« Petitioning Bruce to Spare Ward's Bakery Craigs Picks, Rental Edition »
March 7, 2007
Affordable Housing Sticking Point for D'town Tower
A minor rejiggering of district boundaries is proving to be a major thorn in the side of the developer of one of the towers planned for Flatbush Avenue. As originally contemplated, the building was going to be built 35 stories as-of-right under the 2003 rezoning of Downtown Brooklyn. The developer, the Galit Network, now wants to add another five stories (which would make it equal to the next-door Oro's 40 stories) by purchasing air rights from the 84th Precinct and firehouse on Johnson Street (and promising to include some 20-odd below-market apartments in the project). This would probably have been a cake-walk when the project sat in the 33rd district, which Galit's lawyer, Ken Fisher, represented as councilman until 2001. Now, because of a redistricting, the project falls into Tish James's territory. Therein lies the problem: James is opposed to the fact that the below-market apartments are not true "affordable housing" in light of the fact that the developer bought square footage from a true affordable housing project on Carlton Avenue. “There is possibility I will vote it down [in ULURP] and there will be no affordable housing on this project at all either on or off site,” James said. In that case, Fisher counters, the project will be entirely market rate. The matter goes to a community board vote on March 14.
Trouble Looms Over New Tower [Fort Greene Courier] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/677
Comments
What is the "affordable housing" threshold for this bldg?
Posted by: jdhs 91 at March 7, 2007 11:38 AM
James' arguement doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter if the developer bought development rights from an affordable housing development? They're including affordable units in the project right? This is a condo project- not rentals, you can't expect to sell a condo pegged at 60%AMI and take a loss on the unit. If that's the case it would be more effecient to only build the 35 stories. In this scenario - the city would lose revenue from both the sale of the development rights and future taxes on the additional 5-stories.
BOO to Councilwoman James - stop tyring to make social policy when the economics of the deal don't support it. If you want low income condos, have the city cough up the cash to subsidize them directly.
Posted by: Feez at March 7, 2007 1:59 PM
Agree! True that!
Posted by: me at March 7, 2007 2:49 PM
I'm very confused as to how any project could buy "square footage", which I take to mean development rights, from a project 4 blocks away. Development rights can only be transferred to adjacent propoerties. Brownstoner, can you clarify?
Posted by: anon at March 7, 2007 3:03 PM
Assume it has something to do with the 421-a provision that allows (or allowed) developers to get FAR credit for building affordable housing but then to build the affordable housing somewhere else instead. That's what Tish objects too.
Posted by: brownstoner at March 7, 2007 4:31 PM
Good points, Feez. The latter part of your post underscores the weakness of James's leadership: she devotes so much time and energy to blocking development that she neglects the bread and butter issues of her district. Had she spent one-third of her Atlantic Yards protest time on securing funds for affordable housing, her district would be much better as a result. Instead, the Atlantic Yards will get built and her district will still lack affordable housing. Thank God she'll soon be out of office.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2007 4:48 PM
not 421-a; see Section 23-90 to -95 of the Zoning Resolution (Article II, Chapter 3, Sections 90-95)
Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2007 5:05 PM
I hear that Feez - sometimes I get the impression that Tish see two types of people, extremely poor and the "others". I make a middle income and have been totally neglected in her district. All the talk is about really low income and never about middle class families that need housing as well. I mean, a condo that has prices pegged at middle income families is just as important as condos being reserved for poor families.
Posted by: Anon at March 7, 2007 8:07 PM
To 4:48 PM - She made a courageous and intelligent stand against AY and that has endeared her to many of he constituents, and I count myself among the people. She won on her own, she is not someone's daughter or cousin, she lives in the district and she isn't anyone's tool.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2007 11:53 PM
I just saw this thred and laughed because I was chatting with a buddy in city government the other night about how a "certain" council member was "concerned" about a "said" rezoning of a "specific" neighborhood. She didn't tell me directly that James is opposing the Fort Green rezoning... but that's the word on the street. I guess James has problems with a 7 story buildings along Fulton which could include a special inclusionary housing provision, 20% more development rights if you peg 20% of the units at low income. I thought she was all about affordable housing? Anybody know why she wouldn't support this?
Posted by: Damian at March 8, 2007 8:20 AM
In the end, James cares more about blocking tall buildings than she does about affordable housing. She seems to be a person who is furious at her inability to stop the gentrification of her neighborhood. She behaves as though it's 1967 in Berkeley. Hey, Tish, times are changing - roll with the punches, girl!
By the way, Tish is in office only because James Davis was killed. The second time she won as an incumbent and rare is the occasion that any incumbent loses.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2007 8:37 AM
Why doesn't she have the nasty methadone clinc in Fulton relocated??????? Those crackheads are to be kicked out!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2007 9:28 AM
I've voted for Tish each of the three times she was up for her spot. But I'm starting to agree with the sentiment here.
If I understand this correctly, Tish is opposing a developer on a deal to transfer development rights from the neighboring building, because the project is also being built with benefits from off-site IZ units. This begs the question, if the developer were not utilizing the IZ program (the Tish voted for) and was just transferring the FAR, would Tish support the project then? Her opposition threatens the additional affordable units the developer wants to build on site and whatever cash they are willing to pay! What do air-rights in DT BK go for these days?
My guess is that she hasn't thought this through...
Posted by: The Duke at March 8, 2007 4:38 PM
get the facts before passing judgement. As one of her middle-income constituents, I have been very happy with her. She has gone out of her way to help us with problems we have had in the neighborhood. She actually came to our building and sat for an hour and listened to our concerns, went back to her office and got us the results we needed.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2007 9:30 PM
Funny, I've had the exact opposite experience with her.
So, whose "facts" are correct. Mine or yours?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2007 4:50 PM
All right 9:30. I think everyone on this board has had the same Tish James "results we needed" experience.
We're just saying Tish needs to take in the bigger picture and get whats best for her district. She seems to be lacking the big picture perspective.
Posted by: Mr. Underhill at March 10, 2007 2:05 AM
No one, but no one has had the same experience as I and the rest of the tenants that lived under Tish James' tenancy. Her stance on affordable housing is pure and utter verbal rubbish, she doesn't provide her own tenants affordable housing (10-12% rental increases each year) and we were all middle-class individuals. Believe not a word she utters about attempting to secure affordable housing for individuals of the neighborhood, her fight against AY is purely ego-driven, she cares not about her constituents nor individuals who live under her own roof. She is completely driven by her political future, and if voters really want to know what this individual is truly about, not to mention her opponents,interview her former tenants.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 18, 2007 4:21 PM
I completely agree with everyone here about Tish James. She is terrible at her Job. She seems to only care about poor individuals only and forget that her area is made up of middle class and upper class families as well. She needs to pop her eyes open and actually get affordable housing instead of complaining about whats being built. She thinks middleclass and rich people are the devil!
Posted by: guest at January 3, 2008 4:16 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.