Robert Fanuzzi, President of Bronx Council for Environmental Quality, on flaws in the City of Yes for Housing proposal and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
4:36:42
·
3 min
Robert Fanuzzi, representing the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality, argues that the City of Yes for Housing proposal and its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are fundamentally flawed. He calls for a new or supplemental EIS to address several critical issues.
- Questions the EIS's ability to document specific housing needs and criticizes its reliance on a supply-side academic thesis
- Argues that affordability should be the primary need addressed, with the proposal designed to meet this goal
- Calls for an alternative analysis to measure less impactful steps and compare the proposal to other potential measures
- Expresses concern about the proposal's impact on sustainability and climate adaptation, particularly regarding increased flooding risks
- The City of Yes for Housing proposal and its EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) are fatally flawed
- The EIS needs to document more specific housing needs
- Affordability should be scoped as a need, not just a desired outcome
- The EIS should include alternative analyses to measure least impactful steps
- The proposal does not adequately address sustainability and climate adaptation needs
- The proposal rewards the real estate industry without addressing specific housing needs
- A new or supplemental EIS is needed to realistically calculate housing growth and its impact on communities
[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
"UAP lettuce recall is voluntary."
The speaker directly mentions UAP (Universal Affordability Preference) and criticizes its voluntary nature, indicating a discussion of 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.