Paul Selver presents the Real Estate Board of New York's proposal for vesting provisions in the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning changes. He argues that current vesting standards are outdated and don't reflect the modern challenges of real estate development in New York City.

• Proposes a four-part vesting provision including extended timelines for project completion and protection against challenges to vested permits
• Emphasizes the need to update vesting rights to account for increased land costs, tenant protections, complex zoning controls, and longer entitlement processes
• Suggests that the proposal could serve as a model for future zoning actions to modernize vesting provisions in the zoning resolution

• Proposal for a vesting provision in the City of YES for Housing Opportunity zoning change
• Current vesting standards are outdated and need to be updated to reflect modern challenges in real estate development
• Proposed vesting provision based on principles of fairness and due process
• Four main parts of the proposal: filing work permit within 6 months, 20% enlargement allowance, extended timelines for large and 421A buildings, and protection against frivolous challenges
• Need to protect investments in producing affordable housing under current Inclusionary Housing program

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

I was not able to tie quotes from the testimony back to specific elements of the proposal. Check out another testimony 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 requests a copy of Paul Selver's remarks and seeks clarification on the vesting provisions discussed in his testimony. Selver confirms that his comments are about general vesting provisions, separate from but related to UAP or inclusionary housing vesting.

• Selver agrees to submit the full package of remarks through REBNY after the hearing
• The discussion distinguishes between general vesting provisions and specific UAP vesting provisions
• The exchange highlights the complexity of vesting rules in the proposed zoning changes

• Proposal for a vesting provision in the City of YES for Housing Opportunity zoning change
• Current vesting standards are outdated and need to be updated to reflect modern challenges in real estate development
• Proposed vesting provision based on principles of fairness and due process
• Four main parts of the proposal: filing work permit within 6 months, 20% enlargement allowance, extended timelines for large and 421A buildings, and protection against frivolous challenges
• Need to protect investments in producing affordable housing under current Inclusionary Housing program

[EXPERIMENTAL]

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

I was not able to tie quotes from the testimony back to specific elements of the proposal. Check out another testimony 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.