Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Discussion on public sites for affordable housing development in AAMUP area
1:20:01
·
4 min
Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
0:00
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time -0:00
Â
1x
- Chapters
- descriptions off, selected
- captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
- captions off, selected
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
Council Member Ossé and city officials discuss the need for more public sites for 100% affordable housing development in the Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan (AAMUP) area. The conversation covers the current status of identified sites, challenges in implementing housing on public sites, and the administration's efforts to overcome these challenges.
- Seven public sites are being considered or committed for affordable housing development
- Existing uses and potential relocation of current occupants pose challenges for site development
- The administration is working with various agencies to assess feasibility and develop clear paths forward for site redevelopment
Chi A. Ossé
1:20:01
Thank you so much Chair Reilly.
1:20:04
I would also like to echo many of Councilmember Hutton's statements as well as some of my remarks in the beginning that I would like to emphasize the importance of adding more public sites for 100% affordable housing development.
1:20:18
Census data clearly shows that the 30 Fifth And 30 Sixth council districts have the most acute displacement pressures anywhere in the city, and I know that that was shared, from the council members' questions.
1:20:30
The mayor's executive order, 43 signed on August 2024 orders all relevant city agencies to identify potential public sites for affordable housing development.
1:20:39
I know councilmember Hudson spoke about the DOE site on Claremont, but what other sites have been identified so far as viable public sites for development in the AMUP area?
Sarit Platkin
1:20:54
Thank you for that question.
1:20:56
So I think you know from what we've discussed, know three committed sites in the plan right now, three additional sites that we are seriously exploring, as well as Claremont.
1:21:06
That you know those are seven additional or essentially seven public sites that would supplement the deeply or the affordable housing that is income restricted that would be provided through mandatory inclusionary housing.
1:21:19
So those have really been the focus.
1:21:21
As you heard there is you know a lot of engagement with relevant agencies, city and state that the administration has been focused on during this time.
1:21:30
And as we shared also kind of feeling confident that those are moving forward.
1:21:35
Think beyond, and that's in the AIM UP context, that has been the focus.
1:21:38
I think beyond the AIM UP context there's of course you know citywide efforts related to that executive order that the administration is undertaking where additional sites could identified.
1:21:48
But these are the sites that we've really been prioritizing in this immediate area through this process.
Chi A. Ossé
1:21:54
And thank you for that.
1:21:55
But considering all this energy and consensus around building housing on public sites, why has it been so difficult to actually implement and commit to additional sites here in the AIM UP plan?
1:22:06
I understand that there are several agencies that are involved in this.
1:22:11
I know in my district we are advocating for there to be housing development built on a parking lot, right?
1:22:18
And I know that the school is a sensitive area, but a parking I just want to get some more clarity in terms of why it has been so difficult to commit to some of these additional sites?
Sarit Platkin
1:22:33
Yeah that's know that's a really good question and I guess I might reframe that a little bit.
1:22:38
I don't know that I would say that it's so difficult as much as like there are many components and many pieces that we're trying to assess and get right.
1:22:46
So you know, on all these sites, you know, you just mentioned this yourself, there are existing uses, existing jobs, existing livelihoods that we are accounting for and trying to potentially relocate.
1:22:57
In the case of a site like Claremont, of course sensitive existing uses on And so we're assessing all of that.
1:23:05
And we're, like I said, these are long term processes.
1:23:09
And we're trying to get it right.
Chi A. Ossé
1:23:11
And how is the to just follow-up on the answer, and I appreciate the response, but how is the admin planning to overcome those challenges like the existing use?
Sarit Platkin
1:23:23
Understood, yeah.
1:23:24
I think working really hard to partner with our you know partner agencies at the city and state level and you know trying to get aligned and get on the same page.
1:23:37
We are looking you know especially in the coming month as this process concludes, looking to get additional clarity and look forward to continuing the conversation.
Chi A. Ossé
1:23:48
Yeah, but what does that look like?
1:23:49
Are you guys meeting consistently?
1:23:52
What's Yes, And then what are the pushbacks?
1:23:55
I just want some more transparency in terms of how those conversations are going because we've been advocating for these projects for some time now.
Sarit Platkin
1:24:02
Understood.
1:24:03
And yes, that definitely looks like consistent meetings, feasibility analyses, trying to assess both what's possible on-site, what might be needed, and all the various steps and cost of potential relocation, and getting a clear path forward for how the site could get redeveloped, various sites could get redeveloped.
Chi A. Ossé
1:24:25
Okay.
1:24:26
And is there potential in this phase of the plan to explore any other sites beyond the seven prioritized sites?
Sarit Platkin
1:24:35
I think if there are additional sites that you're interested in that you want to bring to our attention, we'd be happy to take a look.