Parkway Hospital redevelopment approved by CB6

From the Forest Hills Post:

Community Board 6 resoundingly voted to approve plans for a major residential redevelopment of Forest Hill’s abandoned Parkway Hospital.

The board voted 33 to 1 at Wednesday’s meeting in favor of the plan, which includes the construction of a 14-story building at the 70-35 113th St. complex, and the addition of two floors to the existing 6-story hospital building on site. A total of 351 apartments are slated for the project.

The developers, Jasper Venture Group LLC and Auberge Grand Central LLC, had filed an application in September to rezone the property and allow for their towers, taller and denser than allowed under current zoning, to be built. Their application also sought to designate the property under a Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) zone, the first in the area.

The proposed plan would turn the existing hospital building, with its two additional floors, into a residential tower with 135 affordable units, with 68 of these apartments for seniors. A 4,000 square foot community facility is also planned for the building, which is likely to be taken up by a medical service provider.

The 14-story tower, meanwhile, would be built in the vacant parking lot of the former hospital and house 216 market-rate units. The majority of the apartments here are studios and one-bedrooms, with 44 two-bedroom units.

Plaxall to develop site alongside Amazon

From The Real Deal:

Plaxall isn’t completely handing over its large Long Island City project to Amazon.

The family-run plastics company, which last year developed a 15-acre plan that appears to have been the key to luring Amazon’s HQ2 to New York, will retain a site just to the south of the tech company’s planned campus where it can develop its own commercial building, according to a memorandum of understanding between the company and the state and city’s respective economic development arms.

Plaxall... will retain the southernmost block of the larger project: a group of properties that sit on the block between 46th Road and 46th Avenue. The six property lots, which cover nearly the entire block, would allow Plaxall to build a mixed-use building slightly larger than 800,000 square feet, or a residential building of nearly 566,000 square feet.

Under the residential plan, the new building would be subject to the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing requirements, and under either scenario, Plaxall would set aside 5 percent of the space for light industrial use.

CB2 tells megadeveloper to shove it

From Sunnyside Post:

Community Board 2 voted Thursday to reject a developer’s bid to be granted a zoning variance in order to build a two-tower, 561-unit development along Queens Boulevard in Woodside.

The rejection represents another blow for the developer, Madison Realty Capital, in its quest to get a zoning change that would permit two buildings—one 17 stories and the other 14 stories–to rise at 69-02 Queens Boulevard.

The board vote, while advisory, follows Council Member Robert Holden’s announcement last month that he is opposed to the rezoning. The property is in Holden’s council district and his opinion will have enormous influence when the proposal is up for a vote in the city council.

Madison, under the existing zoning, is able to build a 12 story building that would consist of 289 units, 58 of which could be affordable.

The company, however, is looking to build much higher and obtain the right to build 561 units. In exchange, 30 percent of the units—or 168 apartments- would be affordable, meeting the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) zoning rules. Those rules require developers to construct between 25 and 30 percent of their units as “affordable” when a rezoning takes place.

Madison argues that there is a shortage of affordable housing in Queens and that the city should take advantage of its plan to bring workforce housing to the borough.

"workforce housing" LOL

Huge Queens Blvd development is widely criticized

From the Queens Chronicle:

According to plans presented by developer Madison Realty Capital, the taller of the two structures — to be located at the southeast corner of 69th Street and Queens Boulevard — will feature 17 stories and rise 181 feet into the air.

The shorter building — across the plot from its counterpart — will feature 14 stories, stand 151 feet tall and sit at the northwest corner of 70th Street and 47th Avenue.

Within the two structures, Madison Realty Capital plans to create 561 residential rental units, including 112 dwellings of affordable housing for residents making 80 percent of the area median income — about $62,000 for a family of three.

Connecting the buildings -— which will contain about 5,600 square feet of ground-floor retail space — will be a courtyard to be built atop a parking garage that will contain 242 spots.

Of the approximately 100 people in attendance at the meeting, no one spoke in favor of the plan. Most of those who took the microphone to shred it were members of the NYC District Council of Carpenters, all of whom donned green or black union shirts.

Many of them asked if a commitment to use organized labor could be made, but Ross Moskowitz, an attorney representing Madison Realty, and other present officials affiliated with the developer responded by saying that it was too early in the process to decide.

That sparked jeers from some in the crowd, with one man even asking how many people the developer expect to die on the job if it decides to hire nonunion workers.

2 bad MIH projects coming to Woodside-Elmhurst

From City Limits:

...the idea that triggering MIH makes this rezoning some sort of salve to the affordability crisis is a cruel joke. The most common criticism of MIH is that the “affordable” units are unaffordable to neighborhood residents. That’s certainly true. In my own writing, I’ve mostly focused on the impact that adding additional market rate development capacity will have on neighborhoods targeted for gentrification. But this rezoning points to another absurdity in the law.

The developer is proposing to use what’s called “option 2” of MIH, which requires the owner to set aside 30 percent of their units (in this case 27 apartments, all studios and 1-2 bedrooms) at an average of 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The word “average” is crucial here, because it implies that the developer will provide a range of options, which might look as follows.

• In the best-case scenario, there would be just 9 new apartments for the typical neighborhood household, which makes something like 40 percent AMI. This also means there would be nothing for half the people of Elmhurst—the poorer half that is most likely to face displacement.
• 9 apartment seekers would get homes at 80 percent AMI, and pay close to the median asking rents for market-rate apartments in the district. This means that wealthier-than-average people will get average priced apartments, and it will be called “affordable housing.”
• Another 9 wealthy but inexplicably ill-informed households might take the 9 apartments offered for 120 percent AMI, which amounts to prices above the neighborhood’s average asking rent.
• For some reason, people making 3 times the neighborhood median income are expected to move in and pay more than market rates for so-called “affordable” housing. Perhaps the developer assumes they’ll be willing to pay more in rent for the privilege of living above a Target.

From Sunnyside Post:

A two-tower complex with over 500 residential units could be making its way to Queens Boulevard in Woodside.

The large-scale development, put forth by Madison Realty Capital, would see a 17 and a 14 story building at 69-02 Queens Boulevard housing 561 units combined, according to filings with the Department of City Planning.

Over 425,000 square feet would be allowed to the residential portion of the complex, which includes 392 market rate apartments and 169 affordable units. The site would also see 5,640 square feet of commercial space.

The development would also include parking for 242 cars, and an open space between the two towers at ground level featuring picnic tables, table tennis, a putting green, and a sand lounge for residents.

A sand lounge? What the hell is that?

Remember, Mandatory Inclusionary Housing was supposed to offer more "affordable housing" but that only comes with out of character structures and a shit-ton of ridiculously priced units that hasten gentrification.

Vallone mailer is a laugh riot

Independent? Really? Well, let's look into this further.

"Opposed every bill that tried to hand cuff our public safety or police department."
I'm not sure how you hand cuff public safety and I'm pretty sure it's one word - handcuff. Also, the bills were overwhelmingly passed anyway after you asked the Speaker to vote no to cover your ass politically, so this isn't really something to brag about.

Next, Vallone completely made up that there was a threat of a homeless shelter coming to Bayside so he could then take credit for stopping it. DHS said many times that they weren't even looking at Bayside.

You kept Northern Blvd "car friendly", which is why there have been at least 4 accidents there in the last month after you failed to stop the city from installing a barrier and bike lane there.

Voted against ZQA! Yet simultaneously voted in favor of MIH...which is actually worse.

Fighting against a jail in College Point, but happily endorsed the guy who wants to put one there - Mayor de Blasio.

Great dictator pose.

Van Bramer stops de Blasio backed project

From the Daily News:

The developer of a Queens affordable housing project has scrapped the proposal amid opposition, another defeat for Mayor de Blasio’s home-building push.

Phipps Houses yanked the application to build 209 apartments in Sunnyside, all of them income restricted, a day before the City Council was set to hold a hearing.

Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Queens) had vowed to oppose the plan, making approval all but impossible on the Council, which usually follows the lead of the local member on development projects.

It’s the second defeat of a project under de Blasio’s mandatory inclusionary housing rules, after an Inwood proposal was voted down in the Council. But a large project for the Bronx was approved last week.

De Blasio got personally involved with the push for the Sunnyside plan - saying he would have a “polite but firm” conversation with Van Bramer to persuade him the project was a “blessing.”

But Van Bramer said the mayor’s intervention backfired.

“The mayor’s involvement here was not helpful,” he said. “His comments about me sort of ratcheted this thing up and helped to get my community riled up, and that was not conducive to working out a deal.”

First project under MIH rules rejected by council

From PIX11:

A request to build a bigger building in Inwood with half of the units designated as "affordable" has been unanimously rejected by the NYC Council Land Use Committee.

About 250 neighbors stood on the sidewalk Monday evening on the Upper Manhattan sidewalk in front of the old auto showroom to hear Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez's announcement about the corner of Broadway and Sherman Avenue.

Councilmember Rodriguez announced on Monday that he would not support the owner's request to rezone the property.

The final proposal to "upzone" for a bigger building with more density would have include 50% affordable units.

Under the current zoning for the property, the developer is able to construct a residential building on the site.

Councilmember Rodriguez says he decided the project was not what the neighborhood wanted and it was not in its best interests to proceed. He says he is focusing on "Inwood NYC" a bigger redevelopment project, with more units of affordable housing.

Served up on a silver platter

Thank you to Patricia Dorfman

Here's who voted no

From Politico:

One man yelled they were breaking his arm, while another woman shouted, “We put the mayor in, and he’s destroyed the city!”

After the balcony was cleared, without any arrests, the meeting continued.

One council member after another described Mandatory Inclusionary Housing as historic and legacy-building.

In reality, it is unlikely to have the sweeping impact their rhetoric would suggest.

The Department of City Planning has projected it would be responsible for the creation of 12,000 low- to moderate-income apartments —15 percent of the 80,000 the mayor hopes to create by 2024.

The mayor and his housing officials made clear, particularly when they were pushing back against widespread criticism of the plan last fall, that it is not the primary trigger for low-income housing. Rather, it is the $8.2 billion in subsidies the city has budgeted to spend on rent-regulated apartments over a decade that will be mainly responsible for bringing the mayor’s housing plan to fruition.

The policy will also be hurt by the expiration of the 421-a development tax break, which many builders say is necessary for them to build any affordable housing. Without it, they argue, they will simply forgo the rezonings because it is not financially feasible to create below-market-rate housing without a tax break.

“Without 421-a, mandatory inclusionary is almost meaningless. Without it, the subsidies necessary to get any of the rezoned projects built would basically make them public housing,” one developer who would only speak on background said earlier in the week.

Council members Inez Barron, Jumaane Williams, Joe Borelli, Steve Matteo and Barry Grodenchik all voted against the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing proposal. Council members Barron, Borelli, Andy Cohen, Grodenchik, Matteo and Paul Vallone voted against the Zoning for Quality and Affordability proposal.

Council about to sign off on de Blasio's royal screwjob

From Politico:

The City Council is set to pass Mayor Bill de Blasio's housing plans next week after altering them significantly to require more affordable housing, exempt parts of Manhattan from taller buildings and spare parts of the outer boroughs from parking changes.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito announced the final deal alongside several of her members during a press conference in the City Hall rotunda Monday afternoon.

On de Blasio's Mandatory Inclusionary Housing proposal, which requires below-market-rate development from builders who take advantage of a city-issued rezoning, the Council is demanding more affordable housing than the mayor's plan called for.

Developers previously had three options for amounts and levels of affordability, which some advocates and members felt were insufficient to really tackle the city's housing shortage for its poorest residents.

The Council is now presenting a fourth option: a requirement that 20 percent of the units be reserved for people making 40 percent of the area median income, which amounts to $31,075 for a family of three in New York City and surrounding counties.

And the highest option was slightly lowered: Instead of 30 percent of the apartments set aside for those earning 120 percent of the AMI it is now 115 percent, with a requirement that at least 10 percent of those units be even cheaper.

Developers will not have a lot of discretion when picking among the four so-called options. ***Any time a builder gets city permission to rezone land or build in a rezoned neighborhood, the administration and local Council member will get to choose which of the affordable housing plans they must utilize.***

Expect a lot more corruption/tweeding arrests in the near future!

Here's why de Blasio's affordable housing scheme won't work

From the Queens Tribune:

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s ambitious initiatives to create more affordable housing – Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and Zoning for Quality and Affordability – will likely face a vote in the City Council at the end of March.

But along with MIH and ZQA there has been another suggestion for how to create more affordable housing: to build more market rate units. In last months’ real estate issue, Borough President Melinda Katz said that more market rate units, as well as more affordable units, were necessary to combat the city’s affordable housing crisis. It seems like common sense to increase supply in order to take the pressure off prices. But two experts argue that New York City cannot develop itself out of this problem.

Matthew Lasner, a professor of Urban Policy and Planning at Hunter College, thought new housing supply, unless it completely flooded the markets, would have little impact on rent.

Lasner said the problem was just that demand in New York had just exceeded supply for far too long, by far too much.

“We would have to build hundreds of thousands of units of new housing before we caught up with demand,” he said. “That’s not a reality that any of us will ever witness in our lifetime.”

Paul Graziano, a land use and urban planning consultant, also said that real estate prices in New York City were not driven by the simple laws of supply and demand.

“The whole city is hyper expensive,” he said. “It’s not a supply and demand issue. It’s what the market will bear.”

Graziano said that the contextual down-zonings that he orchestrated in the many neighborhoods actually helped keep them relatively affordable for middle class residents, something that might seem counter-intuitive, since they made the potential housing supply in the neighborhood finite.

But he argued that when the possibility of development was taken off the table, the properties lost their speculative value for developers; their price ceased to be inflated by the properties potential to become a money-making apartment complex.

“You’re removing the ability for someone to make a lot of money,” Graziano said of the downzonings. “If the neighborhood were zoned multi-family, [the property value] would jump exponentially. Because each of those properties could be re-developed into multi-family housing.”

City wants seniors to live in sardine cans, not have cars

Vicki Been

From AM-NY:

Relaxing requirements to have parking lots at senior and affordable residences within reach of subways would free up space and money to build apartments, city officials testified Wednesday at a second day of hearings on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s housing plan.

“Three unnecessary parking spaces are the equivalent of two units of affordable housing,” Housing Commissioner Vicki Been said. Officials said spots in parking structures can cost $50,000 to build, taking into account design, materials and labor.

But City Council members from the outer reaches of Queens and Brooklyn challenged how so-called transit zones — where parking requirements for developers would be waived — were drawn. They said public transportation options and other amenities must be improved before the parking is taken away.

“Senior citizens and other residents are not sardines,” Mark Treyger, a Democrat representing parts of southern Brooklyn that have seen bus line cuts, told Newsday. “They need to be mobile, they need to get to doctors’ appointments, they need to live out the golden years of their lives.”

From DNA Info:

The minimum size for a senior would be 275 square feet, which Queens Councilman Donovan Richards suggested is too small.

"I just know from my own grandmother, she couldn’t fit her hats in an apartment that size," he said.

Brooklyn Councilman David Greenfield flagged the issue of allowing senior developments up to 65 feet tall in low-density residential districts that currently have a maximum building height of 35 feet.

The residents of those neighborhoods "want their small little homes with their little driveways," Greenfield said. "They're not looking necessarily for that influx."

City Planning Commissioner Carl Weisbrod indicated he was open to negotiation, but Been balked.

"I completely understand the concern. I also just want to point out that seniors come from every neighborhood," both low rise and high rise, she said. "They want to stay in their neighborhoods but they don't want to be trapped in a building that doesn't have an elevator."

Greenfield suggested the administration require a special Board of Standards and Appeals permit for tall buildings in those low-slung neighborhoods so "there would be more review."

Been objected to adding in a community board review process.

"I feel very passionately about this, because I have to look seniors in the eye and say, 'I'm sorry, but we have a waiting list of seven years. That's probably longer than you'll be alive,'" she said.

City Council threatens to kill zoning plan

From DNA Info:

Mayor Bill de Blasio must revamp his controversial rezoning plan to target lower income New Yorkers or risk the City Council killing it, Council members said at a public hearing Tuesday.

The hearing on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, a key piece of the mayor's plan to rezone neighborhoods across the city, was the first time the Council had weighed in publicly on the rezoning plan.

But it has come under fire by activists and some city officials who say the income levels are too high for the very low-income communities who most need affordable housing.

"It's going to be very hard for this Council to support MIH without options for our communities," said Queens Councilman Donovan Richards, who chairs the zoning subcommittee.

Zoning votes approaching; lobbying ramped up

From The Forum:

The MIH hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 9, at 9:30 a.m. in Council Chambers. The ZQA hearing is the following day, at the same time and place.

Testimony can be delivered at the hearing or submitted electronically: correspondence@council.nyc.gov.

From Gotham Gazette:

Community advocates are making it clear that Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plans to rezone neighborhoods are not acceptable unless they include broader economic development initiatives like local hiring.

As part of his ambitious affordable housing plan, de Blasio has announced several communities the city plans to rezone first in an effort to create more density, build affordable units, and improve neighborhoods. When the mayor initially announced the start of the rezoning process, the blowback was severe. In East New York, which is slated to be the first area rezoned among 15 neighborhoods across the city, residents cried foul that the process involved limited community input, failed to consider local needs, and could lead to wide-scale displacement.

Residents and groups all over the city are concerned that new residential development and other aspects of neighborhood improvement will lead to rapid gentrification and displacement of current residents. Good employment opportunities for those locals can help avoid such pitfalls.

From Capital New York:

As Mayor Bill de Blasio's controversial housing plans come before the City Council this week, his union allies are joining forces with the AARP and the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce to form an organization that will push for the mayor's proposals.

The group, United For Affordable NYC, is being incorporated with city and state agencies as a 501(c)4, lead strategist Neal Kwatra told POLITICO New York.

The four founding unions are the Hotel Trades Council, health care workers union 1199 SEIU, building service employees' 32BJ SEIU and District Council 37 — the largest municipal labor organization in the city.

The fund-raising organization will begin with a seed grant from some of its members and the mayor's other 501(c)4, Campaign for One New York, according to a source familiar with the effort who would only speak on background. The donors have made a six-figure commitment for the initial grant, but the details are still being worked out, the source added.

From the Daily News:

The City Council’s progressive caucus is pushing for changes to Mayor de Blasio’s ambitious but controversial affordable-housing plan.

Apartments should be offered for people making less than the average 60% of area median income — $46,620 for a family of three — currently targeted in the plan, says the 18-member group, which represents about a third of the Council.

The caucus says developers should be discouraged from putting their affordable apartments at a different site — which they say worsens segregation — by requiring 40% affordable housing if they take that option, rather than 25%-30% if they don’t.

It also wants to reduce from 10 units to six the size where a building is exempt from affordable mandates and require half the units to be affordable when manufacturing zones are turned residential.

Zoning amendments heading to City Council

From Gotham Gazette:

The next ten days are an especially critical period for Mayor Bill de Blasio's housing plan. While negotiations around a new state-level program to incentivize affordable housing production continue and Gov. Andrew Cuomo has promised to soon flesh out general affordable housing plans he announced during his recent State of the State speech, city-level changes being sought by de Blasio are on the move.

On Wednesday morning, the City Planning Commission is expected to vote through two major changes to the city's zoning codes being proposed by de Blasio. These adjustments to city rules for how land can be used are meant to set the stage for what the administration says will be more responsible development than the city has seen in the past, increasing density in neighborhoods across the city through the creation of tens of thousands of units of housing - including market-rate and "affordable" units - and adding community benefits.

Once passed by the Planning Commission, the proposals go to the City Council, which will hold two hearings on them next week.

Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA), as the two proposals are known, have been highly scrutinized and received a mixed reaction, including a large dose of negative feedback from many local community boards and praise from some city planners and advocacy groups.

Critics worry about gentrification, landmark preservation, over-development, loss of parking, and whether "affordable" units will be truly so for current residents of neighborhoods that will see major change. Supporters say the administration is taking a measured approach to development, insisting on affordable apartments from developers who benefit from rezonings, protecting tenants from predatory eviction, creating more affordable housing for seniors, and being mindful of community improvement as more housing is created.

All about the zoning frenzy

From Crains

From Gotham Gazette:

As the mayor‘s recently proposed, and in many cases fiercely opposed, zoning text amendments have fanned the flames of New Yorkers‘ ever-simmering fear of gentrification, one type of at-risk tenant has gone unmentioned: small business owners.

Whether it is the famous Arepa Lady of Queens who cooks up corn pancakes with mozzarella, the baby Jesus doll boutique showcased in Frederick Wiseman‘s recent film “In Jackson Heights,” or the local bodega still selling expired $1 honey-buns, locally-owned and servicing mom-and-pop boutiques provide much of the diverse commercial life that has long characterized New York City.

As the de Blasio administration looks to change zoning requirements throughout the city, including to allow more and better retail space, and wants to see significant real estate development to increase affordable housing, there is a great deal at stake for small business owners - both current and prospective.

From Crains:

Our endorsement of the city’s plan for East New York would require that it take into account historical inequities and the long-term impact on the approximately 200 rezoned blocks as well as the surrounding area. We propose:

• Greater resources to preserve existing affordable housing, including supporting regular intake for anti-displacement advocates and legal practitioners as well as assistance for the residents of government-funded housing where affordability requirements are expiring;
• An increased supply of very-low and low-income housing through new opportunities, such as the development of unstudied city lots and faith-based properties with air rights, to support hundreds of residents at risk for potential displacement;
• A commitment of 50% preference in new housing for local residents, including former residents who were displaced;
• Additional land-use measures that would encourage developers to include deeper and more flexible bands of affordability in new housing;
• A codification of a minimum threshold of family-sized units in all new affordable developments, protecting against developers’ tendency to build studio and one-bedroom apartments;
• A restriction of big-box retail stores, and increased financial incentives to prevent commercial displacement of local small businesses.

City planning holds sham hearing; freezes out the public

From Historic Districts Council:

"Were you left outside, too? The Historic Districts Council, NY Landmarks Conservancy, MAS, Friends of the Upper East Side, Landmark West!, and the Society for the Architecture of the City were unable to testify at the City Planning Commission’s public hearing for ZQA/MIH this morning because the room was at capacity by 9:15 am--the hearing commenced at 9:00 am. By 10:30 am, representatives of City Planning explained that attendees who wished to speak could choose to wait outside with no guarantee of entry. Even worse, the City Planning Commission has not given any indication that they will hold additional hearings to ensure the whole of the public will be heard.

This is a public hearing, not a line on Black Friday. ALL of the public should be able to speak, not just those who got in line several strategic hours earlier than everyone else. There must be allowances made so that all the people of New York can have a voice. Please send a letter to Carl Weisbrod, Chair of NYC City Planning Commission and tell him that this morning’s situation was untenable and that our voices deserve to be in the record on this unprecedented rezoning proposal. Everyone deserves a chance to be heard and not be left out in the cold."

______________________

I submitted a protest letter and received the following reply at 8pm:

"Thank you for your message regarding the ongoing public hearing on the MIH/ZQA text amendment proposals.

We are sorry that you encountered long lines in the morning. We appreciate your interest in appearing before the Commission to testify on these important initiatives. Please note that the the City Planning Commission hearing on these items is ongoing, and the Commission will continue to hear every speaker who signs up and is present to speak.

There are no lines at this point, and we encourage you to come back and sign up to speak. We are continuing to post the Speaker # on our Twitter account and on our website.

If you would like to submit written testimony at any time prior to the vote, written comments on the DEIS will be considered until Monday, December 28 and written comments on the application may be sent up to the date of the Commission vote. You can mail written comments to:

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Calendar Information Office - 31st Floor
120 Broadway, New York NY 10271"
______________________

Familiar government story:

• Call a public hearing
• Call your cronies to reserve prime speaking slots
• Schedule hearing for a room that's too small to accommodate crowd
• Sit and laugh as opponents get frustrated and leave
• Claim that you were available to listen to all the testimony and there was minimal opposition
• Enjoy the lazy media's reporting that suggests that suddenly everyone loves what you proposed
• Use this as justification to proceed as planned

Loophole for developers in zoning plan

From Crains:

A de Blasio administration proposal requiring developers to include affordable apartments in their market-rate projects includes a legislative escape hatch that critics say would let builders too easily dodge the mandate.

The mandatory inclusionary housing policy is meeting opposition as it moves through the public-review process. Should the City Council approve it, developers would be required to devote up to a third of new projects' apartments in the city's affordable-housing program if the value of their property is increased by the city allowing more floor space or a change of use.

The proposal, which aims to shift the burden of building affordable housing to the private sector, also includes a passage describing when mandatory inclusionary housing isn't actually mandatory. If developers believe that the affordable housing would prevent them from making a reasonable profit, they can appeal and have the requirements reduced or eliminated.

And on top of this, people are asking where the Environmental Impact Statement is for this plan.

Because what Flushing needs is hordes more people

From the Times Ledger:

At a public scoping meeting hosted by the Department of City Planning on the Flushing West rezoning proposal last week, City Councilman Peter Koo (D-Flushing) expressed concerns about many aspects of the project.

The Flushing West plan would create opportunities for mixed-income housing, community facilities, economic development and new public access areas along the Flushing Creek waterfront within a roughly 11-block area in the western portion of downtown Flushing, according to the City Planning document outlining the rezoning proposal.

The 47-acre area is bounded by Northern Boulevard, Prince Street, Roosevelt Avenue, College Point Boulevard, 40th Road and Flushing Creek, the document states.

Koo said the de Blasio’s administra­tion’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing tool could help create more than 500 additional affordable housing units, but it is unclear how the policy would benefit the variety of income levels in downtown Flushing.