Paul DiBenedetto, Chair of Queens Community Board 11, presents strong opposition to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative, particularly its impact on Eastern Queens. He highlights widespread disapproval from community boards across boroughs and argues that the proposal would destroy the character of historic suburban neighborhoods.

• DiBenedetto cites voting results from community boards in Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, and Brooklyn, showing majority opposition to the initiative.
• He criticizes the Department of City Planning (DCP) for not engaging with community boards and council members in developing the City of Yes proposal, calling it a 'top-down' approach.
• DiBenedetto argues that New York City already has a low percentage (15%) of single-family zoned areas compared to other major U.S. cities, and emphasizes the racial and ethnic diversity in low-density neighborhoods in Eastern Queens.

• Most community boards in Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, and Brooklyn voted against the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity
• The initiative would destroy the character of historic suburban neighborhoods
• There are better opportunities to create housing without tearing down existing homes
• New York City already has a low percentage (15%) of single-family zoned areas compared to other major U.S. cities
• Low-density neighborhoods in Queens are racially and ethnically diverse
• The City Planning Commission did not engage community boards and council members in the planning process
• The initiative is seen as a top-down approach, unlike previous contextual rezonings that were done in partnership with community boards and civics

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

• 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.