Planning in New York City: Community Boards and Planning Instruments

Abstract

This chapter examines the structure of community boards and planning instruments in New York City. Firstly, the history of the creation of community boards throughout the City and a critique of those boards is offered. The range of planning instruments available to the City of New York is then examined, in particular brownfield development planning and 197-a Plan process. With this understanding of planning tools and community engagement structures, the next chapter will review and critique how planning for urban renewal is approached by City of New York, using Bushwick and other Brooklyn areas as case subjects.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

4.1 Introduction

By 2013 Bushwick, like the rest of Brooklyn and New York City, was continuing to renew. One of the stimulants for renewal of neighborhoods throughout the City was the Community Planning Program of the City of New York as introduced in 1975. This included legislation for Community Boards and 197-a Plans. This chapter looks at this legislation and the review of its effectiveness in light of the movement to sustainable urban planning (subject of Chap. 3). In particular, the New York City Charter authorizing Community Boards to sponsor plans such as those under 197-a is examined. The revitalization of neighborhoods under these Boards and application of 197-a Plans is to be critiqued in Chap. 5.

4.2 Community Boards

Engaging the community in urban planning had its beginnings in the 1960s. Paul Davidoff, founder of Hunter College’s urban planning program, wrote significant books on the idea of advocacy in urban planning. Perhaps aware of this community interest, as early as 1963 the New York City wrote into the City Charter the establishment of Community Boards. The city was divided into community districts with each governed by an advisory planning board. The boards consist of community residents appointed by the borough presidents. Plate 4.1 denotes the fifty nine (59) Community Boards covering the five boroughs of the city. The City set up a web site enabling residents and businesses to find the Community Board they come under (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb.shtml).

Plate 4.1

Community Boards of New York City (Source: Dept. of City Planning, City of New York 2013a, b)

Community Boards were first thought of in 1951 under Mayor Robert F Wagner. At the time these were called Community Planning Councils and set up in Manhattan. The councils played advisory roles on planning and financial questions. In time, and still under Wagner, Community Planning Boards were established in all boroughs under the 1963 New York City Charter. It was under Mayor John Lindsay (1970s) that the City went further and created Little City Halls in several districts. These ‘little city halls’ had district managers to supervise city services and ‘service cabinets’ of different city agencies representatives for local inter-agency coordination.

In 1975, it took the New York City voters to approve a new City Charter combining earlier programs to create the Community Board system. The Charter called for each Board to be allotted a district service cabinet and district manager to be appointed by the Board. Additionally, the 1975 Charter introduced the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). This required the Community Boards to review all land use applications. These included: zoning actions; special permits; acquisition and disposition of city property; and urban renewal plans.

Given the importance of Community Boards to planning at the local level in New York City (including eventually 197-a Plans) a summary of how the boards are structured and operate follows (refer to City of New York web under Community Boards http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/about.shtml#govt).

The City’s 59 community boards are numbered independently within each borough. Community districts are defined by the Department of City Planning and are drawn roughly along the lines of one or more “neighborhoods,” though these are more subjectively defined and may also span more than one community district. Plate 4.2 illustrates the location of the community board responsible for Bushwick. Left to Right: is Bushwick center (red) and clockwise are NYC Boroughs (light gray): Staten Island (south); Manhattan (west); Bronx (north of Manhattan); Queens (adjacent to Bushwick, east); and, Brooklyn (yellow); and Long Island (dark gray far east).

Plate 4.2

Bushwick in context of Brooklyn, Five Boroughs, and Long Island. Left to Right: with Bushwick center (red) (Clockwise) NYC Boroughs (light gray): Staten Island (south); Manhattan (west); Bronx (north of Manhattan); Queens (adjacent to Bushwick, east); and, Brooklyn (yellow); and Long Island (dark gray far east) (Source: Dept. of City Planning, City of New York 2013a, b)

Community board members are selected by the Borough President according to the charter members need to be “among active, involved people of each community, with an effort made to assure that every neighborhood is represented,” and must “reside, work, or have some other significant interest in the community,” Half of the board members must be nominated by the City Council members representing that district, but are ultimately selected by the Borough President.

The District Managers of Boards play a crucial role in community board administration: maintaining the office, hiring staff, and surveying city services delivery. The Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit states that “The main responsibility of the District office is to receive and resolve complaints from community residents.” While elected officials and developers often look to community boards for the voice of “the community,” many have argued that the system does not effectively facilitate community-based planning.

Community boards are a system of local representative bodies in New York City. They hold monthly, public meetings and advise other city agencies on land use, budgetary, and service delivery matters. Each of the 59 community boards represents a geographically defined Community District and is made up of up to 50 unsalaried members. The City notes these Boards were an early attempt to foster community-based planning at District level.

The Mayor ensures: City agencies cooperate with community boards in all matters affecting local services and complaints; the level of financial support for community boards; and, provision of general assistance as needed. City Council elected members (51 in all in New York City’s legislative body) are supposed to be closely involved with community boards in the districts they represent. Council members also serve on their boards’ District Service Cabinets.

Each Board consists of up to 50 unsalaried members, half of whom are nominated by their district’s City Council members. Board members must reside, work, or have some other significant interest in the community. Each Board is led by a District Manager who establishes an office, hires staff, and implements procedures to improve the delivery of City services to the district. The City outlines the responsibilities of the boards as follows (City of New York http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/about.shtml#govt):

Start: taken from web (13 Nov 2013):

Community boards have a variety of responsibilities, including but not limited to:

• 1. Dealing with land use and zoning issues.

  Boards have an important advisory role and must be consulted on the placement of most municipal facilities in the community. Applications for a change in or variance from the zoning resolution must come before the board for review, and the board’s position is considered in the final determination.

• 2. Assessing the needs of their own neighborhoods.

  Boards assess the needs of their community members and meet with City agencies to make recommendations in the City’s budget process.

• 3. Addressing other community concerns.

  Any issue that affects part or all of a community, from a traffic problem to deteriorating housing, is a proper concern of community boards.

End: taken from web (13 Nov 2013)

Finally, the City produced an introduction to Community Boards within a Handbook (City of New York 2013b) (www.home.nyc.gov). The Handbook focuses on their responsibilities of Boards within the larger framework of City government. The Handbook also outlines the responsibilities of the District Manager and District Service Cabinet. The Handbook’s appendices include relevant sections of the City Charter and additional useful information for board members.

4.3 197-a Planning

It was in 1975 that the City Charter initiated local planning under Section 197-a. This tool gave community boards and other community associations the right to take an active role in planning. This move by the City gave community boards the opportunity to develop neighborhood plans. It was in 1989 that the City adopted rules establishing minimum standards for content of 197-a plans as well as a schedule for review.

The City of New York issued the 197- a Plan Technical Guide (NYC 1997) (here in called the ‘197-a Guide’) under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in 1997. A handful of community boards had already successfully negotiated the planning processes under the 197-a Charter (1963). The Office of the Director of City Planning (Joseph B. Rose) in the Guide’s covering letter reinforced the success of a 197-a plan as it could “build consensus within a community about its future direction, challenge conventional wisdom, and set the stage for beneficial shifts in city policy”. Formal steps in the review and adoption of 197-a plans process are summarized in Plate 4.3.

Plate 4.3

197-a Plans in New York City (Source: City of New York, Dept of City Planning 2013a, b)

A summary of the progress of communities utilizing the 197-a as noted by the City Administration, including adopted plans, is presented in Plate 4.4. There are 15 plans listed here in chronological order and indicating by column: a. Name of Plan; b. Sponsor Group; c. Focus of Plan; and, d. Current Status (as of May 2010). The City notes of the 15 plans, 13 were adopted (11 sponsored by community boards); 1 by a borough president; and, 1 by the Department of City Planning. As noted in the table one plan has been disapproved and one withdrawn.

Plate 4.4

Update on 197-a Plans (Source: City of New York, May 2010)

The City of New York gives direct access to each Plan and other information on the 197-a Planning process. These plans can be accessed via the City of New York (Department of City Planning) web site http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/community_planning/197a.shtml

There are key points raised by the City on the implementation of 197-a Plans (City of New York 2013a) (www.home.nyc.gov). The sponsor of a plan, for example, (usually a Community Board) needs to work with city agencies in putting together and implementing a 197-a plan. In the instance where land re-zonings are recommended in the plan, the sponsor may encourage the Department of City Planning to initiate a zoning map change application.

The City notes in the Handbook that some 197-a plans have recommendations that focus on issues other than zoning. The first adopted 197-a plan, sponsored by Bronx CB 3, aimed at revitalizing the district and recommended measures to facilitate new mixed income housing development and increase the population. The City states that those goals have been substantially met.

The Stuyvesant Cove 197-a Plan envisioned a publicly-accessible waterfront park and pedestrian esplanade (the waterfront park was opened in 2003). A major recommendation of the Manhattan CB 8 197-a Plan was the transformation of a former heliport site to a waterfront park and esplanade. The City notes that (in consultation with Community Board 8), the City is planning these waterfront improvements.

The City has pointed out that the city’s growing population (and strong real estate market) in 2013 has created interest in private or institutional redevelopment of under-utilized areas of the city. The City notes that in cases where rezoning is required, these proposals may be in conflict with community plans in various stages of development. The City thus urges local stakeholders (i.e. developers and Community Boards) to find common ground around the subject proposal.

In cases where there is a 197-a plan and a conflicting rezoning proposal, the City seeks to ensure that the competing plans are reviewed in a manner that guarantees equal consideration of each. The City presented these two case studies of resolving conflicts between the community and development proponents (City of New York 2013a, b) (www.home.nyc.gov).

Start: taken from web (13 Nov 2013).

Case Study 1.

Columbia University proposed an expansion of its academic campus and other rezonings for one of the geographic areas covered by the Manhattan Community Board 9 197-a Plan. Public review began in June 2007 for Columbia University’s expansion proposal in West Harlem and the 197-a plan proposed by Manhattan Community Board 9. In December 2007, the City Council adopted the CB 9 197-a Plan, as modified by the City Planning Commission, and the Columbia University rezoning proposal, as modified by the City Planning Commission. The recommendations in both plans, as modified, were reconciled.

Case Study 2.

The East River Realty Company (ERRC) proposed a rezoning for one of the geographic areas covered by the 197-a Plan submitted by Manhattan Community Board 6. Public review began in August 2007 for the East River Realty Company’s proposal to redevelop the former Con Edison sites on First Avenue on Manhattan’s east side. On January 28, 2008 the City Planning Commission approved the CB 6 197-a Plan with modifications, and the ERRC proposal with modifications. On March 26, 2008 the City Council adopted the CB 6 197-a Plan with additional modifications, and the ERRC proposal, also with additional modifications.

End: taken from web (13 Nov 2013)

The City notes that community-based planning is essential to the city’s vitality. People who are close to neighborhood issues, the City states, can clearly identify community needs and advocate passionately for local concerns. The City expresses its awareness that community-based planning comes in many forms. It can range from participation in local organizations to the preparation of a comprehensive community-based plan for official adoption. The City notes (City of New York 2013a, b) (www.home.nyc.gov):

Community-based planning may seek to address a variety of issues including preserving neighborhood character, promoting affordable housing, facilitating new development and/or encouraging local employment. These goals may be pursued through rezonings, local plans and/or task force efforts. The Department of City Planning (DCP) provides technical assistance and advice to individuals and community-based organizations at all levels of planning.

The City states that community-based planning often begins at the Community Board level. The City directs these boards to its website. The web contains information on: data organized by community district (land use, population, housing, community facilities). The Department of City Planning website includes: an explanation of zoning; basic guide to New York City zoning; and, the Zoning Resolution (both text and maps).

Demographic information, data from the 2000 Census is provided by the City. The Census Fact Finder provides easy access to population information for a selected area.

Descriptions about land use and environmental review processes, and the status and details about Department of City Planning initiatives and other land use applications are also found on the website. In addition, the City offers a variety of data products, including base map files and land use data, for free download or by a license agreement.

The City asks community organizations to determine which community-based planning strategy is most appropriate for addressing any particular issue. The City outlines how problems can be addressed (including basic issues such as clogged drains, broken street lights, park maintenance problems, etc.). These may be dealt with at the community board’s monthly District Service Cabinet meeting attended by representatives from city agencies (Police, Parks and Recreation, Sanitation, etc.).

The City urges sponsors of plans to note that taking a 197-a plan from inception to adoption is a lengthy process and requires the continuing commitment of its sponsors (even after adoption to ensure successful implementation). The City concludes that with a commitment and appropriate objectives, a Community Board may find the 197-a process well worth the effort.

The City outlines three options a community group may wish to pursue to address broader issues. These options are outlined below.

Start: taken from web (13 Nov 2013).

Option One

A local zoning proposal developed in collaboration between the community and City. If a community-based organization seeks to change permitted land uses and/or building scale or density in a particular area, then a proposal developed in collaboration between the community and the Department of City Planning may be appropriate. The Department’s borough offices can provide technical assistance to community boards and civic associations exploring such zoning solutions. Communities sometimes conduct their own field surveys to develop and support these strategies and expedite the process. Most often, the Department conducts the analysis, files the rezoning application and prepares the environmental review documents, at no cost to the community organization or the community board. There are many examples of DCP/community collaborative rezoning efforts.

Option Two

A 197-a Plan, is usually sponsored by a Community Board. Long range and complex development issues may call for a comprehensive planning approach to identify goals and prepare a planning framework to achieve them. A 197-a plan may be appropriate.

Option Three

Inter-agency/Community Action Strategy. This strategy utilizes a task force made up of local representatives, city agencies and elected officials.

End: taken from web (13 Nov 2013).

The City goes further to explain “that some topics, such as improved traffic or building code enforcement, do not lend themselves to a formal plan or report but are more appropriate for a concerted action strategy. These subjects might best be dealt with through a task force made up of representatives of the appropriate agencies, community groups and elected officials.” (City of New York, Department of Planning 197-a Plans website). The City then gives seven (7) examples of successful task forces formed to develop solutions to pressing local issues, as detailed below.

The City states (example one) that the Hunts Point Vision Plan (South Bronx) was a comprehensive initiative, as developed in cooperation with business and community leaders, elected officials and City agencies. The plan aims at promoting a competitive business environment and sustainable community on the Hunts Point Peninsula. The City notes that following the Vision Plan’s recommendations, the Department initiated zoning measures (as adopted by the City Council) to encourage the growth of the food industry sector and create a buffer between the manufacturing district and the adjacent residential neighborhood.

In response to the broad range of concerns (in example two) expressed by participants about the future of 125th Street in Harlem, the Mayor formed the 125th Street Interagency Working Group. The Department of City Planning was joined by representatives from the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and several other city agencies including the Departments of Cultural Affairs, Transportation, Small Business Services, and Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The City highlighted how this group worked together with the Advisory Committee to identify solutions for issues raised during the planning process. As a result a rezoning proposal was adopted by the City Council (April 2008) with follow-up measures ongoing.

The redevelopment plan for Stapleton in Staten Island (example three) (including the former Navy Homeport) encompassed the construction of an almost mile-long esplanade along New York Harbor. This project came about from recommendations made in 2004 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Task Force on Homeport Redevelopment. As a result the City’s Economic Development Corporation is fostering development of 350 residential units; a banquet hall; waterfront restaurant; sports complex; ground-floor retail and farmers market; and, with potential for a major economic user such as a movie studio or office space. The project was started when the City budgeted $66 million for the public improvements, including the construction of the esplanade and open spaces.

The Mayor’s Staten Island Growth Management Task Force (in example 4) (convened in 2003 in response to overdevelopment in the borough) made recommendations that have resulted in significant zoning changes and enforcement improvements. The City notes that following these measures, new construction conformed to more desirable patterns. As a result the number of new permits (for construction) was reduced to a rate compatible with Staten Island neighborhoods. In addition, other recommendations emerged from the Task Force, including comprehensive studies of the West and North Shores of the Island.

A Transportation Task Force (example three) was established to address one of Staten Island’s most serious concerns. It was comprised of elected officials, City agencies, State transportation agencies, Community Board chairs and the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. The City states that the Task Force worked at the Mayor’s directive in 2006 to produce a short term action plan. The plan contained medium and long term recommendations that were presented to address transportation issues focusing on development patterns, roadways and highways, bridges and mass transit. In the latest announcement the City concludes that significant progress has been made by the task force.

During public review of the comprehensive redevelopment plan for Jamaica (in example six), the City Planning Director (Amanda Burden) brought City agency commissioners to community meetings in Jamaica to develop planning strategies. This action led to examining longstanding infrastructure issues much like the Staten Island task forces which tackled similar problems (outlined above).

In 2007 the Mayor presented a vision for the revitalization of Coney Island in Brooklyn (example seven). The Department of City Planning had been preparing a comprehensive plan for the area. The City states that in this type of planning various agencies are brought together to cooperate, including: the Economic Development Corporation; Department of Parks and Recreation; the Department of Housing Preservation and Development; the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination; the Department of Environmental Protection; the Department of Transportation; the Landmarks Preservation Commission; elected officials; and, the community. As a result of this effort the rezoning was adopted in July 2009.]

End: taken from web (13 Nov 2013)

4.4 Outline and Review of 197-a Planning Process

The City outlines in the 197-a Plan Technical Guide (City of New York) (1997) the required steps to create a 197-a Plan. The first four (4) steps of the nine (9) process (called ‘threshold review’) are contained in Plate 4.5.

Plate 4.5

197-a Plan Threshold Review Steps 1–4 (Source: 197-a Plan Technical Guide 1997)

http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Community+Boards,+New+York+City

Start: taken from web (13 Nov 2013)

• Step 1. Letter of Intent/Plan Preparation

• A letter of intent helps the City to allocate resources and identifies a sponsor (i.e. community based group) for creating the plan. The local community board would have decided that the local issues lent themselves to a 197-a plan and the resources were available to produce the plan.

• Step 2. Plan Submission

• This step outlines how a completed plan is completed. The 197-a Guide outlines the importance of public participation in the formulation and preparation of the plan. The City wants a diverse range of viewpoints and conditions in the community to be acknowledged. The aim is for the community to achieve a consensus supporting the plan (i.e. via public forums and keeping major property owners within the study area informed about proposals that may affect them). A plan can take note of desired federal or state actions relating to the plan’s key objectives. An agency so engaged needs to state its willingness to entertain the proposal. Finally, the plan needs to be consistent with City Council policies; or if not to state the reasons for the differences.

• Step 3. Threshold Review

• The City’s Department of City Planning (DCP) has up to 90 days in this step to review the plan and report to the Planning Commission on whether the plan meets the threshold standards for form, content and consistency with sound planning policy. The DCP may ask the sponsor for additional information and documentation to correct any deficiencies in the plan. If the sponsor does not agree, the DCP submits the plan unchanged for the Commission’s threshold determination.

• Step 4. Threshold Determination

• Here the Commission has 30 days to determine if the plan has met threshold standards. If the plan fails to meet these the Commission refers the plan back to the sponsor with an explanation of the plan’s deficiencies.

• Step 5. Environmental Review

• Once the plan receives threshold approval, the Commission either directs DCP to begin an environmental review (up to 180 days) of the plan or it may defer the review to consider related planing efforts or land use proposals.

• Step 6. Community/Borough Review

• Once the environmental review has been completed, the Department of City Planning circulates the plan as follows: the affected community board; Borough President, and borough board; to affected city agencies; and, to any other community or borough board upon written request.

• Step 7. Substantive Review

• Within 60 days of the Borough President’s recommendations (or 120 days if a review is held) the Commission holds a public hearing on the plan. Within 60 days of the hearing, the Commission votes to approve the plan (possibly with modifications) and reports to the City Council. The Commission could disapprove the plan, however in that instance the Mayor can request the City Council to conduct a review of the plan. The Commission reviews a plan based on sound planning policy standards and the sponsor’s understanding of external relationships (legal and practical factors and consequences of plan proposals).

• Step 8. Review

• The City Council in any review has 50 days to hold a public review and vote on the plan. The Council adopts the plan and can add modifications. The Council then sends the plan back to the Commission to agree or request a whole new review. Alternately the Council can decide not to adopt the plan.

• Step 9. Distribution

• Once the plan is adopted the City sends copies of the plan to affected agencies. The agencies use the plan as a guide for actions to be taken by those agencies. Plans are also made available to the public.

End: taken from web (13 Nov 2013)

4.5 Applying the 197-a Plan Process

The 197-a plan recommends strategies to address a range of concerns, including: land use; housing; economic development; environmental or social issues. Reference http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/community_planning/presentation.shtml.

The 197-a Plan can be a community’s master plan (wide range of concerns) or it may focus on a single issue (i.e. waterfront or zoning policies). The plan can lay groundwork for subsequent zoning changes or call for new municipal facilities or services (e.g. from day care to traffic measures). The City requests that when a request is made for a 197-a plan that the sponsor consider key points to be contained within the plan, including: plan’s objectives; census tracts; area’s land use and housing patterns, traditional neighborhood borders; zoning and designations such as historic areas; major roadways; institutions; parks; and, natural features. Plate 4.6 contains an example of a hypothetical study area showing prominent local features.

Plate 4.6

197-a Plan hypothetical study area (Source: 197-a Plan Technical Guide 1997)

The 197-a Guide provides an example of a 197-a land use map (Plate 4.7). Here land use information can be used to: explore issues, particular problems; or, development or service opportunities.

Plate 4.7

Sample 197-a Land Use Map, Hostos Community College Area Study, DCP, 1994 (Source: 197-a Plan Technical Guide 1997)

The 197-a Guide concludes that if a community’s vision is to be taken seriously, the plan must be logical, convincing and realistic. The City Council is responsible for providing the guidance and technical assistance throughout the plan process to facilitate a successful outcome for the 197-a plan.

Within Brooklyn for example in 2007 there were City adopted plans covering (Plate 4.8): Williamsburg Waterfront; Greenpoint; Red Hook; Sunset Park; the Bushwick Rheingold Site; Gowanus Estuary; Fifth Ave Housing Plan; Myrtle Ave Revitalization in Fort Green; Old Brooklyn District; Brooklyn Bridge Park; Bedford-Stuyvesant; Coney Island Vision Plan; and Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway.

Plate 4.8

Brooklyn Community Based Plans by District (Source: Municipal Art Society Planning Centre 2008)

A sample of 197-a Plan locations within northern and western Brooklyn is contained in Plate 4.9.

Plate 4.9

Northern and Western Sections of Brooklyn 197-a Plan Areas 2008 (Source: Municipal Art Society Planning Centre 2008)

4.6 Review of 197-a Planning

The Planning Centre of the Municipal Art Society of New York undertook a review of the 197-a Charter and its implementation in 1998 (Municipal Arts Centre of NY 1998). At the time the Centre noted it was too early to determine the long-term effect of the 197-a plans on NYC neighborhoods. The Centre however concluded there were some problems in the 197-a planning process that needed attention. The Society, as a result recommended: greater allocation of City Council resources and expanded dialogue with community interests; and, improvement in public sector (City and agencies) interest in the 197-a process. The Society went on to outline many of the benefits of the 197-a planning, including; a useful land-use planning tool; and, a community building mechanism.

The Society highlighted the community-based planning that had expanded across the United States through the 1990s, thus providing alternatives to traditional “top-down or development controlled planning”. The Society was impressed that the 197-a planning process had generally established “broad community participation, collaborative partnerships, and strengthened local community capacities”. Finally, the Society, in composing the review, compared 197-a planning with planning initiatives and neighborhood planning approaches of other cities in the United States. The report noted the number of cities that embraced comprehensive community based planning as a model for: funding and service delivery; and institutionalizing planning practice into local laws and ordinances. New regulations, for example, could direct city planning and community development agencies to enter into partnership with communities to develop comprehensive plans.

Other Society recommendations to the City Council included need for: improved working partnership with local communities; identifying a planning team with wide representation to develop specific recommendations within the plan; City assigning trained staff to assist in the 197-a plan making; and to tie 197-a plans more closely to the agency budgets and service statement, while promoting inter-agency collaboration.

While the City has pressed ahead with the 197-a Plan process, including consideration of the Municipal Arts Society recommendations, useful comments on New York City neighborhood planning and citizen involvement are offered by Prof. Tom Angotti (1999) in a journal article (http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue1/1angotti.html). While the article was written over 10 years ago, planning events in New York City since then reinforce and in many instances validate the projected concerns.

The article as presented by Angotti is based on considerable experience gained by Angotti in the area of neighborhood planning. He is currently a professor at Hunter College (Manhattan) and has been professor and chairperson of the Brooklyn based Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment. He has also been Executive Editor of Planners Network and Associate Editor of Planning Practice and Research. In addition, he also has had face-to-face experience with 197-a Plans, including as technical advisor to the Red Hook (Brooklyn) community plan. There are a number of key points Angotti raises on the subject.

In looking back, Angotti notes that neighborhood planning began with protest and organizing at the grass roots. He states that although there is an extensive official structure for neighborhood planning, many neighborhoods, especially low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, must still exercise their influence through protest and organizing. His research led him to the conclusion that the most salient issues (in 1999) were: waste transfer stations; community gardens; auto-dependence; and, access to public space.

In 1999 (with a city population of 7.5 million people and over 100 neighborhoods) Angotti argues that the official City of New York structure for neighborhood planning is honored ‘more in the breach than in practice’. He states that “the official structure also leaves uncorrected the substantial political and economic inequalities among neighborhoods”. He emphasizes that because better-off neighborhoods are usually able to show more muscle, their influence is greater, and their methods for organizing more discreet.

While the 197-a planning process has produced many good results, Angotti points out that the plans (like most official plans) can at best have a limited impact on neighborhoods. He states that “the plan is a policy statement and advisory”. The plan, he notes, only obligates city agencies to consider the plan recommendations in making future decisions. He further states that the main problem is that when plans mandate narrow actions these actions can be ignored or changed.

The problem, Angotti believes, is that city government does not support or promote community planning in general, and 197-a plans in particular. He notes that the average community board covers an area of 100,000 people with a staff of two or three people who spend most of their time dealing with minor complaints ranging from potholes to traffic lights. The boards don’t receive funds for planning, nor does the City provide planners to work for them. Angotti states that when the few communities that complete plans send them to the Department of City Planning for approval, the groups “find themselves subjected to extensive scrutiny and may have changes imposed on them without community review”.

Going further, Angotti goes on to note that “the real success stories of community-based planning are more likely to be found in the many unofficial movements, particularly in neighborhoods whose official institutions have less access to decision-making power—low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. These include grassroots efforts in housing, open space, environment, public health and community services.”

Participatory planning started with community organizing, Angotti states and notes that in the 1930s New York City was the site of militant tenant actions linked with the unemployed and labor movements. He provides a historical note of Marshalls evicting tenants and moving all their furniture onto the streets, neighbors organizing to move it back in again. After the War, tenants were able to secure the continuation of war-time rent controls. Angotti notes that this militancy in the post-War era included the Harlem rent strike in the 1950s and the Co-op City rent strike in the 1970s, and extensive squatting and homesteading.

Looking at the housing needs, Angotti fills in the historical gap stating that “a strong housing movement has helped make New York the U.S. city with the largest stock of rental housing, limited-equity c-ops, public housing, and the largest stock of municipally-owned housing.” He states that about 15 % of all housing units in the city are still protected by some form of public or social ownership. He notes further that deregulation and privatization (spurred by the current real estate boom and an intense wave of gentrification) are making this stock unaffordable for people with low and moderate incomes. “In addition widespread abandonment has destroyed significant amounts of private rental housing” (he notes).

On another historical note. Angotti states that in the 1960s and 1970s, the largest community-based organizations were started by squatters and tenants in city-owned buildings. The massive neighborhood abandonment in the 1970s, he notes, left 150,000 private dwelling units in the hands of city government. Due to the flight of industry and white workers to the suburbs, redlining by banks and insurance companies, and the official neglect of neighborhoods occupied by people of color, landlords either torched their buildings for the insurance money or abandoned them completely, he states. The situation in Bushwick leading up to the fires of 1977 (as covered in Chap. 2) was fueled by this neglect.

On a positive note, under pressure from communities (and the real estate industry), Angotti notes that:

New York City launched the largest-ever municipal housing program in the nation, resulting in the improvement of the vast majority of city-owned buildings. These efforts fed the creation of more than 100 community development corporations, neighborhood-based developers that own and/or manage over 10,000 units of housing. The city’s many innovative programs that encourage tenant management and involvement, however, have now been eclipsed by efforts to sell everything to the highest bidder.

One phenomenon that Angotti draws attention to is that neighborhood solidarity had been gradually eroded by the enticements of gentrification, and community development corporations had too often lost sight of their service mandate and act like landlords. Therefore, in 1999, the housing movement was in a difficult place, He notes, “as indicated by a recent, nearly successful effort by the real estate industry to eliminate rent regulations in the city.”

A historical perspective is taken by Angotti, writing that “in the predominantly middle class neighborhoods, militant community organizing helped lay to rest the spirit of Robert Moses, the planner responsible for massive urban renewal and highway programs that displaced and divided neighborhoods.” The fight to stop the Lower Manhattan Expressway, and the 25-year-long struggle against Westway (a major highway on Manhattan’s west side), he states, impressed city planners with the power of community opposition.

On a final note on community-based organizations, Angotti notes that not all of them have helped in the move toward more equitable policies. In fact, many a neighborhood and block association, especially in the more affluent areas, work overtime to preserve their territorial privileges, he states. With a sense of humor he notes “these are the neighborhoods for whom NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is a vocation”.

In summing up, Angotti states that the most important contributions to community planning come from efforts to improve the environment in communities that have the most serious public health and environmental problems. In the 1980s, he gives an example, the City proposed to built a sewage treatment plant in West Harlem after real estate interests in the adjacent (mostly white) Upper West Side neighborhood successfully defeated the proposal. He goes further in outlining how Harlem residents organized but were unable to stop the plant, winning some concessions, notably a new skate park built on top of the sewage plant. Out of this struggle and similar ones, he states, against waste transfer stations, polluting industries and heavy truck traffic in the city’s poor neighborhoods and communities of color, has arisen the environmental justice movement in New York City. He notes this movement is as critical to urban justice as the housing movement was in the 1960s and 1970s.

Taking a historical perspective, Angotti asks what has happened in recent decades that spurred this new movement of environmental concerns? He answers:

First of all, the city has undergone a massive process of deindustrialization. The neighborhoods around the derelict, industrially zoned land tend to be disproportionately working class and minority neighborhoods. Historically, people in these neighborhoods have suffered the worst consequences of industrial pollution. They have been exposed to toxic substances both as workers inside factories and as neighbors living near them. Now much of the land vacated by industry is being taken over by waste facilities, which perpetuate the historic patterns of environmental injustice. Add to this the problems attendant to poverty and discrimination, such as lack of access to adequate health care, housing and education, and we have high rates of disease and infant mortality, as well as lower life expectancy in these neighborhoods. The central issue feeding demands for community planning in New York City today is waste disposal. Several of the city’s poorest neighborhoods are saturated with waste transfer stations, which bring with them unsanitary conditions, heavy truck traffic, air pollution, and odor pollution.

Concluding on a positive historic note, Angotti states “that the community movements have done more in the long run to improve the quality of life for the greatest number of people in the city. They are working for a cleaner environment, public places and an end to environmental inequities. They, more than government, are advocates of planning – participatory, democratic planning.”

A further review of the 197-a Plan program was undertaken by Todd Bressi within Planning (magazine) (2000). Bressi, at the time, was the executive editor of the design journal Places (based at the Pratt Institute, New York City). He raises questions of: how effective the 197-a Plan program has been in terms of expenses, time-consumption and complications of community planning. Bressi reflects on the history of community planning by noting “it was in the 1960s that Senators Robert Kennedy and Jacob Javits who helped launch the community-based development movement with the creation of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation. At the same time, he notes, Pratt Institute opened its Center for Planning and Environmental Development, making university resources available to the neighborhoods.” To the criticism that the 197-a process is too slow and the impact of plans on city policies is meager, defenders, he notes, “counter that the process is a way of drawing a broad spectrum of local residents into planning discussions to test their proposals in the political arena.” Bressi points to shortcomings of the 197-a process in area of: changes resulting from City’s reluctance to step on “agencies” toes; and, the plan is only advisory, with the City not always a willing partner. A valuable comment that the City often makes, Bressi points out, is that it is vital the community (through the ‘sponsors’ of the plan) to keep the ball rolling after the plan is complete via budget, land use and political processes. In addition, the City points out, a community board can use the plan as soon as it’s done to review land use applications and set priorities for the district on an annual basis.

Bressi makes other valuable comments on the planning processes available in New York City. He notes there are alternative plan making processes the community can engage in. These include normal zoning and urban renewal processes, or to draw up its own plans. Another possible route for a community to (CCRP). This program, he points out was initially use to plan six Bronx neighborhoods. He explains, in examining the CCRP planning process, that these plans “address the quality of life” gaps (in parks, shopping, education, youth services, and employment) created by the City’s housing redevelopment programs in the 1980s. An advantage of the CCRP plans is that, Bressi quotes a planner, “they are implementation oriented”. A key component with CCRP, says a director of the program, is the investment of local community development corporations (CDC) (offering experience, political understandings and staff resources). The director also noted that charitable foundations can provide seed money to get plans under any planning process started. Bressie concludes that it would be advantageous for Community Boards to work more closely with community development corporations (CDCs).

The MAS produced the Planning for All New Yorkers: An Atlas of Community Based Plans in New York City Campaign (Municipal Arts Society 2008). The atlas represents the efforts of many grassroots organizations to present the City and their communities with plans for needed improvements. The Atlas (containing 104 community-based plans), MAS points out, is the only publicly accessible compilation of the City’s community-based plans. Advances of the Atlas, MAS notes, include: prodding local candidates running for office an overview of planning work already done by communities; a tool for communities to a plan but do not know where to start; identifying common themes of plan making that communities face; and providing a living document that is updated on an ongoing basis as new plans are realized.

The MAS notes, on the plan production challenges, “community-based plans represent among the best planning being done in New York City…communities have turned to foundations, banks and technical assistance providers for support in development their plans”. The MAS comments however that “plans are often adopted by the City and then left unused or unimplemented. City agencies sometimes regard community planning…as separate (even conflicting) of interests (with agencies)”. The MAS points out that, only after many years of effort did some success appear, including: getting agencies to share pubic data; convincing City and State agencies to accept innovative proposals as valid and worthy of inclusion in a plan; organizing …to get plans adopted that may not coincide with market pressures; stopping other plans and proposals being implemented before community plans have been adopted; securing implementation funding; and lobbying decision makers to gain capital and expense investments, land use and zoning proposals and approvals (that a plan would deem important). Commenting on the 197-a process, the MAS concludes the goal is to establish community-based planning as official New York City policy. This would mean for the City to go further than the 1975 City legislation that allowed Community Boards draftee master plans.

4.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter examined the structure of community boards and planning instruments in New York City. The history of the creation of community boards in the City was summarized first. A critique of these boards was then offered. The chapter also examined the range of planning instruments available to the City of New York. Focus is mainly placed on the brownfield development planning and 197-a Plan process. With this understanding of planning tools and community engagement structures, the next chapter reviews and critique how planning for urban renewal is applied in the City of New York, using Bushwick and other parts of Brooklyn as case examples.