggests the speaker is discussing affordable housing, which is a key component of the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) proposal. The speaker is criticizing the lack of mandated affordable housing, which relates to the UAP's goal of increasing affordable housing in high-demand neighborhoods.
"Right now, I see that the m AMI numbers you're using in this proposal don't jive with the actual income levels of New Yorkers in most need of affordable housing."
This quote directly references the Area Median Income (AMI) used in the proposal, which is a key aspect of the UAP. The UAP aims to provide housing affordable to households earning 60% of AMI, and the speaker is criticizing this approach as not aligning with the needs of New Yorkers who need affordable housing the most.
"And for the life of me, I don't really see the incentives for the income averaging that you're talking about."
This quote appears to be referencing the income requirements and incentives proposed in the UAP, which involves providing additional housing space in exchange for affordable units. The speaker is expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of these incentives.
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.