« Controversial Planning Commish May be on the Way Out LPC Green-Lights New "Old" Townhouse at 314 Hicks Street »

September 27, 2007

Time for a Moratorium on the Moratorium Talk?

cord360smith.JPG
“It is high time to demand concrete actions be taken to safeguard our neighborhood. CG CORD is calling for a BUILDING MORATORIUM effective immediately!” In a remarkable show of grassroots derring-do, a group known as CORD has succeeded in getting thousands of Carroll Gardens residents to sign a petition demanding a moratorium on all new construction over 50 feet. The group’s accomplished this in a few short months by posting regular updates on community message boards; bringing its concerns to the fore of neighborhood meetings; sending out mass email updates (like the one quoted above); and rallying support so there are monuments to the CORD cause scattered throughout Carroll Gardens, most impressively at the Smith Street site where a developer intends to build a 70-foot building. But are the calls for a moratorium realistic, and is there any precedent for such an action? Not really, and no.

For starters, the Department of City Planning has already pledged to study Carroll Gardens with a mind to rezoning it. Even if there was the will within the department to consider a moratorium, such an effort would almost certainly drag out the rezoning process. Further, a building moratorium would require an environmental impact study followed by ULURP—basically the same things a rezoning would require, steps that can take a few years. The biggest difference—and hitch to CORD's plan—is that there’s no precedent for a building moratorium. As far as anyone we've talked to could recall, there hasn’t been an instance of the city enacting a moratorium in recent memory, although there have been cases of communities calling for them (for example, on Staten Island).

Although it seems doubtful that a moratorium will come to pass, CORD's done an impressive job of drawing attention to the fact that Carroll Gardens’ outdated, as-of-right zoning leaves the door open for developers to construct buildings that could disrupt the look and feel of the neighborhood. Councilman Bill de Blasio says he lobbied City Planning for two years to downzone Carroll Gardens but only got a commitment from the department to study downzoning this June, and he credits CORD's activism with helping to change the department's mind. Although he says that in an ideal world, "we could achieve a legal moratorium right now," in the real world, "rezonings are the only way to achieve what the community is looking for." The question now for CORD is whether it's possible that a single-minded focus on a building moratorium could end up undermining their cause by sidetracking rezoning efforts. Because if that happens, no one wins—not CORD, not the city, and certainly not Carroll Gardens.
Calls for Reining in Development at Carroll Gardens Meeting [Brownstoner]
City Planning to Look at Carroll Gardens Downzoning [Brownstoner]




Posted by Gabby at 9:33 AM | Comments (33)
Categories: Carroll Gardens, Zoning

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2359

Comments

The idea is that a building moratorium be placed while the rezoning efforts are underway. A lot of damage to the neighborhood can happen in a very short period of time without a moratorium on building.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 9:46 AM

A moratorium is NEVER going to happen. Not in a million years.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 9:56 AM

Thank you, 9:46. We understand the concept. Let me point out the key statement above, "a building moratorium would require an environmental impact study followed by ULURP—basically the same things a rezoning would require." The mayor doesn't just wave a magic wand and declare, "new buildings be gone from Carroll Gardens."

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 9:56 AM

There will be no moratorium to building. It is illegal and without precedent and any developer would rightly sue the city if an agency attempts to operate outside of the law.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 9:58 AM

Getting a moratorium is extremely unlikely. Downzoning is the most achievable outcome. Landmarking is only possible for those blocks with significant buildings of historical interest, which leave a lot of CG out of the picture. And in anticipation of the heated discussion to follow, here is an interesting article about the issue of private property right versus stuff like landmarking, moratoriums, wetlands protection, etc.

http://www.planning.org/25anniversary/planning/2003jun.htm

Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 27, 2007 9:59 AM

A building moratorium is a legal stretch, especially when the zoning gives as of right status to developers. You're telling me that it's in the public interest to *basically* stop all development in CG? How is the moratorium NYC's best interest?

Also, a building moratorium sets a dangerous precedent. Imagin if any/every community could impose an ad hoc moratorium because one building doesn't suit their taste...

Downzonings have been occuring for almost six years now. Suddenly CG wants an immediate rezoning and a halt to development? Why wasn't the community more proactive in seeking a rezoning before? Park Slope, Bensonhurst, Bay Ride, Ft Green, Bed-Stuy have all undergone rezonings - some for nefarious reasons... ie. no immigrants with large families living in Bay Ridge...

And where's the compromise here; is CG willing to accept a higher density along Columbia Street? CG is not so special that it can't take a fair share of development along under-development arterials.

Unless the CG's community starts talking realistically about a zoning compromise and a rezoning timeline that doesn't include a moratorium... it's dead in the water. Period.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:05 AM

No Carroll Gardens is not willing to accept a higher density along Columbia Street. Nor are the people who live in the Columbia Street waterfront district willing to accept higher density along Columbia Street. The sooner the City and developers chomping at the bit understand that Columbia Street is not a bargaining chip the better. Stop waisting your time trying to toss your trash on the other side of the BQE. Those days are over.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:19 AM

I'm no lawyer, but I imagine that a moratorium without public review, EIS, etc. would be shot down with the first law suit. Read up on the 5th amendment (and the 14th, and probably a few others).

It is possible, I suppose that the laws themselves could be rewritten in such a way as to impose a moratorium (or to cut off vesting) at the time of certification, not adoption, of a rezoning. But that's a very different thing than someone "waving a wand" and imposing a moratorium.

Posted by: WBer at September 27, 2007 10:28 AM

RE: 10:19

Why would NYC residents have any interest in pursuing a downzoning in CGs? I sounds like you guys are working only for your own interests. How is CG contributing to increasing the housing stock, creating jobs, improving the waterfront?

And who's talking about 'tossing trash' on the other side of the BQE? Which people do you consider trash? Is it young families looking for there first home? Youngsters moving here from the mid-west and have their first job in the city? What about foreign immigrants looking for affordable housing - take your pick.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:40 AM

Anon 10:40am, bravo!

Downzoning prevents the creation of habitation needed for newer residents. The artificial restriction of supply greatly increases the price of property. No wonder NIMBYs do not want new buildings, they want their property values to remanin high. They do not want to "share" their neighborhood with others just to make more money.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 11:04 AM

When I refer to trash, I am talking about the things that people in Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Park Slope etc. don't want in their neighbrhood, such as more traffic, more buses, more trucks; such as waist transport centers, such as Ikea, such as tall builings. I, in fact love the kind of people you talk about. In fact, we have a lot of great young families, foreign immigrants, and artists living here already. The diversity of people in the Columbia Street Waterfront District is one of the reasons that I moved here in the first place. And the reason that young families move here is is because it offers excellent elementary schools which are already becoming overcrowded. I, in fact, love the waterfront and think it is a tragedy that a City Planning Commission that claims that one of its goals is to reclaim the waterfront thinks that it was good planning to give some our finest waterfront property to Ikea so that cruise ships can see the blues and yellows of Sweden along with the Statue of Liberty as they sail into New York Harbor. Ikea, who plans on clogging our streets with their diesel run trucks of furniture instead of the obvious alternative of shipping it right in to their front door. What I am against are crooked developers who pretend like they give a rats ass and are building all in the name of creating affordable housing for immigrants and young families and teachers and cute little bunny rabbits but in the end they errect an ugly poorly-built piece of crap housing and only care about making a buck. What I am against is poor city planning and taking a lovely neighborhood and destroying it. What I am against is Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill thinking that they can toss what they don't want on the other side of the BQE. Get it? And if you try, I promise you it will be a long hard fight.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 12:54 PM

12:54 is right - across the BQE is a terrible place for high density since it is so far from mass transit, development there will likely lead to more cars, more congestion and more problems.

That is exactly why it is a shame that 360 Smith St will only be 70'. I think a 10 story building is more appropriate considering its location over a subway station.

This whole thing is NIMBY at its worst, the people leading this charge should be ashamed of themselves

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:12 PM

Carroll Gardens is such a great area of NYC i think whatever it takes should be done. All of the streets from degraw st all the way down Henry st and Clinton st Including the place streets should be landmarked right away. This is historic NYC wake up people.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:35 PM

"but in the end they errect an ugly poorly-built piece of crap housing and only care about making a buck."

Will you be willing to accept a nicely built building since you seem to be against poorly-built pieces of crap? Let me guess, no. Hypocrite.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 1:54 PM

build it more than 70 feet. people need places to live.
brooklyn open space was historic too. thats gone. deal with it!

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:32 PM

wow - when did red hook become brooklyn's best water-front property? Last time I checked that place was a toxic brownfield with a huge NYCHA project right in the middle of it.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:44 PM

Hey 12:54, you what what else Carroll Gardens didn't want? ME! That's right ... me, who moved there in 1992, right out of college. Me, who took out the garbage and shoveled snow and looked after my elderly landlady. Me, who works in a service profession and doesn't make very much money, but who was always proud to be a part of the community. Me, who spent money on Court Street and Smith Street. Me, who got married and had a baby and wanted to make Carroll Gardens my home, but got completely priced out of the apartment I lived in for over a decade. Screw you, and screw Carroll Gardens too.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 2:59 PM

You wouldn't want to live in Carroll Gardens anyway after the developers have their way with it.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:17 PM

You think building high rises is going to make it affordable for you to move back to Carroll Gardens. Manhattan is filled with high rises,
more and more every year, and the prices just keep going up.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:23 PM

At this point, I wouldn't move back to Carroll Gardens if they paid me to do it.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 4:54 PM

Well if you go and get a real job then you could afford Carroll Gardens. Get over it and move to the suburbs you crying fool

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 6:09 PM

If you don't like the city move with the hillbilles in the burbs

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 6:09 PM

The supply and demand thing works this way. Downzoning will restrict the supply of new buildable square footage. That will drive the price per square foot up. But since the owner is loosing buildable square footage the total value will fall relatively. Rents will go up because supply is constrained. Both owners and tenants lose economically, property owners lose total value and tenants pay more rent. A lose lose conflict. On the other hand, the people who are here get more of the enclave feel they have grown to love. Keeping out new people is not a unique pleasure of this neighborhood. Lots of groups want to keep others out. Sitting Bull comes to mind, so too the Palestinians.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 8:07 PM

A 70 ft building isnt a high-rise - not even in the suburbs.
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 8:45 PM

Just a great area let's preserve it Carroll gardens

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:32 PM

The only people I want to keep out of Carroll Gardens are the developers... everyone else is welcome.

Posted by: guest at September 27, 2007 10:33 PM

A real job? Nice. The next time you come to a parent-teacher conference in my classroom and thank me for the excellent work I'm doing with your kid, why don't you say that right to my face?

Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 10:55 AM

Wow...such hostility. I understand both sides of the argument here. The need for housing (preferably affordable) and the desire to preserve the neighborhood. If anyone seriously thinks that any of the new or proposed development will address the need for affordable housing....they are deluded. Instead we will have expensive apartment buildings and condos that destroy the character of the neighborhood. So without a re-zoning, no one wins.

Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 2:48 PM

re: 2:48
what type of logic is that? that's the most vapid thing I've read in the last week. Obviously you have zero understanding of how expanding supply impacts sub-housing market... yes even luxury development.

Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 3:24 PM

DeBlasio is quoted last in the Courier as saying, "A moratorium is a very good idea. It's a quicker version of downzoning". The promised downzoning study mentioned in this post is only that: a study! A moratorium is a call for an immediate, temoporay halt to current construction over 50 feet while a plan is worked out in CG. There are hundreds of precedents for moratoria outside of the city in (New York State) and one wonders how come the residents here in the city have not yet challenged legally the fact that they are unable to have more of a say in the planning of their very own communities. It may come sooner than later, however, given the current climate and thinking.

Posted by: guest at September 29, 2007 2:51 AM

See:
http://queenscrap.blogspot.com/2007/07/learning-from-long-island.html
The moratorium idea is not alive in Brooklyn alone! This was Queens just a few months ago.

Posted by: guest at September 29, 2007 4:02 AM

queenscrap.blogspot.com/2007/07/learning-from-long-island.html

Posted by: guest at September 29, 2007 4:04 AM

re: 3:24

Vapid? Ok Genius....under your theory of "expanding supply" how come you don't live in Manhattan?

Posted by: guest at October 1, 2007 4:46 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions