Today’s Headlines

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Jeff

    The NYCHA article is fascinating on so many levels:

    1) There are very few American cities where this would even be considered–not due to the objections of public housing residents, but because you wouldn’t even be ably to pay most Americans to live within a quarter mile of public housing, much less on the grounds.

    2) Swapping surface parking for, well, anything is fine in my book.  Green spaces and community centers are a little more questionable.

    3) Mixing incomes is an important ingredient for healthy urban neighborhoods.  Does this help achieve this goal, or does it “gentrify” public housing?

    I still can’t decide for myself whether this is a good idea, bad idea, or what I would change about it to make it a good idea.  This one’s a real thinker…

  • Larry Littlefield

    “There’s nothing more sacrosanct in common law than contracts being honored,” Lhota said. “These contracts needed to be honored or it was going to litigation, and I was advised by counsel that we would lose.”

    Those retroactive pension increases were an immediate irrevocable contract, even though nothing was given in return to those who would ultimately pay.  Public employee union contracts continue in perpetuity until they get better. 

    Those bonuses for AIG derivatives traders were irrevocable contracts too, despite the fact that they bankrupted an otherwise  fundamentally sound insurance company.  And most of those in the top escelons of the executive class have contracts, and they get paid off instead of fired.  After all they need security, because they are the risk takers. 

    I have never had a contract.  I don’t think anyone I know has had a contract.  Does anyone who posts on this board have a contract?

    Another way, in addition to mode of transportation, to distinguish the serfs.

  • Super Prime Voter

    Has Public Advocate Bill de Blasio issued a statement or spoken to the press about the senior citizen who was killed by the hit-and-run truck driver at 41st Street?  Or has Public Advocate Bill de Blasio been too busy talking to Norman Steisel and Iris Weinshall?  Is Public Advocate Bill de Blasio aware that one New Yorker is killed by a motorist every 36 hours? Or is Public Advocate Bill de Blasio more concerned with getting an endorsement from the New York Post?

    Maybe we want Public Advocate Bill de Blasio to keep his mayoral campaign going. That way we can get a Public Advocate who advocates for the public and not his own self-interest.

  • “Mixing incomes is an important ingredient for healthy urban neighborhoods”

    I agree with this statement, but realize that many people either blatantly don’t agree with it, are nihilists who think “that never works,” or unthinkingly accept that residential segregation is somehow “natural” and that rich people living next to poor people is messing with some sort of social order. 

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Mixing incomes is an important ingredient for healthy urban neighborhoods”

    When you mix incomes you get inequality.  People say New York City has inequality.  Newark and Scarsdale do not.

  • Anonymous

    I’m very excited about the NYCHA plan, which will fill in gaps in the urban fabric, increase density, and make NYCHA’s budgets work out, improving the lives of so many New Yorkers. The 20% affordable units are gravy. Getting rid of those parking lots is yet another bonus. I have some worries about it destroying the retail/amenity mix that serves low-income residents, but in most of these neighborhoods that’s already happened. 

  • krstrois

    De Blasio reveals himself to be an integral cog in the Brooklyn demo machine with those quotes. 

    It’s not so much that he is ignoring the ages-long community process that resulted in that bike lane in his own backyard (!) instead he seems to be utterly unaware that it happened at all — even worse. 

  • @cc36704b289cbef0ac72a06121c6c6d8:disqus Actually, it’s even worse. He is fully aware of the years-long public process but he knows that in order to get the support of the tabloids and “real” New Yorkers he has to ignore it.  It’s craven and dishonest.

  • Anonymous

    That de Blasio interview is about as offensive as it could possibly be, but I wish I saw more comments like this one, because I’m sure it’s true:

    As a Community Board member who has worked with NYC DOT for ages now,
    there is absolutely no question that the agency has become massively
    more responsive, collaborative and communicative with communities since
    Janette Sadik-Khan took over. In the Weinshall era it was a major fight
    even just to get a new speed bump near a school where a teacher had been
    run over and killed.

  • vnm

    The postwar urban renewal that created the NYCHA towers-in-parking-lots on superblocks took the wrecking ball to lots of walkable urban fabric and varied streetscapes. This proposal helps to restore a lot of what was lost. AND it provides funding for low-income housing. It’s a major win-win. Transit-oriented housing for more people of any income is a better land use than parking lots or fenced-off, litter-strewn muddy “green space.” 

  • Eric McClure

    Bill de Blasio continues to knowingly misrepresent the Department of Transportation’s actions.  I had an email exchange with one of his aides early in 2011 that clearly laid out the extensive, nay, unprecedented, public process that preceded the redesign of Prospect Park West, an exchange that Streetsblog’s FOIL efforts later revealed coincided with a private meeting between de Blasio and NBBL.

    There’s NBBL’s version of events, and there’s reality, and Mr. de Blasio has made his bed  on the wrong side of history.

  • Anonymous

    The NYCHA plan is fantastic (assuming they target the parking lots).  I’ve been saying this for years.

    My fear is that the backlash against this plan will prevent it from happening.  This is not the type of plan that gets vocal public support, but it will get vocal opposition.  Hopefully the smart people in the administration will make it happen.  At least to try it.

  • Bike/Ped/Vote

    Whatever Chris Quinn’s shortcomings, she seems like Boris Johnson, Bertrand Delanoe and Rahm Emanuel rolled into one when compared to Bill de Blasio.  That man must be stopped at all costs.

  • moocow

    I love this, from “DG” in the Brooklyn Paper comments section,  (is this our DG?)

    “Is Bill de Blasio willing to sacrifice New York City’s future economy to
    these other cities? Because talent will go where it wants, no matter
    what favors our mayor wants from the tabloids.

    Bill de Blasio’s
    campaign against livable streets and willingness to ape NBBL talking
    points is a fantastic way for NYC to be left behind as the world races

  • Bolwerk

    That actual conservatives (e.g., most of the Democratic establishment) and neocons (e.g., the late Ed Koch) alike are throbbing at the thought of a Quinn mayoralty should scare everyone. The rest of us are supposed to be distracted by this supposed image of her as a compassionate/maternal type and forget Christine “I got mine” Quinn is every bit as authoritarian as Bloomberg (reappointing Ray Kelly should say it all).   Actually, she’s really Bloomberg without the upsides –  authoritarian as he is, Bloomberg at least was never for sale.

    Re NYCHA: how about swapping NYCHA developments for traditional urban housing while we’re at it?

  • JamesR

    re: NYCHA redevelopment: I didn’t see anything about a plan to build structured parking at the sites in which the parking lots will be redeveloped. Judging by the number of cars I see parked in the lots at the NYCHA development down the hill from where I live, they’re going to get a huge backlash both from the NYCHA residents and the surrounding neighborhood due to fear over the loss of spaces leading to additional competition for scarce street spaces. That is one public meeting I’d hate to attend.  

  • Joe R.

    Regarding the development of parking lots and any potential opposition, if someone is poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing, then they can’t afford a car. If they do have a car, then that means they can afford to pay more in rent. Maybe we should decrease the income threshold for admittance into housing projects to make sure we’re not indirectly subsidizing car purchases. I don’t mind taxpayers subsidizing housing for people who are really poor. Poor should mean you can’t afford a big ticket item like a car with the money left after paying your subsidized rent. Providing free parking for people in housing projects with cars makes even less sense. I’m sure there will be opposition to this plan, but we seriously need to discuss why some residents of housing projects even own cars.