Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Debating the role of City Planning vs. City Council and the legality of potential reforms
1:38:23
·
6 min
Commissioner Carl Weisbrod raises concerns about the legality (potential 'one person, one vote' violations) of making the appointed City Planning Commission (CPC) the final decision-maker on land use actions, especially zoning changes, instead of the elected City Council.
Eric Lane argues that CPC deciding specific projects is administrative, not legislative, but zoning changes require Council involvement. Craig Gurian suggests a compromise where CPC approval is final unless overridden by a Council supermajority (e.g., two-thirds), keeping the Council involved but making obstruction harder.
Chair Buery questions if a supermajority truly counters individual member deference, but Gurian believes it forces broader consensus beyond just the local member's wishes.
- Making CPC the final arbiter on specific projects (variances, etc.) is likely legally permissible as an administrative function.
- Broad zoning changes are legislative and constitutionally require elected body (Council) approval.
- A potential reform could give CPC final say unless overridden by a Council supermajority (e.g., 2/3 vote).
- Debate exists on whether a supermajority requirement effectively counters member deference or simply shifts the political calculation.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:38:23
Yes.
1:38:24
This is a
Carl Weisbrod
1:38:24
question for mister Lane.
1:38:26
Are you still there?
1:38:28
I know that the that a number of suggestions have been made to make the city planning commission the final arbiter if, as a means of avoiding, or dealing with member deference.
1:38:45
And I know the eighty nine Charter Commission had some concerns about guardrails to make sure that the city planning commission itself did not become a legislative body or be seen as a legislative body and thus potentially violating principle of one person, one vote.
1:39:06
Do you think that there are guardrails in this area that would limit the city planning commission to become the final arbiter of land use actions?
Eric Lane
1:39:23
What guardrails would stop them from becoming this?
1:39:26
Such as the one, such as, administrative body becoming a legislative body?
Carl Weisbrod
1:39:36
The answer is, yeah.
1:39:37
Yes.
1:39:37
That was my question.
Eric Lane
1:39:41
I mean, there is a problem with the legislative body becoming a legislative body, but I don't see the issue of deference has nothing to do with the interest of being a legislative body because that's why I think you we gave them the power, and that's why I think you could take it away from him if you wanted to with no trouble.
1:40:00
I don't think the question's a legal question about whether the city planning commission or some administrative agency could have be the final voice on, you know, whether a bit whether a particular small project, housing project, whatever it might be, is placed in a district.
1:40:20
I don't that's an administrative decision that we tried to keep from the council until we decided not to.
1:40:27
So I don't think there's a legal problem with if you're just limiting it to that, if you're starting to talk about zoning issues, then I think you have to have the council's involvement because I think that's been or decide I mean, it's been decided in the past.
1:40:42
It's zoning to legislative matter.
1:40:44
But in terms of everything else as it goes through the YOLOC process is not a problem, of legality.
1:40:57
It's a problem it's political issue.
1:40:59
It's how you incorporate the community voices in the process, but it's not a question of of, you know, removing a guardrail that would make something, go from legal to illegal.
1:41:11
I I don't believe that would be true in anything other than the zoning or types of issues like that where it really is a legislative voice.
1:41:19
I might not agree with you doing it, but I don't think it's a legal issue.
Carl Weisbrod
1:41:22
And I'm I don't wanna take the time here, but so many of the issues that go to the council do in fact involve zoning changes.
1:41:32
And so I just ask you if there have to be guardrails if the city planning
Eric Lane
1:41:39
And zoning if you're talking about a variance or something, that's not a legislative act.
Carl Weisbrod
1:41:44
I'm not talking about a variance.
1:41:46
I'm talking about a zoning change.
1:41:47
But I just had
Eric Lane
1:41:47
something Okay.
1:41:49
I'm sorry.
Craig Gurian
1:41:49
Mr.
1:41:50
Chairman, may I just speak to that for fifteen seconds if I may?
1:41:59
Your question is precisely why I do think that there is utility to having the availability of the final counsel step, although one that is more difficult than simply getting a counsel majority.
1:42:13
Having a twothree council veto keeps the council in the process.
1:42:24
And you could make the judgment on the politics of it.
1:42:27
But it is certainly the case that 34 council members on multiple occasions have been able to agree to a whole variety of things.
1:42:40
And I think if you're looking at something to try to make sure that there is a backup, a stop guard, that would be a way to do it.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:42:53
So I would just ask you and I don't want to keep longer.
1:42:56
But just on this question, I think part of the question that I have is that I'm not sure I understand what the difference would be between a majority vote versus a supermajority vote if the problem is not in fact the problem is deference to individuals, which does not change if you have a 50 vote, a 60% vote, or an 80% vote.
1:43:14
So I don't know I want to you can think about that if you I
Craig Gurian
1:43:19
have a sort of a quick answer to it because at least in terms of the council as it is constituted and as it has been constituted for a while, there is a we like our deference the way we have it caucus.
1:43:40
So it's not simply that the one person I mean, now, the one person is able to stop something.
1:43:48
But what you want to do is you want to make sure that if something's being stopped, it isn't just the individual member, and it's not the members who say, we live in the suburbs even though it's called New York City.
1:44:05
So, like like, we need 18 parking spots.
1:44:09
And, you know, it's like we don't want the kind of slum that a townhouse represents.
1:44:15
You want to be able to do that and make sure that it has to be a very significant percentage of members who vote that way.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:44:29
Thank all three of you so much.
1:44:30
I'm going to call the next panel.