Submitted by ctnutmegger t3_10mm3pa in nyc
mp0295 t1_j63yipy wrote
> While the terms were seen by some elected officials as reasonable, Councilmember Kristin Richardson Jordan, who represents the area, said she disagreed and the negotiations fell apart, resulting in Teitelbaum warning that if he could not build a high-rise, he’d find some other use for the land, a former gas station. By tradition, councilmembers defer to the wishes of individual lawmakers on building projects in their districts.
What I don't understand is how this lady had a veto. Is it just because she was loud? Why not just ignore her and do it anyways.
ceeyell t1_j63zy9k wrote
In NYC the councilmember for their district has an unusually high amount of sway over local projects like this. It’s the main reason why there’s so much NIMBY bullshit happening in NYC over the past decade+
[deleted] t1_j65gx4r wrote
[removed]
Rottimer t1_j65ob6m wrote
High amount of sway - not complete sway. He would have to jump through more hoops.
RW3Bro t1_j64j3n6 wrote
The ULURP exists because of the damage that Robert Moses’ development did to the city, and he wasn’t solely concerned with profit. You’re off your rocker if you think giving land use powers to developers (whose only incentive is to make profit) or an agency in their pocket would result in anything besides the little people getting crushed by those with access to serious capital.
pton12 t1_j64jlz7 wrote
We don’t want another Moses destroying neighborhoods, but we’ve clearly swung too far in the other direction. We need thousands of housing units and NIMBYism is making it that much harder to correct.
RW3Bro t1_j64l036 wrote
I have absolutely no faith that removing the ULURP and offloading the power to a city agency wouldn’t result in immediate and irreversible regulatory capture.
pton12 t1_j64n3di wrote
I mean, you could just remove the veto and have the whole council just vote on it. I don’t think we need to assign veto power to a regulatory agency.
D14DFF0B t1_j66awt2 wrote
I don't think the council should vote on every project. Set (hopefully liberal) zoning rules and let the market fix the problem.
pton12 t1_j66ces5 wrote
Sure, whatever the mechanism, just remove the local veto.
RW3Bro t1_j64v92y wrote
I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers. A councilperson is obviously only accountable to the people who live in their district. They have zero incentive to care about the will of the people who live outside it.
ngroot t1_j64yrer wrote
> I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers.
If the city council votes on it, they have an incentive to not do something that most people in the city hate.
InfernalTest t1_j64n1zb wrote
not for nothing but if ppl have a home and its value will be impacted negatively by some aspect of development its bullshit to insist that ppl should just accept that situation.
pton12 t1_j64neqe wrote
Sure, and that’s why they have representation and hearings. But we are in a borough/city/state/country together. At some point, we need to think collectively to solve collective problems, and this soft veto just completely messes that up in too many instances.
InfernalTest t1_j64o1jp wrote
well if the people who she represents dont seem to think that way.... and theres no indication that they do
again its kind of hypocritical for people from OUTSIDE of the neighborhood she represents to insist they know better whats good than what she/ community wants and declare its NIMBYISM ....
someone from outside making decisions about infrastructure and saying " too bad this is how it is its for everyones benefit " that is the very epitome of why Robert Moses was a dick....
pton12 t1_j64qf13 wrote
It isn’t though, because in representative democracy, there’s not a perfect reflection of community wishes and how the representative acts. I doubt local people prefer zero affordable housing units to 300.
There’s also a big gulf between Robert Moses running roughshod over everything and this level on NIMBYism. The fact is, as a society, we need things (whether sanitation, affordable housing, etc.) and they need to go somewhere. People often don’t want them nearby, but if everyone gets their wish, the society doesn’t get anything. This isn’t about an individual development, per se, but the idea that a single council member can stop much needed development in this instance or others, the whole city be damned.
InfernalTest t1_j64vrsi wrote
ok but its not like the developer CANT develop somewhere else...so there is a reason he wants to develop there and in order to do so it means a trade ....
and its not NIMBYISM to make a demand for what you want for your neighborhood and the needs of its constituents - just because youd prefer " some" over nothing doesnt mean that that standard is good for the neigborhood she represents ...
Empty_Economist t1_j658ug7 wrote
The whole problem is thinking of homes as things to have value and not commodities that naturally depreciate like your car.
InfernalTest t1_j65h5gf wrote
uhhh a home ISNT a commodity - its supposed to be an asset and increase in value...... - its not supposed to be anything like a car....
Empty_Economist t1_j65hdql wrote
That kind of thinking is literally the problem and why we're in the midst of a housing affordability crisis.
D14DFF0B t1_j66arp3 wrote
Homes are depreciating assets with a shitton of wear items. Land is what tends to appreciate.
oreosfly t1_j63zxq1 wrote
There is no law or policy on the books that gives her a veto. The City Council has a practice called “member deference” where the City Council votes in line with how the affected district’s member votes. Since this project is in KRJ’s district, the Council votes the way she votes. The practice exists solely because of tradition.
Each member of the city council has an effective veto on projects in their district due to this practice. Think of it as a back room deal between Council members - “I won’t mess with your district if you don’t mess with mine’s”.
mp0295 t1_j64ensg wrote
Thank you for the explanation. Seems like a tradition that should be thrown away -- gives individual wackos too much power, especially when most people don't know who their council person is.
TonyzTone t1_j64vvsi wrote
>gives individual wackos too much power
Actually, our elections did that.
Member deference might compound the issue but the tradition exists because the city is very large and each member understands that they might not know what's best for a district across the city. Council districts aren't very large so each member should know their district intimately. And some do.
What might be a huge neighborhood issue might not even register on the city's priority list. That's exactly why having a chief neighborhood advocate in the council is so important.
KRJ just massively fucked up here. I don't quite get her thinking, and yes, it's also rippled into a broader city-wide problem.
Empty_Economist t1_j6594xq wrote
That's an argument for why representative process is important, i.e. give people a chance to voice their concerns, not an argument for why we need to give councilors veto power.
TonyzTone t1_j664883 wrote
It's not veto power. The Council has overruled a member's preference before.
It's an understanding among the CM's that they don't know your district well enough so, they defer to your lead. This happens in any organization all the time. One silo might opine on something but ultimately defer on the silo that knows the issue most intimately.
Needs0471 t1_j64kymn wrote
Fwiw, this case has led the leadership of the council to warn members that member deference isn’t inviolable and that they’ll consider asking the council to ignore local members if they’re being unreasonable. There are reasons that councilmember have found compromises on locally controversial projects in the Bronx and queens since this went down.
Pretty sure the council speaker has basically also sidelined any of KRJ’s legislative priorities.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j64hxrc wrote
>What I don't understand is how this lady had a veto.
As others noted, the member deference influence is very strong.
For instance, in the past 13+ years, only one council member (Ben Kallos, 5th District) has been unable to use his local influence to stop a rezoning project.
Kallos has since left his position and currently works for the Biden Administration, so don't feel too bad for him.
[deleted] t1_j65g01s wrote
[removed]
prisoner_007 t1_j649vyv wrote
She didn’t veto it. It never went to a vote, Teitelbaum pulled out when negotiations broke down before that even happened.
ceeyell t1_j64bngv wrote
Because she vetoed any offer that wasn’t 100% affordable by her own metrics. Her logic seems to be that having zero affordable apartments is better than 900+. And now she gets a truck depot instead.
Rottimer t1_j65p6tx wrote
The thing is - Teitelbaum, if he was serious, should have kept his request in for a vote. He didn’t. If he did, he could point to it, he could make it a campaign issue in the neighborhood. Instead he pulled out and has lost any good will he might have had in community with this stunt.
mp0295 t1_j64efi6 wrote
I meant veto in a more soft-power sense -- I know she didn't veto in a legal sense. Like why not just go to the vote and outvote her.
prisoner_007 t1_j65mtwq wrote
Because the developer dropped out before it ever went to a vote.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments