Sanford Miller from Manhattan Community Board 4 on City of Yes for Housing Opportunity's impact on housing supply and affordability
12:50:15
·
3 min
Sanford Miller, a renter and member of Manhattan Community Board 4, expresses support for the City of Yes initiative to increase housing supply and affordability in New York City. He highlights specific aspects of the proposal that he finds particularly impactful.
- Supports dropping parking requirements, citing the high cost of building parking spaces and the unfairness of forcing residents to pay for unused parking
- Praises the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) as a nuanced approach to increase affordable housing in high-density districts while preserving special district concepts
- Emphasizes the importance of increasing both market-rate and affordable housing supply to address rising rental costs
- Concerned about rising rental costs in the city
- Supports increasing housing supply across the city (both market-rate and affordable)
- Supports dropping parking requirements to reduce housing costs and increase housing production
- Endorses the UAP (Unified Affordable Housing Program) as a nuanced approach to increase affordable housing in high-density districts
- Appreciates how UAP preserves special districts while allowing for 20% additional density
- Impressed with the presentation and execution of UAP mapping across the city
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- Parking Mandates
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
"Another call too that I think is. I wanna call out is UAP, which I believe is I I will honestly, I think it is a very nuanced way to get some more affordable housing in large parts of the city. They call the high density districts."
The speaker directly mentions UAP and describes it as a way to increase affordable housing in high-density areas, which aligns with the proposal's description of UAP.
"But I was very impressed with the presentation on UNT. Connecticut before has a lot of special districts. And the application UIT to the special districts. You preserve the concept of the special districts and and reflected them while still allowing for that additional 20% density on what would have otherwise been allowed and get us that marginal affordable housing."
This quote further elaborates on the speaker's understanding and support of UAP, mentioning the 20% additional density for affordable housing, which is a key feature of the UAP proposal.
Parking Mandates
"Want to talk about the dropping of parking requirements is something I'd probably support, both from a trended perspective and from a housing perspective."
The speaker directly mentions support for dropping parking requirements, which aligns with the proposal's element of removing parking mandates.
"As I think other people have mentioned, it costs $67,000, I believe, with the estimate. It's built apart from vitamin Hannon, but it's astronomical. And surely does. Both prevent housing from being built and increase the cost of housing that is built."
This quote discusses the high cost of building parking and how it impacts housing development and costs, which is a key argument for removing parking mandates in the proposal.
"And parking mandates require people to pay for housing or taking parking that they're not even using. Which just seems totally unfair to me than someone who wants to, you know, use some very medical can't say nothing. They're still forced to do, like, somewhere worth talking that they are paying for."
The speaker criticizes the current parking mandates, pointing out that they force people to pay for parking they might not use, which aligns with the proposal's argument for removing these mandates.
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.