We are conducting an informal poll to gain an understanding of how the community feels about the landmarking and rezoning. Please let us know how you feel about these important issues.
If you already filled out the poll and handed it in at the last meeting your opinion has been counted, please DO NOT take the poll again.
Results as of May 18, 2013
Comments submitted through the poll
Identifying information omitted.
|Affordable housing should be mandatory in areas getting up-zoned.|
|Both if these are important to maintain and enhance the existing character of the neighborhood.|
|Crow hill needs to focus on affordable housing and the youth instead of trying to control and dictate what hard working home owners do with their homes . Even if we are landmarked do u really think the ones against it will comply????|
|I am generally in favor of the rezoning proposal, but am concerned that having it come before the landmarking would inadvertently create a rush for larger development in areas where it would not be allowed once the landmarking was finalized. If the landmarking was coming first, I would not be as concerned.
I also have doubts about the benefits the “80/20″ housing would bring to the larger community – there would be far more “luxury” housing built that would out upward pressure on housing prices overall, and the only benefit would be to the lucky few people that get the “20%” apartments through a lottery (which, given the scale of our neighborhood, would only be a few units per building at most).
|I am in agreement with changing the zoning to reflect and protect existing lower density architecture that is characteristics of the brownstones in the neighborhood.
I absolutely support the drive for more affordable housing in the community; however, I am highly skeptical of the inclusionary housing portion of the rezoning, because I do not believe the incentive offered to encourage affordable housing development is effective. Developers are surely going to opt out and just build luxury condos.
|I am very much in favor of maintaining the character of the neighborhood through height restrictions.|
|I appreciate the work and the info. But I do wish that affordable housing was 40 – 50% of units not 20%.|
|I believe that a primary concern of the neighborhood is to increase affordable housing. The downzoning of much of the neighborhood plush making housing more expensive by increasing costs of maintenance will not achieve this goal.
Personally, I love the notion of keeping it small scale, but I don’t think it achieves the goals.
|I believe the only way to keep housing even somewhat affordable in the neighborhood is to allow the construction of more apartments. It is a simple law of supply and demand. Restricting height requirements will make the neighborhood more expensive for everyone as demand continues to go up, but the supply of units is allowed to stagnate. I have only been living in the neighborhood three years and I understand some community members’ desire to preserve the “character” of the neighborhood. But as the name of Crow Hill alludes to, the area used to be open space with hardly any housing units at all. As more people wanted to move in, more units were constructed. I believe that your proposal to restrict the heights of buildings is an attempt to freeze the community in time. The neighborhood should be allowed to evolve to keep rent affordable for current residents and for the benefit of future generations of new residents. -Ben Townsend|
|I do think that increasing allowable building heights to encourage higher density development of available land is important, but I also think that new developments should be required to increase the amount of truly affordable housing in our neighborhood.|
|I don’t know quite enough about each plan, particularly the landmarking. I am quite concerned about the up-zoning along Franklin Avenue that would occur in the re-zoning plan, and the Inclusionary Housing zone that would be created.
At CB8′s ULURP committee meeting last week, ANHD, a city-wide housing group spoke on the issue that affordable housing will most likely not be created under the voluntary Inclusionary Housing program. While they advocating for mandatory IH, this does not yet exist and any recommendation with this demand will not be able to happen anytime soon (although hopefully soon enough with a new mayoral administration…)
I wish there was more time to deliberate whether it is worth having the IH or whether it is worth removing since it is in effect an upzoning, and there are sites and empty lots that can accomodate more development, which will have serious impacts for the community. While affordable housing is a major issue for our community, and an issue very dear to my heart, it seems that the IH will NOT have this intended purpose of creating affordable housing, and will only allow developers to build bigger, which WILL contribute to the continued gentrification of our neighborhood.
I do think that the contextual zoning with height limits is important, and I do think the zoning proposal should move forward, but I wish that a serious debate on this issue of the IH zone could occur. At the CB8 meeting, the committee, which has been working on this issue for years, did not seem to want to discuss this issue at any length. I do think it’s an important issue and I do think it merits serious debate.
It seems counterintuitive to advocate for removal of an area that is intended to create affordable housing, but I do think it’s important to have a realistic idea of what will happen along Franklin Avenue. Zoning is only one tool, and perhaps not the best tool in this case to encourage affordable housing. I do hope that CHCA and other community groups will continue to look for other tools to create more affordable housing options in our community.
Thanks for doing the survey!
|I have concerns about building height along Franklin Avenue|
|I think the Community Board should push for anti-harassment provision in the proposed zoning, especially along the avenues where larger developments are allowed. This adds protections for rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.|
|I’m in favor of maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and preventing the building of large scale luxury condos as has been happening in Fort Greene and Williamsburg. I also want to preserve what little industrial space that is being used is left, (dean, grand, st. Marks bet. Washington and Bedford. I don’t know if the landmarking will affect this or not.|
|If this rezoning measure is passed, how soon will it come into effect and how will this impact buildings that fall outside of the new zoning action that may already be in construction?|
|Landmarking and rezoning are very interesting issues. While is some good that comes from them, there are some underlying factors which can be altered eg rent. What I appreciate about the Landmarking is that it seeks to maintain the true and original architecture and character of homes and buildings established many years ago. Rezoning, in my understanding, allows for building new properties but within certain dimensions. This is already in effect to some degree within our community. To me, the rezoning is about building more places to facilitate more people moving in.|
|My only concern is educating the property owners so that they feel supported by this decision.|
|not sure if landmarking the whole district is the right way to go, can constrain development that would allow the area to be more affordable|
|Not well informed about the issue|
|Please strictly define “affordable housing”|
|Please submit any questions or comments:|
|The zoning plan needs to be adjusted to be more in context with our neighborhood-the 80′ allowance for inclusionary housing goes too high.|