Charter Revision Report: Land Use Process Should Stay Untouched, For Now

The Charter Revision Commission’s preliminary report is out, and the headline news is that while term limits and instant runoff voting got nods, the Bloomberg priority of non-partisan elections didn’t make the cut. The land use process, which was the subject of an entire commission forum last month, will likely remain unchanged for the time being.

Revising the charter — the city’s constitution — could affect the future shape of New York’s streets and public spaces in a variety of ways. The charter lays out the approval process for almost all development, for example. Less directly, by changing the powers granted to community boards, a charter revision could shift the terms of debate over issues like bike lanes or parking.

While a series of major revisions were floated at last month’s land use forum — like requiring comprehensive planning in addition to targeted rezonings, increasing the power of borough presidents and community boards in the land use process, and reforming the weak 197-a community planning process — today’s report recommends any proposals that "significantly implicate important structural issues… should be reserved for future consideration."

With regards to land use, the report makes only two small recommendations, each based on practices adopted by two borough presidents. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer now uses a formal application process to become a community board member, tries to select members from diverse constituencies, and provides members with training in land use, parliamentary procedure, and conflict of interest law. Staten Island BP James Molinaro holds regular meetings bringing the borough offices of a variety of city agencies together in one place. Each of these practices was put forward for further consideration by the commission. 

Adam Friedman, the director of the Pratt Center for Community Development, said that holding off on reforming the land use process is understandable, but that the need for change shouldn’t be forgotten. "It’s appropriate to take this lead time," said Friedman, "but you do have to begin the process." Friedman also urged the Commission to act immediately on strengthening the "Fair Share" provision of the charter, which requires public facilities to be spread across the city, due to a particularly large set of projects in the works in this coming year. The Pratt Center has been advocating for a more comprehensive, community-based, and equitable planning process.

Today’s report is only preliminary, laying out which changes seem desirable and feasible based on the commission’s work so far. The commission itself will make final decisions later, after another round of public meetings, so these recommendations are just one step in what commission chair Matthew Goldstein has referred to as an "iterative" process.

  • A few thoughts

    The Charter is also significant in that it lays out the fundamental roles and missions of each agency. If you look at the Department of Transportation section, you’ll see that its “official” jurisidction is rather… limited? Conservative? This matters because agencies have a certain level of flexibility beyond their Charter definition, but only so much – their budgets and approvals from oversight agencies (for example to fund new, innovative programs) are in large part limited by their Charter-defined scope.

    Also, it would be interesting to take a look at the DDC experiment created under Giuliani (the splitting off of DOT and DEP’s capital project design and construction functions into this new, separate agency) to see whether it’s been a success. Has it actually improved efficiency, cost savings and project delivery time? Or is it time to let DOT do final design, engineering and construction of its own capital projects?

  • so all this time community board members were not approved formally and had no idea on planning? well that explains it.

  • debreh Gilbert

    How can we vote on Question #2 on the Charter Revision? This question is comprised of a hodgepodge of issues and we are expected to vote either YES or NO on the entire list of issues.

    This does not constitute a free and fair election but rather is an indicator of our current elected (or unelected) officials who seem to do the voting equivalent of cramming everything under the bed.

    I believe my right to vote freely and fairly is hampered by this patchwork of issues. In a fair voting process, I would vote YES on some and NO on others. What are our “officials” trying to hide with this ram-rod jumble of issues in Question 2?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Planners Tackle Big Questions About How to Shape NYC Development

|
New York City’s unpassed 1969 comprehensive plan. Photo: Historic Districts Council Though the Charter Revision Commission looks likely to take a pass at reforming the city’s land use process this year, the door will remain open in the years to come to tackle the complex and controversial issues that surround planning and development in New […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Feds Award $293 Million in Transit Grants, Transpo Nation Looks at Winners and Losers (1, 2) Why Did D.C.’s Streetcar Bid Lose Out? (GGW) Fed Funding for Second Ave Subway, East Side Access Dwarfs Bus/Streetcar Money (SAS) Local Activism Convinces City to Remove Staten Island Greenway Fence (Advance) Charter Revision Report Drops Today: Term Limits […]

What Went Wrong With “Atlantic Yards?”

|
An Interview With Kent Barwick, President of the Municipal Art Society "There is disappointment, annoyance, and anger because there hasn’t been any way for anyone to have a voice. Who is listening to the people living around Atlantic Yards?" With the Pataki Adminstration scrambling to beat the buzzer and win approval for Forest City Enterprise’s […]