Mark Anderson of Wesley Improvement Society (Staten Island) on opposition to City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
13:37:04
·
3 min
Mark Anderson, president of the Wesley Improvement Society on Staten Island, expresses strong opposition to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal. He argues against the need for more housing, questions the population projections, and raises concerns about safety issues with accessory dwelling units.
- Argues that housing availability has exceeded need for the past 50 years, citing a loss of 600,000 residents in New York City over the last 3 years
- Claims that current zoning on Staten Island's north shore could accommodate 2-3 times the current occupancy
- Expresses concern about the safety of basement dwellings, particularly due to flooding issues from plumbing and groundwater
- No need for more housing as housing availability has exceeded need for the past 50 years
- New York City lost about 600,000 residents in the last 3 years
- Current zoning is sufficient for creating needed housing
- North shore of Staten Island could have 2 to 3 times the current occupancy under current zoning
- The proposal is not truly about affordable housing, especially in Staten Island
- Accessory dwelling units are unnecessary and potentially unsafe
- Living in basements is dangerous due to flooding risks from plumbing and groundwater
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- ADU
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
"And it's been very odd to to hear that a lot of the the the folks in favor of this are touting the the fact that that this is affordable housing. When when that that's only an option in one small portion. And in Staten Island, it only seems to the proposal is only to apply that potentially in one tiny small little area. So that this is not affordable housing at all."
This quote discusses the affordable housing aspect of the proposal, which is likely referring to the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) element. The speaker is criticizing the limited scope of the affordable housing provision, particularly in Staten Island.
ADU
"Regarding the accessory dwelling units, We don't believe they're necessary. And actually, we believe that that they would actually be creating a a situation that's unsafe."
This quote directly mentions accessory dwelling units and expresses the speaker's opposition to them, indicating that this element of the proposal is being discussed.
"You know, these spaces, I'm an architect, it's horrifying to think that that this proposal would advocate for people to live in basements."
This quote discusses concerns about people living in basements, which is often a form of accessory dwelling unit. The speaker, as an architect, expresses strong opposition to this idea.
"And our experience is that the basements have been flooding in in recent years for for 2 reasons. One reason is any basement that has plumbing typically floods when when it rains heavily. And this proposal would require that if people live in a basement, that would require that they put plumbing in there. So that would create a very omnous situation."
This quote elaborates on the speaker's concerns about basement dwellings, which are a type of ADU. The speaker cites flooding issues as a reason for opposition to this element of the 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.