Manhattan Community Board 9 197-a Plan

Testimony last updated December 12, 2007

Testimony to the New York City Council; Subcommittee on Planning, Dispositions & Concessions; Zoning & Franchises

Mercedes Narciso
Senior Planner
Pratt Center for Community Development
December 12, 2007

Chairpersons and Honorable Council Members, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Mercedes Narciso and I am a Senior Planner with the Pratt Center for Community Development, assisting CB9 as the lead planner of the 197-a Plan and review of the ULURP process. I am also a member of the Campaign for Community-Based Planning, an initiative seeking to create a more meaningful role for communities in New York City's planning and decision-making processes.

I am here to support the community's 197-a Plan as the community envisioned it -- that is, integrating new academic facilities into the fabric of a mixed-use neighborhood.

Although we feel profoundly rewarded by the approval of the 197-a Plan by the City Planning Commission, the Commission rejected a number of the Plan's recommendations as applied to the area of Manhattanville that is the subject of Columbia University's rezoning proposal.

Specifically, the City Planning Commission rejected measures:

• proscribing the use of eminent domain and
• establishing an inclusionary housing program to create affordable housing as part of the Special Manhattanville Mixed Use District.

We urge the City Council to correct this serious omission. Passing the 197-a plan without these provisions will not only substantially change the neighborhood without regard to the needs of the community; it also sets a dangerous precedent in which powerful interests can invalidate urban plans created by citizens under the City Charter.

Eminent Domain

The threatened use of eminent domain to obtain property for Columbia University's expansion not only dismisses the existence of other long-established businesses in the area but would subject their property value to Columbia's needs and on Columbia's terms, since the taking by the Empire State Development. Corporation would be granted in stages, according to Columbia's expansion needs. What is the sense in approving a community-based plan whose ultimate beneficiaries are not going to be community residents and businesses but the Columbia University community alone?

Inclusionary Housing

The creation of affordable housing through an inclusionary housing program is needed and should be provided. The Commission disapproved the 197-a Plan's mandatory inclusionary zoning requirement and did not even recommend an existing voluntary program within the proposed Special Manhattanville Mixed Use District. Seeking to maximize the provision of affordable housing units, the existing voluntary program should be used on Subdistrict C (proposed to be rezoned to C6-2, and not owned by Columbia), Other Area Broadway (proposed to be rezoned to R8A with a C1-4 overlay, in which one of the two lots is owned by Columbia) and Special Amsterdam Mixed Use District or Sub-District 3 of the 197-a Plan, which is outside of Columbia's rezoning area.

Residents of this community have invested years of their lives crafting a plan for their future. The City Council must take decisive action to realize the City Charter's promise of a meaningful role for citizens in shaping the future of their communities.

As a planner, I think that the Department of City Planning and the Commission should demonstrate leadership in planning for the future of New York. Granting all power to institutions without questioning or demonstrating that such actions would lead to a balanced growth for New York City is setting a bad precedent. Can the City afford to grant large institutions power to grow without checking whether such growth would negatively affect or be beneficial to New Yorkers? I think not. However, that's what the Commission has done. Rezoning actions or zoning has been placed above planning, thus, the vision and needs of the rezoning applicants supersede the vision and needs of the communities, and that is against the principles of our City Charter.

Thank you.