CB9 Meeting Tonight — Brooklynian

CB9 Meeting Tonight


I'll be attending. MTOPP threatened to "shut [this one] down" after not being allowed to comment at the last meeting due to time constraints. Should be another gem if the weather doesn't keep them away. 


  • I have heard CB9 has scheduled the public comment period at the start of the meeting.

    I am interested in seeing if they stay within the allotted period.
  • I've lurked on this board for a while and have enjoyed the posts and discussions.  Perhaps the below was posted elsewhere, but thought I it was important.  MTOPP knocked on my door last night, and shoved a flyer underneath, exhorting me to attend their 11/30 meeting. 



    Will the zoning study proceed, or will there have to be another vote by way of CB 9?

  • Good question. On the one hand, simply voting to accept/accurately count (and reverse) the last vote seems to make sense, as that move would reflect the will of the Board. On the other hand, given that the vote was so long ago and the City is already working to implement, voting to formally repeal/replace the resolution makes sense as well, especially as this option would allow the Board to take into consideration new developments in moving forward. Ultimately, it'll be up to the Board on what to do as the district manager cannot unilaterally correct a vote tally that the Board formally approved (i.e. they approved the next meeting's minutes), whether based on the district manager's incorrect tally or not. 
  • edited December 2014
    It is a good question.

    In addition to what phresident writes, I believe we are working with a dynamic in which DeBlasio and Adams both want to rezone the area to create additional housing, additional tax revenue, etc.

    However, neither wants to be perceived as imposing thier wishes on the community, so they would like a request to come from CB9.

    While MTOPP's ability to work with the board to create a new resolution isn't clear, it also isn't clear to me that "new board" appointed by Adams is going to be obedient to him.

    In the event that a new resolution is created, it may take the form of "preserve what is here", as opposed to "build, baby, build".

    Needless to say, much gentrification will continue to occur without any resolution....

    Brownstoner commented on the matter today too: http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2014/12/mtopp-calls-for-public-meetings-zoning-study-new-resolution/#comments

  • In
    NJ, where I come from, the retaliation against MTOPP would be severe. The
    governing person in charge would recruit developers to work on every single “as
    of right” parcel in the neighborhood and allow them to build whatever they
    wanted. When the developers applied for variances to non- as of right land, the
    officials would say “Only 26 stories? Why don’t you go for 36?” If Adams and DeBlasio are retaliatory like this, I fear the same
    will happen in PLG. The development will come, the gentrification will come,
    and the community will have squandered its ability to shape the process in any
  • edited December 2014
    I think a lot it will be dependent upon how much pressure Adams and DeBlasio are under to generate tax revenue and below market housing.

    Many of the city's lowest income residents have come to the conclusion that the housing created by Adams and Deblasio won't benefit them, and may actually hurt them. ...so they no longer support the efforts.

    If the city's middle class and upper class (and their city council reps) withdrawl their support, DeBlasio and Adams might have to back off if they want re-election.
  • edited December 2014
    The perspective of one of the supporters of the resolution:


    BTW, CB9 will next attempt to have a mtg on Tuesday, Dec 9th.

  • edited December 2014
    The perspective of one of the supporters of the resolution:


    BTW, CB9 will next attempt to have a mtg on Tuesday, Dec 9th.

    Thanks for sharing (and I'll be at the Dec. 9th meeting). An interesting perspective, no doubt. If there's one thing I'll say in favor of MTOPP is that they have helped lead to greater transparency and accountability at the Board. Otherwise, I deplore their tactics, especially that distasteful stunt Alicia pulled with the young boy at the last meeting. As for them trying to get the Board executive committee removed: good luck with that. Quite honestly, the "blame" falls squarely on the district manager, who was tasked with tallying the vote; thus, I don't see why they are going after the executive committee as well. 
  • As I have stated previously, I find that taking a side in the battle between MTOPP and CB9 is akin to taking a side in a fight between two drunk guys at 2 AM on the subway.

    That said, I will state in CB9's defense that I could not have accurately tallied the vote at the "recind the resolution" meeting

    ....there was too much screaming to think.
  • edited December 2014
    Tonight's meeting was similar:

    CB9 did not allow MTOPP time to speak, and MTOPP continued to try and disrupt anything and everything the board attempts.

    As a result of having only 5 people in attendance, MTOPP was not able to really disrupt the meeting.

    There was about 100 people here, about 40 of which are members of the board. 

     The other 55 (100 -5 - 40) seem tired of this struggle, or simply onlookers.

    Lots of unquantifiable and undefined requests for "respect" and "professionalism". 

    In light of the prior resolution being rescinded, a new resolution was offered by Tim. However, it was not considered.

    Any resolution developed will have to come from the ULURP Committee.
  • edited December 2014
    Right. Very entertaining to watch all the same. I will say that MTOPP tried and would have otherwise succeeded in disrupting the meeting (after all, its only really Alicia and the other wild one who control the show of meeting disruptions and shut downs) if the CB9 chair didn't get assertive and shut them down first. I heard some rumblings in the back that he was too loud and disrespectful, but, in actuality, I saw him doing nothing more than heading off rude attempts to cut him off from MTOPP (that's why his voice was raised in my view). In any event, the chair's forceful statement calling out MTOPP for their rudeness went a long way to taming the group, which was a pleasant development. 

    As for Tim's resolution, I feel that it was very much out of line. He wanted the Board to adopt his resolution while knowing that the entire thing is being sent back to committee (for this reason alone, his argument that CB9 exec. committee violated protocol by not sending the matter to committee fell flat). Even though I agree with Tim that the time to deal with this resolution is now, it was mind-boggling to me that he tried to introduce a resolution that community members and the Board didn't have time to vet (by the way, that's the purpose of sending it back to committee). Tim is a doer and has a good heart, which I appreciate, but I just wasn't on board with this particular effort of his. 

    By the way, the "I'm not surprised" language from the MTOPP crowd in response to the Jewish members' votes was uncalled for and borderline antisemitic. 
  • edited December 2014
    I think MTOPP's big realization will come when it realizes that "Just because many board members do not do what Tim requests, doesn't mean they agree with MTOPP."

  • Agreed, 100%. The way they applauded the "yes" votes to accept the education chair's objection to Tim's resolution tells me that they are likely going to be in for a world of pain and disappointment when its all said and done. 
  • edited December 2014
    Press re: mtg http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2014/12/plg-crown-heights-community-board-will-rewrite-controversial-request-for-zoning-study/

    Unsolicited commentary:

    It is interesting to watch each group try to control development.

    Most people (90% ? ) in the district seem to dislike tall buildings and greater density because they like the present scale and feel of the area, but have some understanding that owners rights to build simply can't be taken away.

    A much smaller group (5% ?) seems to dislike tall buildings and greater density because they believe they will bring wealthy people ("white") to the area, and the resulting contagion will price less wealthy people ("black") out of the area. This group seems to believe that any such construction should be prohibited, because of its inherent disparate impact on protected groups.

    The remaining group (5% ?) would like to upzone the area to increase density and height, or to keep it the same.

    ....it is always interesting to watch people learn what government will and will not do, and see them ascribe motivations to the various parties.
This discussion has been closed.