Sunset Park Rezone Plans Meet the Community

"Many people still had questions about how the plan would affect the creation/preservation of affordable housing."

There is NO affordable housing without high-density developments. The city needs to allow balance so those who are hardworking middle class but can't afford a whole house can purchase a home in the area.

The smart way to do it is allow tall buildings on the big commercial streets, and near mass transportation like the subway stops and bus hubs. Zoning that is passed could later be thrown out the window if NYC doesn't have enough housing and too much in Brooklyn is downzoned. There's actually precedence in NY state courts for that in some upstate towns that had too-strict zoning that didn't allow high-densitiy housing. Protect what is worth protecting and that way you get to protect it forever.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:13 PM

"There is no chance this will go through, particularly along fourth avenue."

Actually, by the time DCP makes its initial presentation, there is already significant agency "buy-in."

"Any time these turkeys talk about "affordable housing" they are talking about government subsidized lotteries, where developers use low interest loans and/or bonds. That capital is now severely restricted."

I bet the affordable housing being discussed here is density bonuses, which are not tied to low interest loans.

"Downzoning only restricts supply."

But there is a corresponding up-zoning.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:40 PM

Everybody in that photo is white, 1:29, not Chinese or Latino.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:48 PM

Not that it matters 1:48 but the lady who is presenting is clearly Asian

tool

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:01 PM

Glad you people can tell someone's ethnicity by back of their heads.
Not that I'm an expert on Sunset Pk but from what I've seen doesn't look like dump to me.
Some very nice blocks of row houses. Nice park, etc.
Although the part the some refer to as Greenwood Hts (why sunset parker wants to be sure that area is included in his 'hood is beyond me) does lack quite a bit.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:04 PM

I was there and am for the rezoning but I must say that there was one person who made the best point of all. He said "why bother rezoning if the same people (DOB) who are now supposed to be enforcing the laws are going to be allowing the new ones to be broken".
Great point!

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:16 PM

All these down zonings are in response to a few 12 story mid block buildings that went up in the SSlope. Too bad everyone (small property owner) lose, FAR in this example, while a very select few property owners along 4th avenue gain everything. Fear of having some monstrosity right next door vs. giving up my right to build a small addition on the back/roof of my little house. Why should i have to give away my property to save it?

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:16 PM

This is for 'polemisist":

You have learned a lot about our neighborhood since you came here in 2003. I was born here in 1945 and may know a few things you don't.

Sunset Park was never a 'dump.' The brownstone were I grew up was built in 1905, not the 1920's. The housing stock in Sunset Park is mostly excellent, not as old as Park Slope, but older and better crafted than Bay Ridge.

In fact, the name 'Sunset Park' is a misnomer. 'Bay Ridge' originally ran from 36th Street to 86th Street. The tidal moraine that gives Bay Ridge its name begins at 36th Street. The term 'Sunset Park' is a 1970's political construct. The area north of 36th Street was always 'Bush Terminal' and 'South Brooklyn.'

There are many people who care about 'Sunset Park,' both its past and its future. In the past it was mostly Irish, Italian and Scandinavian. They have been joined (not replaced) by Latinos and Chinese and others. Their interests are more lasting than the very special interests of real estate speculators -- like yourself -- who trash other people's neighborhoods for their own quick profit.

Sunset Park was never a 'dump.' Polemicist -- what a putz!

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:24 PM

I remember right before the Slope Down-zoning there was fear that developers along 4th avenue would spend their affordable housing credits through out SSPark. Did this ever happen? Did anyone even take the carrot? This DZ has nothing to do with A.H.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:25 PM

There are 5 people shown in this photo sitting down attending the meeting (I'm not counting the speaker) in what is obviously a small room that doubtfully holds much more than 12 people and yes actually I can tell from the backs of their heads those 5 people all at the front of the room are caucasian. At least 50% of the meeting attendees were white plus we would rightly assume the most enthused if not the organizers of the event were sitting up front. So it seems the claim this is mainly a latino/Chinese effort is not true. Most building OWNERS from those two ethnic communities make a lot if not most their income from renting apartments in their buildings. They are landlords. It makes no sense they would oppose factors that increase rents they can ask or that allow them to build additions to the buildings they own. I just don't buy it.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:37 PM

That's the longest most narrow room ever, then if it holds 100.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:58 PM

I reread the original brownstoner post from almost a year ago [click on the link above] and, lo and behold!

...Therein lies a retort from when Polemicist, when, if my instincts are right, was when he was known as "Eryximachus." They certainly might enjoy meeting one another if they haven't done so already.

"Eryximachus" said...

"For all of those poor people out there, always remember zoning is the #1 cause of the lack of affordable housing.

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/HIER1948.pdf

These people are fringe lunatics. This entire hoopla was over the construction of a 12-story building. Such buildings were built ALL OVER NYC before anyone even thought of restricting property rights. It the construction of the Equitable Building to make anyone THINK of taking away peoples property rights.

And then of course, these same people screaming that a 6-story or 12-story building is too high are the same ones who hate the Atlantic Yards development because they are using emininent domain against a handful of obsolete 100-year old tenaments.

Sunset Park is a dump. It's always been a dump. That's why there are no tall buildings there. In the early 20th century people wanted to move to Bay Ridge and Park Slope - thus the tall buildings in those neighborhoods.

There is nothing worth preserving in Sunset Park. The neighborhood has great subway access and should be developed to the maximum density desired by the PEOPLE, not some fringe lunatics who don't have to work and can harass politicans at community board meetings.

If people buy or rent the apartments, democracy has spoken. The tyranny of these lunatics must end - otherwise the rest of us will continue to live in misery until these elderly fools finally die."

Posted by: Eryximachus at March 29, 2007 10:54 AM

Get a grip, dude. Like developers will want to build 12 story buildings on 4th avenue in this s*it economy right now? Glad you're not making any decisions here!

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 3:50 PM

anyone know how 39th st will be impacted by this? It is currently zoned for manufacturing but has residential mixed in. I thought I heard talk of rezoning it to residential.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 5:11 PM

Attention guest @ 1:48:
The guy to the left in the photo at CB7 is American Indian, the next two are Latinos. The two Euros live there too.
Apology accepted.
A photo only tells a little of the truth, only a few degrees of the full picture.
Every seat in the room was occupied and dozens more were in the hallway. There was no doubt in my mind every corner of the community was there. I looked around and I bet a majority of the people there were involved in the petitioning to get the re-zoning started.
BTW, Did you know there are more Asian Non-Hispanics in CB7 than White Non-Hispanics; and, there are almost as many Hispanics as Asian Non-Hispanics AND White Non-Hispanic? Check me out at the US Census.
--Tom Murphy

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 6:02 PM

The guy who brought up the lack uselessness of the DOB was HOT!

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 6:27 PM

Ms. Purnima Kapur
Brooklyn Director
Department of City Planning

Mr. Randolph Peers
Chair
Community Board 7

Ms. Sara Gonzalez
New York City Councilor
District 38

Dear Ms. Kapur, Mr. Peers, and Ms. Gonzalez:

We have many concerns regarding DCP’s proposed rezoning plan for Sunset Park but one issue stands out which merits an immediate response. DCP’s proposed rezoning establishes contextual zoning for all of Sunset Park’s rezoning study area with the notable exception of 8th Avenue. While a proposed C2-4 overlay district would reduce the depth of commercial establishments along the side streets to 100 feet, the zoning remains R6 essentially retaining the status quo due to the lack of height restrictions. Your explanation for deferring the rezoning of 8th Avenue is due to the fact that it serves as a geographic boundary between CB 7 and 12, and as a result, is more complicated. You also stated that DCP will, at some future point, conduct a separate 8th Avenue corridor study with the involvement of CB 7 and 12, however, you did not propose a possible timeframe for this study.

The dilemma of 8th Avenue was pointed out to DCP and CB 7 at the very start of this process so that if the concerns of the Chinese community really mattered, DCP could have convened the community boards to initiate an 8th Avenue corridor study as part of a comprehensive planning and rezoning effort. However, the proposed rezoning does not consider the concerns of the Chinese community nor does it protect small businesses and low-income residents from development and gentrification. In fact, by maintaining the R6 zoning, it essentially directs and concentrates development pressures to 8th Avenue. Our sense is that 8th Avenue has been “conceded” to the developers. Eighth Avenue will not be protected from non-contextual development. Moreover, the rezoning of 4th and 7th Avenues to a R7A with inclusionary zoning will further facilitate condominium development and the gentrification of Sunset Park because it does not reduce the “as of right” FAR and hence, the inclusionary zoning incentive will not result in the production of affordable housing.

The failure of DCP, CB 7, and City Councilor Gonzalez to respond to the concerns of Sunset Park’s working class and working poor communities sets up a potentially divisive process as alluded to in last night’s appeals by several Community Board members not to delay the adoption of the rezoning. Despite shortcomings, they reasoned, unless the rezoning is adopted, the “vultures” will continue to destroy Sunset Park. Our goal is to protect Sunset Park as a multi-ethnic, multi-racial working class community, and we have shared our concerns and rezoning principles with DCP, CB 7, and City Councilor Gonzalez. We are very disappointed the proposed rezoning plan fails to protect all of Sunset Park’s residents. As noted, we have many concerns and will forward a more comprehensive analysis and response to the proposed rezoning plan shortly.

Sincerely,

Margaret Fung, Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

Johnny Trelles, Sunset Park Alliance of Neighbors

Wing Lam, Executive Director, Chinese Staff and Workers Association

Tarry Hum, PhD, Urban Planner and CUNY faculty

Reverend Samuel Wong, Chinese Promise Baptist Church

Reverend Sam Cruz, Trinity Lutheran Church

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 6:28 PM

It is just great to see so much dialogue concerning Sunset Park. My only interest in commenting is to dispute the "80 year dump" comment. Sunset is as developed as Bay Ridge except for the Shore Road area - in fact, Bay Ridge is less developed than Sunset. Our waterfront would have been just as developed except that we are "blessed" with naturally deep anchorages unlike the shallow Bay Ridge shores. So we were a working waterfront. Unfortunately, the Longshoreman's Union was able to flex its muscle and convince the electeds to put the WF on a shelf in storage for the last 50 years (waiting for the return of shipping...lol). And unfortunately, our electeds have allow the worst of uses for our WF - Bay Ridge's sanitation garage (along with ours), power plants, a prison, auto storage, cement distribution, gravel/stone distribution, and on and on.

Why haven't I heard the most important arguments? Who is building the elementary schools for the huge body of 6 year olds that we will have in just a couple of years? Who is rebuilding our side street sewer systems to support the trucks, buses and cars that use them daily (the trucks/buses illegally)? Who is rebuilding our electrical distribution grid, to deliver all this "new" electric, to the hundreds, no, thousands of air conditioners in the new buildings? Who is developing traffic management plans to regulate commuter traffic each a.m. & p.m.? Who is giving any attention to the infrastructure that is needed to support merely the housing that has come in the last 5 years, let alone what will come in the future? Oh, I know, our electeds will respond to it when it is a crisis, and only then.

The Community Board room was indeed filled to overflowing last night, but sadly it is the community board 7 of the 60's, 70's, 80's & even 90's that hurt Sunset the most - giving the old court house to the police, not developing the WF back in '92, hiding the info that the Gowanus was about to be rebuilt, not getting the 197a together until a decade late...and most of all keeping ethnics and civic activists off the board while the remanants of the dead democratic club held on to their little power seats...so freakin' sad.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 9:53 PM

"Balance" goes both ways. It means you need higher income people in a place too.

The revival, the renovation of old houses and the building of new condos are the best thing that ever happened to Sunset Park or any community. Jobs and revenues won't come if there isn't more balance in a neighborhood going from low to middle to high income.

As for panic that NYC is becoming less diverse, are you kidding? You know the entire U.S. is becoming less white not more white, right? Somehow everybody else knows that.

Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 7:27 PM

This is in response to the letter from the Chinese community re: the rezoning of Sunset Park.

First of all it was posted by "guest" When in fact this same letter was sent to various persons by David Galarza a resident of Windsor Terrace and failed City Council candidate for Sunset Park in 2005 (He came in a distant 3rd in the primary).

To the issues raised:

The DCP does not have the authority to convene CB meetings nor to legislate or regulate for working poor, and cannot cure the ills of communities.

The Chinese community had and still has every opportunity to provide recommendations about what they feel is best for 8th avenue; however, the Sunset Park rezoning only includes have of 8th Avenue; the other half is in CB12. The Chinese community, just as the residents of Sunset Park did last spring, should have collected signatures requesting the CB12 rezone their half of 8th Avenue. The Chinese community chose not to work with CB 12 nor provide any recommendations about the rezoning during the DCP study period and now to say they are being left and the entire rezoning should be throw out is absurd.

Personally, I believe that there is another agenda here that has nothing to do with the rezoning and may have everything to do with someone's political ambitions.

Posted by: guest at March 16, 2008 11:36 AM

David Galarza indeed posted the response from the community. But it would be entirely ignorant, racist and utterly arrogant to assume that David Galarza somehow exercises some kind of mind control over those members of the community who signed onto that letter. It's not surprising however, given the culture of Community Board 7 and those it deems as "leaders" of the community. Including, I suspect, the writer of this post who has at most 2 people in her group.

Get used to it, 80 percent, that's right 80 PERCENT of the study area is Latino and Asian. The previous poster may be anxious to reverse the white flight of the 70s and 80s, but we ain't going nowhere and we're going to be seen, heard and respected.

Call David Galarza what you want, but unlike the previous poster (who had far harsher names for CB 7, Randy Peers, Aaron Brashear, and Councilmember Sara Gonzalez until she herself sold out to Gonzalez and became her lap dog) Galarza is not an old, lame, self-serving sell-out.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 2:27 PM

Nor is Galarza a resident of Sunset Park. So why does he speak for all of us?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:28 PM

Nor is Randy Peers, John Burns, Aaron Brashear, Joseph Longobardi, etc. residents of Sunset Park, yet they can and do assume to speak for all of Sunset Park.

At least David Galarza grew up and lived in Sunset Park most of his life -- until he was priced out. It's too bad that the few Latinos or Sunset Park residents that are on Community Baord 7 are either too afraid or too beholden to speak up and out for Sunset Park.

And, in case you didn't notice, David Galarza wasn't even mentioned in the letter to DCP. Why not address these remarks to the well respected director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or Rev. Sam Cruz, or Prof. Tarry Hum? Are you saying that these individuals are not qualified to speak on behalf of their communities?

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 4:31 PM

"This rezoning, from the beginning at my understanding, came from the residents of Sunset Park, mostly grassroots, mainly Latino and Chinese Americans." Your exact words Action Jackson on Mar. 14th. And you were/are absolutely correct.

Sadly, now the "powers that be" are trying to exclude the very same people. It's a local, lethal and toxic form of Neoliberalism.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:45 PM

The rainbow represented was a direct result of the hard outreach work by the very people who signed-on to the earlier letter, the ones who started this process and who voiced the strongest criticism. The ones most effected.

Park Slopers, South South Slopers and Greenwood Height's folks really need to defer, out of respect, to the people of Sunset Park.

They can take pride in the mess they created along Fourth Ave. in Park Slope and Greenwood with their luxury condos, and Minerva-blocked views. Screw that, we're fighting for hard working people and families, not statues.

Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 6:04 PM

Action Jackson: what was the date of that Brooklyn Eagle issue? Was there a picture of me?
--Tom Murphy

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 3:42 PM

[More seriously now]
I know who "started this process", did the fact-finding, first raised his voice to be heard, ran the risk of confronting those in authority, spoke to his neighbors and listened to what they said, and made allies of people from outside Sunset Park who cared.
I also know who rang the doorbells, handed out the fliers and got the petition signatures last spring. To say they were the ones "who voiced the strongest criticism" at the CB meeting is dishonest. As someone said in another post: the DCP bought into what the community has asked for in its re-zoning recommendations.
--Tom Murphy

Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 4:34 PM

I recently attended my first community board meeting in Sunset Park. I noticed that most of the discussions focused on Greenwood or Windsor Terrace. I also noticed that although Sunset Park is predominantly Hispanic, there are hardly any Hispanic board members and their certainly was not a large Hispanic presence at the meeting. I also noticed that the majority of the board members and people attending are of a much older generation. I felt like Sunset Park got the short end of the stick. The meeting went on for hours and not one major issue facing Sunset was addressed. Safety near Prospect Park was discussed, buildings in Greenwood were discussed and so on, the only reference to Sunset was regarding the liquor license suspension of the 39th street restaurant. The word needs to get out about this meetings so more residents of Sunset can attend and participate.

Posted by: guest at May 22, 2008 9:53 AM