Accountability - Presentation Boards

RS: Brooklyn Speaks role should not be minimized. Strengthen the LDC by having the Speaks coalition have a role in appointing members. Organizing capacity should be included to not lose the voice of those displaced, and otherwise impacted, specifically- loss of economic opportunity of the original property owners.
OR: maybe include Faith-based orgs to keep community involved
JB: what will BK Speaks do to continue public engagement?

LK-LDC appointees should be zip code specific, Community Benefits memorialized without penalty will be lost; emphasise the need for green space, this could insure the ability to integrate this in the texture of the area

OR: Open Data can be employed , determine trends, collaborate using data to prevent these issues
RJ: complaints are going unresolved, unaddressed, Construction issues of safety a major concern.

OR: what about CBA and can it give it more power or teeth? Agreements should carry over in transfers/carry overs. The community should be a determinator.
GV: memorialized in project agreements not CBAs
RC: LDC could broker and have oversight/hold accountability

JB-why additional rights when previous obligations aren’t met??
RC-delays and
JC-why site 5 targeted for bulk and housing, RC-leverage local control, Can density be spread across development sites and not just site 5
CD-not keeping promises, what is the current penalty?, what is enforceable? By who?
EP- 538 Vanderbilt family previous owner: since 2003, forgotten history of those previous impact, this coalition appears to be representing interests that are current. What is driving inclusion? This project is malicious and reparations are required.
OF: from gowanus community, reinforce the notion of concessions/give-backs; champion of open spaces--warns about concessions not being met/matched or met with screams of cost overruns. Vibrant Active enjoyable space…not just walking surfaces that are planted. Open space can promote community co-mingling

Civic engagement is very important. All stakeholders must speak up and speak out. Belief in power of the people; their voices can change the dynamic and make a difference to get agreement to for a LDC to manage this project.

Don’t believe Site 5 should be allowed to build to higher densities unless the benefits will have an immediate impact on the surrounding community. Developer must deal with current situation on the ground.

LDC must have ability to hold developers accountable to build what they contract to build, not what they want.
There’s considerable cynicism about the ability “hold developers’ feet to the fire” based on several neighborhood examples cited in which development commitments were not met with no consequences for not doing so. This is especially true when government leadership and property ownership change hands, and the new owner feels no obligation to carryout promises made by previous owner.

Need to resume quality of life meetings so stakeholders can express their ongoing concerns. Continuing civic engagement remains very important.

Who’s the decision maker in forming the LDC? The question about Gov Hochul’s knowledge of the project was raised believing her involvement is needed given that she’s known for listening to community concerns. It was pointed out that she is aware of the project. Local electeds are reaching out, including CM Hudson who met with the governor and sent follow up memo but she did not make known her position on the matter. BrooklynSpeaks Coalition has sent her a communication and invitation to walk the site, and AM Simon is scheduled to meet with her.

LDC has to manage both short term issues (traffic, noise, pollution) and long term development matters, including negotiations to obtain deep subsidy commitments to meet the low and extremely low income housing targets.

There was general agreement on formation of the LDC to get accountability.

1. Counter displacement and rent burdened
2. Better urban design, integrated affordable housing as part of project since they will be gaining more dev rights, better Pub Trans amenities at 4th/Atlantic/etc
3. Deepest possible but maintain economic diversity
4. Insure affordable housing allocations are not lesser quality or "different" amenities. If focus is on Seniors, we must ensure that are streetscape is accessible to those who may have additional needs.

Tower One of the 80 Flatbush project was originally 1/3 commercial and 2/3 residential. Due to recent market conditions, the building will be 100% residential with Tower Two absorbing the additional commercial. So the developers of Site 5 may want residential and be willing to include affordable housing.

Sarah L: Community preference isn’t typical for people from communities where they are displaced from. Wouldn’t trade affordable housing for anything else. HAVP would make vouchers widely available. So don’t make any concessions. No faith in the developers. Might be better if all the buildings weren’t built, due to their negative impact of raising rents in the area.

I'd add to leverage points
1.the need for a better integration of urban design at the street level for the pacific/Flatbush/Atlantic/4th intersection
2. additional entrances, better and ADA access to subway system below

Peter K: B1 didn’t have housing at all. Now shifting to housing. Arena benefit of moving to site 5. Trading vision away of this being a step down site in terms of the size of buildings in the area. What is the plan for delivering affordable housing? How many units might be appropriate for site 5? How to tie it to the project plans? How to push to deliver higher levels of affordability?
Bernell: Tradeoffs with integrating with the open space on the PC Richards site?
Nat: Modified Project Plan may give opportunity to map out the future of the project instead of kicking the affordable housing down the road.

Esteban G: Site 5 leverage point. Who approves? How to use as a leverage point? Is there an affordable housing component to the agreement?
Bernell: PC Richards agreement has been struck. Think it still falls under the ESD. Might want to shift to city control.

James E: Implications of making stronger demands (like 40% AMI)? What do we lose in terms of a trade off?
Bernell: Meeting the demand in the marketplace. 130% AMI renters shop around. Developer gets less, but community doesn’t lose out. Amenities probably still there, but maybe poor doors, etc.

Steve E: Housing homeless? Who would this be? How to choose? How to apply?
Bernell: Overcrowded shelters need help. Targeting those exiting shelters who can support themselves independently. Not supportive housing. Through the city mechanism of Dept of Soc Service and HRA. Comes with some sort of subsidy.

Can we add what the concrete and painful penalties can or will be for developers not keeping their promises, and where the funds from those penalties will go to?

For example, the developer who razed the Brooklyn Heights Cinema promised a new movie theater, reneged on that promise, and the luxury condo still stands without a movie theater.

The Brooklyn Public Library's new Brooklyn Heights Branch also promised to save the limestone relief sculptures and provide affordable housing. Those reliefs are nowhere to be seen and the affordable housing is in another neighborhood not even within walking distance. That practice should be prohibited.

There is also the disputed height of the residential buildings in Brooklyn Bridge Park and whether or not those buildings are at or above the approved height.

The one and only time I have heard of a developer being genuinely held to accounts was the CitySpire tower in midtown, where the developer was forced to lower the height of the building to its original approved height. There needs to be more teeth and more pain to developers who feel they are above the law.

why aren't the organizational sponsors of Brooklyn Speaks able to appoint members to the development corporation for greater direct input in the planning, development and oversight of the project