Big Changes at CB9
Comments
-
@bobmarvin, that's high praise. I'm a NYC public policy wonk so unfortunately my brain is full of minutia around residency requirements, the history of the city council (and the Board of Estimate), and the impacts of ethnic politics on NYC.
Ah, I see now why those people were shouting about the residency of Pearl Miles. That can be a valid point. Yet, in the context of last night, who would have taken those people seriously?
Distric Managers know where the bodies are buried and who's put 'em there. The position, like many other small overlooked governmental positions, has more power than what appears from the outside looking in. -
"Oppression and hegemony" don't automatically come with the job, but are within the realm of possibility. Homeowner is spot on when he write that "Distric[t] Managers know where the bodies are buried and who's put 'em there. The position, like many other small overlooked governmental positions, has more power than what appears from the outside looking in". During my brief tenure on CB 9 I often observed Pearl seeming to boss Jake Goldstein [the former chairperson] around.
-
I do not know enough about Ms. Miles to take a position on her removal.
However, I am certain that even if people are successful in removing Ms. Miles, oppression will remain.
...and I fear that their focus on removing Ms. Miles will cause them to be distracted from very real things they could be doing in their lives to better their situations.
See you in October?@whynot, if you believe that there is a conspiracy, and you listen to the voices in your head, you know that opression and hegemony STARTS at the CB and goes up through the ranks to the White House, the NSA and the shadow government.
Finally, someone gets it.
See, it doesn't have anything to do with whether I wait my turn to speak or use complete sentences!
-
I am not saying to get rid of anybody. That being said I will say last night when Pearl Miles repeatedly yelled "SHUT UP SHUT UP" to a constituent - no matter how heated the response - I was appalled. So were other people around me. The District Manager should be above such an outburst. And for the record I SUPPORT the study resolution - I am on Pearl's side in that regard, as were the other people around me, but she makes it hard when given the way she behaved last night. All of us resolution supporters were disgusted. All I am saying is if you look at the job description for CB District Manager you will see this is a VERY powerful position within the CB. I think to question someone who holds this position yet lives outside of the Community zone is completely reasonable.
-
Yes, the District Manager shouldn't yell at a member of the public, but, FWIW, there was plenty of provocation. I might well have done the same if I were in her place.
-
As stated above, I left around 8:20.
While I didn't know it at the time, this was the approximate mid point to the mtg; Mug reports it ended at 9:45.
Did she yell at people during the first half, or the second? I either wasn't there for that part, or didn't hear it in light of some in my section yelling all the time. -
There was a loud demand that someone read the infamous resolution that the board had sent to City Planning . Pearl got (justifiably IMO) exasperated when those who supposedly wanted this reading tried to shout her down. This was in the last half of the looong meeting.
-
Yes. Pearl was reading the comments from the community that had informed the formation of the resolution. However, some people in the audience didn't want to hear that. They apparently wanted her to skip over all of that. Maybe some want her to just get to the actual resolution (the Cliff Notes version). Maybe some want to get to the point where they could call BS on the actual tenets of the resolution.While Pearl's outburst wasn't ideal, it was understandable. Many in the audience was hung up on the resolution. Then when it actually came time to read through the actual text of the resolution, people were shouting her down? That made no sense.Then entire meeting was chaotic...including what happened when there was a motion to have the resolution rescinded.
-
Rachel's piece:From it, I continue to conclude that the vote did not successfully rescind the request for the study.
-
Rachel's piece:
It'd be funny if that were the plan all along...vote to rescind the resolution in order to appease the rabble rousers, only later to say, "Psych!" I don't think that was the intention.From it, I continue to conclude that the vote did not successfully rescind the request for the study.Quote from the article: "Untermyer is currently suing CB9 over aFreedom of Information Law request he submitted to the board in August to obtain CB9’s bylaws after he found out the resolution specified Empire Boulevard as a site for possible rezoning."The explanation that was given (when I could actually hear it) was that the initial request was to study the entire district, but TPTB didn't have the funds to do that, so the scope of the study had to be narrowed. That was where Empire Boulevard came in. -
I just read this whole thread (i.e., the Sept posts) and found it extremely informative. I had not been aware of PPEN and MTTOP, although I do enough in the community that it's been clear to me an anti-gentrification movement is taking hold. As an aside, when I was walking with a Brooklyn contingent in the climate march on Sunday, someone started an anti-gentrification chant. I bowed out; I feel that just about anyone who's moved into Brooklyn over the past 40 years has been part of gentrification in some shape or form.I'd thought about getting involved with the Community Board (in my case, CB8), but after reading this I think I may have made the right "decision" by not getting around to looking into it.
-
Ultimately, the Dept of Planning gets to decide what it will and will not study.Rachel's piece:
It'd be funny if that were the plan all along...vote to rescind the resolution in order to appease the rabble rousers, only later to say, "Psych!" I don't think that was the intention.From it, I continue to conclude that the vote did not successfully rescind the request for the study.Quote from the article: "Untermyer is currently suing CB9 over aFreedom of Information Law request he submitted to the board in August to obtain CB9’s bylaws after he found out the resolution specified Empire Boulevard as a site for possible rezoning."The explanation that was given (when I could actually hear it) was that the initial request was to study the entire district, but TPTB didn't have the funds to do that, so the scope of the study had to be narrowed. That was where Empire Boulevard came in.It does not always grant the requests of CBs in full or in part. When DoP is done with a study, the entire City Council votes on it before it goes into effect.I don't think the DoP has studied an area in a while without it first being requested by a CB.Such requests have obvious advantages in terms of politics, and (as noted above) stem from people CBs comprised of people who are appointed by the Boro Pres, not elected directly by the CB populace.City Council members are elected by the overall populace, and their districts often encompass several CBs....so the geographic identity of a CB is odd. It often does not correspond closely with a representative. -
That is incorrect. Pearl was asked to read the RESOLUTION - yes. Pearl said she would NOT read the resolution without reading all the comments taken at the March meeting BEFORE the resolution was created. So the audience of 500 had to hear 5 1/2 pages of comments BEFORE the resolution - when the speaker asked to only hear the resolution itself. The comments were not part of said resolution. Again - I SUPPORT the resolution but I expect more from a District Manager - but if people want to open a slippery slope and defend her behavior then have at it - a leader should be better than that. If you excuse that behavior from a LEADER - a PAID one on the city payroll at that then you have no leg to stand on criticizing MTOPP. I think they were ALL out of line - Geoffrey Davis too.
-
And while I'm at it let me go on record saying I was DISGUSTED with the NYPD officer who stood up there and told the audience we "had a right to civil disobedience because we already had affordable housing" - that was way way out of line - and VERY inaccurate
-
If this is the best we get from our NYPD, District Manager & elected officials then we are screwed.
-
Iilern,Pearl said that the resolution couldn't be properly understood out of context, which is why she read the summary of comments. At worst she was being a bit pedantic. The MTOPP crowd had been coached to chant when they heard specific key words, so nothing she said would have gone well:
-
I was present for that part.
To me, the board was prepared to spend the entire meeting discussing the zoning request, and clearly expected to read the resolution at some point during the meeting.
It seemed they had decided beforehand that they "best way to go about this" was to try to show how much input from "the community" they had received back in March.
MTOPP was not interested in hearing how much input the board had received because MTOPP was not involved in the process.
It is a classic case of not participating and then being annoyed that things were done without you.
...of not understanding how others are not going to pursue your interests, and you'd better be proactive.
Now, their goal seems to be to teach the board a lesson: You must involve us in everything.
...and the board is trying to say "you were never excluded".
The members of MTOPP seem to be the variety that believe that nothing should be done without unanimous consensus.
I am of the variety that believes majority rules.
Sometimes, that majority is created by having more people. Othertimes, that majority is created by having more money and power. -
I think they were ALL out of line - Geoffrey Davis too.
And while I'm at it let me go on record saying I was DISGUSTED with the NYPD officer who stood up there and told the audience we "had a right to civil disobedience because we already had affordable housing" - that was way way out of line - and VERY inaccurate
Geoffrey Davis was the poster child for "out of line" at the meeting. At least Pearl Miles wanted to try to keep the meeting moving; Geoffrey tried to disrupt it.I think Pearl wanted to read the comments first to give context to the resolution (and prove that it didn't come from nowhere). She could have read the resolution first and then the comments, but I doubt the crowd would have allowed things to get that far.That comment from the officer also rubbed me the wrong way-and I live in a rent-stabilized apartment. All that was left for him to say would have been "projects" and it would have been on.I will give MTOPP credit for one little thing - They didn't turn on that officer at that point. (They could have claimed a comment like that would have given credence to their conspriracy theory.)P.S. Someone in the comments on the Q at Parkside's post claims that the motion to rescind the resolution was improper anyway. -
"That comment from the officer also rubbed me the wrong way-and I live in a rent-stabilized apartment. All that was left for him to say would have been "projects" and it would have been on."
At first I thought he was saying that people were behaving like they lived in the projects. Then, I realized he was saying that because we all lived in low income housing we should support more of it.
...he clearly had no clue that MTOPP was not afraid of poor people moving in; MTOPP basically is the poor. MTOPP is afraid of being priced out by wealthy people. MTOPP views wealthy people as being not only "not black", but "against blacks".
The cop was off base on so many levels.
-Previously calm people in the crowd who don't live in affordable housing were annoyed at being told they do.
-Prior to the cop speaking, MTOPP was beginning to be obnoxious but had not crossed the line in my view. After he spoke, they felt they had nothing to lose.... -
"MTOPP basically is the poor. MTOPP is afraid of being priced out by wealthy people. MTOPP views wealthy people as being not only 'not black', but 'against blacks'"
-
Poverty takes many forms, Bob.
-
Arriving at this conversation late, I have a single comment for Whynot:
BobMarvin is totally correct in asking you to not to confuse PPEN with MTOPP. Yes, both are groups in PLG with a mission to oppose reckless development in our neighborhood. PPEN was formed over a year ago and MTOPP came into being only some months ago. The memberships of both groups are distinct and not overlapping.
Hear me when I tell you that absolutely no members of PPEN who were present at the CB9 meeting on Tuesday night were wearing green MTOPP shirts. PPEN folk were there in regular clothing, including 3 who spoke publicly. No PPEN members called for rescinding the resolution nor joined in attempts to disrupt the meeting. If you want to maintain credibility in posting on this subject it would be much better if you stick to the facts. Clearly, in an already troubling situation, it doesn't advance any of our understanding to start going off the rails with fabrications just to make a point. Thanks in advance to all for contributing factual clarity -- and less unnecessary confusion -- to this discussion.
-
Welcome @gardensgal -
Putting the overlapping membership issue aside, do you agree with how I described PPEN here (posted on prior page)?@homeowner -
PPEN is the Prospect Park East Network. They were recently defeated in their attempt to stop an "as of right building" (626 Flatbush), and wish to change the zoning code before future building are built as of right. They are concerned about displacement, but seem to be very interested in contexual zoning. Some are preservationists. I bet a few enjoy watching birds in the park. http://www.ppen.org/
MTOPP is the Movement to Protect the People. http://www.mtopp.org/
They chant things like "What about the revolution?!" and "This Black community is not for sale!", and many seem convinced the rzoning is 99% about wanting to rid the community of black people.
---> Note as mentioned above, the groups had more in common than then they do today. And, I suspect, more overlapping memberships. -
Thanks for the welcome! The best thing about your blurb, Whynot, is that you provided a link to PPEN's website which allows readers to go check out for themselves how we describe ourselves. For those who can't be bothered with actually studying our website, here's our mission statement:
PPEN is an organization of concerned residents formed to address
irresponsible development (e.g. 626 Flatbush, 23 floors towering over the
Park) and the larger concerns it brings, which include the urgent need
for contextual zoning and impact studies on such issues as low income
and affordable housing, traffic, subways, parking, schools, safety,
sanitation and the Park itself.
I do take exception to this statement in your blurb though: "They were recently defeated in their attempt to stop an 'as of right' building. . . ." Actually, that is not quite true. Yes, we did lose the first round of litigation in the trial court. However, the case is now on appeal in the Appellate Division and none of us knows as yet how that court will decide the case, or even if this litigation will eventually end up in the state's highest appellate court, the New York State Court of Appeals. But it could. There are serious issues of law here involving two different legislative schemes entirely. The "as of right" claim relates to Hudson's development plans which are consistent with New York City's R7-1 zoning codes. (E.g. under NYC law, they don't need a variance to build their monstrous tower on Flatbush Ave.) However, PPEN's legal challenge is not a zoning challenge, but rather an environmental challenge brought pursuant to New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). A whole different ball of wax altogether. For a more detailed explanation of where the case now stands, you can check out this article on our webpage: http://www.ppen.org/2014/07/the-legal-fight-continues-about-lawsuit.html
-
One of the differences I see between PPEN and MTOPP is that:
By using SEQRA, PPEN is trying to stop developers from constructing buildings that would be of a height and size ALREADY allowed in the zoning code.
-whereas-
By using chanting, MTOPP is trying is trying to stop developers from constructing buildings that would be of a height and size NOT PRESENTLY allowed in the zoning code.
So, the methods of each group vary, as does the timing of their approaches.
I must say, I can't imagine the courts effectively overturning the objective zoning code by subjecting developers to SEQRA.
...but I am glad PPEN has found an attorney that is willing to give it a shot.
-
I hear you, Whynot. But, of course, our respective analyses of what's going on merely reflect our respective biases. If I understand you correctly, you are basically pro-development, no matter the cost -- environmental or otherwise, to the surrounding community and, most especially if the project is proceeding "as of right." I, on the other hand, while not opposed to all development, am most definitely opposed to massive, irresponsible development that is dependent upon public dollars to get the job done but causes significant environmental wreckage to the surrounding community in the process. That said, if we can agree to civilly disagree about that, no problem!
BTW, PPEN doesn't have just "an attorney." Along with the Prospect Lefferts Gardens Neighborhood Association and several individual homeowners and tenants, we are being represented in this litigation by the very well -respected law firm, WilmerHale: http://www.wilmerhale.com/about/overview/ ; our co-plaintiffs (Flatbush Tenants Coalition, Flatbush Development Corporation and an individual tenant) are represented by South Brooklyn Legal Services: http://sbls.org/. In short, a team of very experienced and competent lawyers have all been willing to "give it a shot" because they see enough legal merit to our claims to pursue them on our behalf, gratis.
-
I am not pro development at all costs, but do believe at some point we have given everyone enough time to state their concerns.
Most of the time, I believe "enough time" is the moment when the zoning code is ratified by the City Council.
Because zoning takes so long to change, it is important for people to know how an area could legally change (ie "is presently zoned") before they get emotionally attached to it's present or future.
I've been watching the progress on 626 Flatbush here: http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/38383/hudson-companies-residential-development-on-flatbush-ave-in-plg/p1
-
This is what was handed out to MTOPP before the meeting (courtesy of The Q at Parkside).
-
The MTOPP mtg I attended on Sept 17th indicated to me that their leadership had no trust in the process.
My impressions were that it was a mixed crowd, and that about 2/3 were able to see what was happening as an issue largely driven by economic forces, and the remainder saw it as primarily racial.
Geoffrey Davis spent his time talking about how Empire Blvd was going to become a plantation...
photo of Sept 17th mtg: http://www.brooklynian.com/uploads/imageupload/779/73SCNRNQG3S7.jpg
discussion of Empire Rezoning: http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/43766/529-empire-rezoning-request-from-commercial-to-mixed-use/p1
Needless to say, the Sept 17th meeting told some what they wanted to hear, and alienated others.
As a curious onlooker, it merely let me know that they Sept 23rd CB9 mtg would be a shitshow.
-
and, I now get emails like this one:
Dear Neighbor:
Below is the summary of the strategies
MTOPP employed during the Community Board 9 meeting.
and its rationale.
We won a tremendous battle on September 23, 2014,
by engaging in a strategy called civil disobedience.
Despite people calling this childish, immature etc…
it is a powerful strategy but hard to control,
because one is using emotions, unrest
and even anger to decide
an outcome or situation.
We bordered on a fine line,
of how to control the meeting without closing it down!
And we did it!
We had these goals in mind.
1. Not to allow City Planning to speak! (And they didn’t)
Why? Because City Planning shouldn’t be involved
in this stage of the game.
This is a community concern,
we should be deciding for ourselves what we want
and how to create a request to ensure that is what we get.
Once that is done, then City Planning should be involved.
That is the process!!!
That is the process that wasn’t followed,
that Fred Baptist – Community Board member complained about
when the first resolution was passed
and the reason he put forth
the motion to rescind it.
Do the process!
2. To show that the current resolution did not have community support!
Not only with those letters and signatures
that we produced on the stage, (almost 4,000)
stating clearly there is no community support
for residential on Empire Blvd,
but with the people showing up
and booing anyone who even tried to support this idea!
We wanted no doubts that the community
does not want residential on Empire Blvd!
And we showed that!
3. To get this issue out into the wider public, via the news media!
This issue has been brewing for awhile
and only certain bloggers have been covering it.
We wanted a wider media outlet,
because we know this will have an impact
upon our elected officials
as wells as put us in touch
with other resources in the city
that could help us.
4. To put a spot light onto the inner workings of Community Board 9.
This is crucial because there is a lot of corruption
going on at Community Board 9 level.
Pearl Miles is just the tip of the iceberg
and the community needed to see for themselves
how unprofessional this group of representatives are
and level of disrespect them have for us!
(watch this one minute you tube video)
This wasn’t the first time we met
with Community Board 9 members
and had them tell us to shut-up!
When we met with City Planning
and Community Board 9 on August 4, 2014.
Laura Imperial, Vice-Chair,
during a heated meeting with homeowners
who have Empire Blvd as their backyards,
took her finger and pointed at us and said
“Shut up! I have enough of you!”
And who is she?
A woman who just got on the board last year,
this year she is the vice-chair,
and who works for a construction company!
We also wanted to know
how our community board members stand on this issue!
No more backroom deals,
put your vote where your politics are!
5. To allow the community an opportunity to vent their displeasure at what is happening here in our community.
For too long this community has been
disempowered by Community Board 9 members,
and Pearl Miles,
we have watched her not address our concerns,
refuse our voice, show her displeasure at us
and finally the community got a chance to show how they feel about her.
At the end of the meeting,
I was told that a request for her removal is in place.
Now we have to see who Eric Adams
wants to put in her place
and if we don’t like it,
then we better do something about it,
otherwise we will have another Pearl Miles!!!
6. To put in the spot light the idea of “Preserving an Affordable Community”.
We are a perfect example of de Blasio’s plan
that calls for preserving 200,000 thousand affordable units.
Because of our density, creating isn’t good for us,
and because we are the 2nd most affordable community in Brooklyn,
preserving is what we should be focusing on.
The City cannot keep insisting that a blanket overall plan
works for all communities.
Maybe in some communities it is creating affordable housing,
but not all! Here is a perfect place to start to look at
the Preserving part of the plan
and really assist the people in staying in their homes!
7. To set-up evidence that we will use in a court of law, if Community Board 9 and City Planning tries to proceed with this particular request!
It is clear that City Planning will
never get a request from Community Board 9
that gives them so much power over what will happen,
they realize this resolution is their best chance!!
It will never happen again!
What do they have to lose by trying to push it forward?
Developers have spent years planning this event,
Thousands if not millions of dollars to get it to happen
Do you think they won’t keep trying?
Thus we must prepare to take this to court!
We can wage two wars on the court level.
The Supreme Court and the Appellate Court,
together it could take a few years, and when we win
then the City will have to do the entire study over again!!!
And we will win, because there must be community consensus
at the community level for rezoning changes!
One group cannot decide for an entire community what they want.
The home owners that border along Empire Blvd
would be viewed in the eyes of the law as the most affected
by this rezoning and thus should have
and must have a say in this!
That is our power!
Without that, rezoning lacks community support
and should never have been put forward or processed!
Now there is a question on the table of
whether the resolution that was passed on Sept 23,
was valid or not.
At this point it doesn’t matter!
It served its purpose!
People came out, felt empowered
and accomplished a goal!
We have now showed the City
and the people of Flatbush, Crown Heights and Prospect Park Lefferts Garden,
that we are a force to be reckoned with!
We are organized, powerful, have purpose and direction!
We were a sleeping giant
and we have now woken up!
We Will Not Be Displaced!
No Residential On Empire Blvd!
Preserve Our Affordable Community!
Downzone Empire Blvd!
Alicia,
www.mtopp.org
(718) 703-3086
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds