>Doug, you're talking about New York City Council which has a female gay,
>pro-labor chair and quite progressive members who elected her.
So what? The City Council doesn't control the process of land use and zoning and subsidies. Earth to Nathan...
> Sure, the
>whole planning process in NYC could be made more accountable
That's a big concession. We've had a century of this shit, in which a small group of developers, financiers, and their hired professionals plan the city in their class interest almost completely out of public view. I once was going to do a piece for the Village Voice on the Public Development Corporation (now the Economic Development Corporation - interesting change of name, eh?). I had a lawyer who worked for the city as a source, coaching me on what documents to make freedom of information requests on. At the time, the scandal was how the PDC/EDC used its power of eminent domain and subisdy-making to turn the former police HQ into luxury condos. Despite my expert coaching, the city made it impossible for me to get the docs ("we have millions of pages down here, you'll have to be more specific"). The only way I could have done the story is with a huge budget and massive assistance. So I gave up. More accountable indeed.
> but everything
>you say has this theme of railing against corrupt "thems" as if there is no
>politics and no one of working class bent supporting such planning, when of
>course a whole range of working class groups from unions to community groups
>are supporting current planning approaches.
You've got to be kidding. The working class supports using public power and money to clear out Harlem for Columbia's use, to flatten a neighborhood in Brooklyn for Bruce Ratner's stadium, and the redevelop Times Sq for the greater good of its namesake newspaper? Where do you get this stuff?
>Most of the "popular" plans I've seen produce less housing and fewer jobs
>than the big bad planners are advocating. A lot of the local folks --
>although not all -- are NIMBYs looking to keep small-scale expensive housing
>that won't be affordable for anyone real soon.
Really? That's what the Brooklyn people I interviewed at <http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#050428> were about?
> Some have good ideas I'd
>like to see incorporated, but my biggest beef with NYC planning is that too
>many areas are zoned against high density growth for the advantages of
>locals who have either rent-controlled apartments or already own their
>homes, and so don't have to worry about the scarcity of any housing in the
>city.
Is that what the gentrification of Harlem is about? Or is really about getting rid of the poor people and replacing them with richer people?
>What's ridiculous is saying planners want gentrification; gentrification is
>already here and making Greenpoint and Williamsburg unaffordable for new
>residents. Build into rules for building those "highrises" are incentives
>that allow them to be taller if they include more affordable units.
Are you familiar with the history of these incentives? They're almost always bullshit. Battery Park City was supposed to include affordable housing - it didn't. Then they got the idea of creating a bond-issuing entity that would take some of the revenues from BPC and use it to build affordable housing in neighborhoods safely away from Wall Street. That never happened either. Do you believe this shit just because it's in some legal document?
> Such
>"inclusionary zoning" rules are very progressive but many locals object to
>them because they want smaller buildings, but the fewer floors, the less
>economic it is to include those affordable units.
Most locals object to them because they know they're bullshit.
Doug