CB9's Meetings. Ongoing coverage and commentary: Feb 4th, 11th, 24th, March 16 and March 24th

Interesting... But that may not help many people in the area.  It will likely still effectively increase rents in the area and price people out.  My understanding is the even affordable housing can be quite expensive; often, too expensive for many of those currently living in gentrifying areas.

Curious how they will make it a requirement to include "affordable" housing in upzoned areas.  Is it all or nothing; meaning, one can only build if they include?  Or will will it only be required if developers want to take advantage of the new zoning?

Question:  Seeing as I live in a rent stabilized apartment smack dab in the middle of the area proposed for rezoning, what happens if a company decides they want to rebuild a larger building on the same site?  In other words, what protections would exist for current rent stabilized and other tenants who already have affordable housing that could be affected by this change?  Obviously the intent isn't the displace people, but intent and the reality of what occurs in situations like this are two very different things. 

Answer: http://queens.brownstoner.com/2015/01/affordable-housing-may-be-mandatory-if-court-square-is-rezoned/

So it's either include affordable housing or don't build at all; there is no way out of this (say, build only one floor).  Am I understanding it correctly?

Yeah, ultimately though, if the intent is to preserve affordable housing, one would think that some effort would be made to ensure that longtime residents aren't disadvantaged and essentially thrown into the same lottery pool where, as you've pointed out, your chances of securing housing are not particularly high.  It also seems like failing to do so could lead to a fairly significant political backlash, as you'd be acting contrary to the interests of your core constituency (many of whom want more affordable housing, but not if it comes at the expense of their own) and managing to turn the mantra of "more affordable housing" into a roundabout way of displacing even more long term residents.  Like I said, something as simple as a stipulating that any displaced tenant will have their lease honored in the new building would be sufficient.  Barring that though I'm wary of rezoning.  When you look at something like that, combined with the specific boundaries under consideration (as well as the areas that aren't) it starts to present a picture where certain residents are being displaced more aggressively than others, and aren't being afforded the basic protections that would ensure their ability to continue residing in the community.  Obviously, there's a necessary balance, but I'm not convinced that the current proposals go far enough to protecting those interests.

Insofar as elected officials hope to continuing getting re-elected, it may be in their self-interest, which is about all that we can reasonably hope for or expect.  If the goal of all of this is to ensure affordable housing and minimize displacement of long time residents, then taking steps towards ensuring that a plan that's ostensibly intended to do just that doesn't do precisely the opposite seems pretty commonsensical.  But that assumes that the publicly stated goals of these initiatives match the actual motives behind them, and that isn't always a warranted assumption.  Barring those assurances, it makes far more sense for someone like me to oppose rezoning, as doing so eliminates much of the incentive for my management company to demolish and subsequently displace me from my building.  I'm hardly a fan of MTOPP, but behind their racism, hyperbole, and generally annoying nature, there's a kernel of truth--namely that most of the proposed changes will benefit those who aren't long term residents of the neighborhood, and insofar as that's the case I can understand their opposition, even if I don't always agree with their messaging/methods/tactics.

Frankly, this is why we will still have NYCHA. The 421a buildings don't want people who would qualify for NYCHA (see credit screening). They would be happy to fill all of their affordable units with middle income people (think, NYFD firefighters with stay-at-home spouses or teachers, or non-profit managers or mildly successful artists or municipal employees) and let NYCHA provide housing for the necessary plebes. I think that blunt attitude is the truth of the matter. I don't think the politicians are willing to expend such political capital to get the votes of the poor; they are all desperately clamoring for the votes of the middle income earners.