Sherman Creek/Inwood

Watch Jamaica and Greenpoint Williamsburg for the “Gives and Takes”

Greenpoint Williamsburg Inclusionary Zoning

The zoning text change adopted by the Commission and the City Council includes a groundbreaking Inclusionary Housing program, reflecting recommendations made during the public review process. The recently expanded “General Exclusion Area” formerly limited to Manhattan makes the inclusion of affordable housing mandatory. See Summary
The program promotes affordable units in both rental and condominium developments, encourages preservation of existing affordable units, and targets affordable housing to a range of income levels. On the waterfront, sites zoned with a blend of R6 and R8 districts would have a base FAR of 3.7 (reduced from 4.3 FAR in the original application), with a bonus up to 4.7 FAR for the provision of at least 20 percent affordable housing. Modifications also reduce by 20 feet the maximum permitted heights in R8 districts for buildings not using the bonus.

A bonus for providing affordable housing would also be available in upland portions of the rezoning area, where bonus floor area would be accommodated within contextual height limits. Modifications reduce the maximum FAR permitted without the Inclusionary Housing bonus in R6 districts on wide streets and R6A districts from 3.0 to 2.7, and in R7A districts from 4.0 to 3.45.

Both on the waterfront and upland developments could satisfy the affordable housing requirement by developing affordable units on-site or off-site, or by acquiring and preserving existing housing at affordable rents. Coupled with use of various HPD, HDC, and HFA finance programs, and the city's commitment to developing affordable housing on publicly controlled sites, this Inclusionary Housing Program produces incentives for the development and preservation of affordable housing in Greenpoint-Williamsburg.

Mitigating Displacement

Recognizing that not all change is for “the good” NYC/HPD circulated an RFP aimed at local CD1 nonprofit service providers. A coalition of CD1 community organizations led by the North Brooklyn Development Corporation submitted a response and requested the sum of $2M (as recommended by the City in the RFP) for implementation of services over two years.
In anticipation of zoning changes, CB12 should also encourage a multi-agency task force to develop a strategy for providing similar services in a greatly needed area of the city. These services are:

1. Identify at risk and potentially at risk
   residential tenants residing in each census tract of CD12


2. Provide education on legal rights and on new Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
   Anti harassment provisions


3. Provide information and counseling on available, affordable housing opportunities


4. Provide limited relevant legal consultation services
   
   Implementation should begin in CD12 now, however, the certification of the ULURP for the Sherman Creek/Inwood zoning change should not be expected prior to the Fall of 2007 with completion about seven month following (perhaps May 2008) for submission to the NYC Planning Commission and finally for a vote by the City Council.
   

Examine Jamaica Changes

The time to research the “gives and the takes” of stimulating investment through zoning changes is now. In brief, DCP City certified the rezoning plan in early February 2007, thus beginning the ULURP (say seven months). The Mayor assured all that objections would be considered and resolved.
Objections/Issues: See: Jamaica DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Queens CB12, voted down parts of the plan May 2007. Apprehension about density and traffic in the Jamaica DEIS speaks to issues in CD12. Queens CB8 is also affected and voted down the entire plan. To top it all, the city also suggested eminent domain as a tool to acquire property near the transit hub. Seems a test of Kelo is in the works if anyone wants to take it that far. The City Planning Commission will vote on the plan in the fall, and approve it in the name of growth, but then it goes to the City Council, where the real argument starts with a conclusion by September 2007. For a view on the pro side, see: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/crd.htm