Rosa Chang, Member of Manhattan Community Board 1, on City of Yes zoning reform with conditions for infrastructure and affordable housing
6:24:02
·
3 min
Rosa Chang, a deeply involved community member, testifies in support of the City of Yes zoning reform initiative with specific conditions. She emphasizes the need for infrastructure improvements to keep pace with increased density and advocates for addressing quality of life concerns in densifying neighborhoods.
- Proposes a ZIP code set-aside for civic infrastructural needs, including funding for parks, schools, hospital beds, and sanitation
- Recommends reducing the 10-year sunset provision for offsetting affordable housing to 5 years
- Suggests mandating essential building infrastructure like garbage collection rooms and package rooms for conversions and enlargements
- Advocates for 100% permanently affordable housing in large campus infill projects and majority voting rights for tenant associations in Mitchell-Lama complexes
- Support for City of Yes with conditions
- Need for infrastructure improvements to keep up with increased density
- Suggestion for a ZIP code set aside for civic infrastructural needs
- Reduction of 10-year sunset provision for offsetting affordable housing to 5 years
- Mandating essential building infrastructure for garbage collection, storage, and package rooms
- 100% permanently affordable housing for large campus infill projects
- Continued requirement for community board and community engagement
- Support for eliminating or reducing the 680 square foot dwelling unit factor
- Need for more emphasis on creating truly affordable housing
- Addressing quality of life concerns and increasing need for physical infrastructure and hospital beds
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- Campuses
- Small and Shared Housing
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.
Campuses
"Regarding large campus infill projects. Mandating any additional residential space will be 100% permanently affordable, and that for nitrile complexes, specifically that tenant associations are not only included in the decision making, but half the majority vote."
This quote directly addresses the Campuses element of the City of Yes For Housing Opportunity proposal. The speaker is discussing large campus infill projects and suggesting conditions for their development, which aligns with the proposal's aim to utilize underused space on campuses for housing.
Small and Shared Housing
"I am in support of eliminating or reducing the 680 square foot dwelling unit factor. I have personally lived in units that are 250 square feet and 550 square feet for over 15 years in New York with my partner. It can be done."
This quote directly addresses the Small and Shared Housing element of the proposal. The speaker supports reducing the minimum dwelling unit size, which aligns with the proposal's aim to re-legalize smaller housing units and studio apartments.
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.