🍎 citymeetings.nyc #35
The Charter Revision Commission Hearings: Housing, Climate, Government Operations & Elections
A couple of weeks ago the NYC Charter Revision Commission announced an official partnership with citymeetings.nyc.
As of today, you can breezily skim and share Q&A and testimony from all their meetings to-date.
The commission's preliminary report is also out today and NYTimes published an article about the commission and the report this morning.
All NYC Charter Revision Commission meetings will be published within 24 hours going forward.
Today's newsletter is a special edition organizing themes, arguments, and proposals from the Charter Revision Commission hearings with links to testimony.
Note: NYC Council executive budget hearings start next week.
I'll cover them the same way I did preliminary budget hearings: highlighting the impacts of federal budget cuts and policy changes.
What is the Charter Revision Commission and why should I care about it?
For those unfamiliar, the NYC Charter lays out the city's government.
It defines the powers and structures of the Mayor, City Council, Borough Presidents, Community Boards, city agencies, and sets rules for key processes like budgeting, land use, and elections.
There are many ways the charter can change (h/t Daniel Golliher @ Maximum New York), one of which is through a charter revision commission convened by the mayor. That's how this commission started.
The commission holds public hearings to gather input (covered in this newsletter!) and decides which changes, if any, should be put on the ballot for voters.
As you'll read, the changes being discussed aren't abstract: they have real potential to shape life in our city.
The hearings covered significant ground, focusing on housing, land use, government operations, and elections.
I'm skipping the inaugural meeting. Poke around it if you'd like to:
- Get acquainted with the commissioners.
- Watch a presentation on ethics rules that apply to the commissioners
- Watch a presentation on the NYC Charter
As with virtually all-things-citymeetings.nyc, the overview below was AI-drafted over multiple iterations and then reviewed and edited by yours truly.
It distills over 15 hours of hearings across 137 testimonies.
Enjoy,
Vikram
Reforming NYC's Land Use Process (ULURP): Does Local Control Help or Hinder?
Extensive testimony focused on the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the practice of "member deference."
Curbed has an accessible overview of ULURP. Here's a more official explainer on the NYC Planning website
Background + common arguments surrounding land use debates (many of which come up below) can be found in NYU Furman Center's reports on Rezoning Process Reforms and the allocation of power (Who Decides).
"Member deference" is a practice where the City Council often follows the local member's lead on projects. You can read more about it on page 3 of Who Decides.
The key question raised in the hearings: does this system provide necessary local input or does it block needed citywide progress, especially on housing?
- Arguments That ULURP & Deference Hinder Equitable Housing:
- Member deference allows local opposition to block citywide housing needs, hindering progress on affordability and equitable distribution (Goodrich; Annemarie Gray, Open New York; Howard Slatkin, CHPC; Catherine Vaughn, Abundance NY; Moses Gates, RPA).
- The personal cost for Council Members supporting housing can be extreme under the current system (Marjorie Velasquez, Former CM). See also this Instagram reel.
- NYC lags in housing production compared to peer cities, with stark inequities between neighborhoods that build and those that don't (Vicki Been, NYU Law).
- The process is too long and costly, disproportionately harming smaller developers and M/WBEs (Kirk Goodrich, Monadnock Development; Ericka Keller, Brisa Builders; Basha Gerhards, REBNY).
- Member deference was a political compromise, not the original intent of the 1989 charter reforms (Eric Lane, 1989 CRC Exec. Dir.).
- Arguments for Preserving Local Input & Council Authority:
- ULURP and council review empower communities, particularly marginalized ones, and secure local benefits/negotiate better projects (CM Amanda Farias; CM Selvena Brooks-Powers; CM Alexa Aviles).
- Delays often happen pre-certification or post-approval (financing), not during the Council's 50-day review (Farias; Brooks-Powers).
- Community Boards provide essential local knowledge and a venue for public voice (Karl-Henry Cesar, Brooklyn CB14 Chair; Gabriel Turzo, Manhattan CB6 Vice Chair; Hector Robertson, Brooklyn CB9 Mbr; Cliff Hagen, CB3 Mbr/Candidate).
- Weakening oversight could worsen affordability and displacement (Alicia Boyd, Activist; Dena Tasse-Winter, Village Preservation; Theresa Westerdahl; Roxanne Delgado).
- ULURP/deference provides leverage for labor standards (Robert Tiburzi, Laborers Local 79; Denis Ibric, Carpenters Dist. Council; Sarah Penenberg, SEIU 32BJ).
- Zoning is law, and final authority over lawmaking should remain with the elected legislative body, the Council (Ben Weinberg, Citizens Union).
- Specific ULURP Reform Ideas: A variety of potential charter changes were proposed:
- Fast-track approvals for affordable or fair housing projects (Annemarie Gray, Open New York; Ericka Keller, Brisa Builders; John Woelfling, Architect; David Gordon).
- End Council review earlier or add overrides/appeals (Howard Slatkin, CHPC; Sean Campion, CBC; Michelle de la Uz, Fifth Ave Committee; Brendan Cheney, NYHC
- Default approval unless a 3/4 Council supermajority votes no during a housing emergency (Byrd; Golliher, Maximum New York)
- Consolidate CB/BP reviews (Campion; Gray, Open NY; Cheney; de la Uz; Keri Butler, MAS; Vishnu Reddy; Michael Kaess).
- Strengthen the Borough President role (Prof. Mitchell Moss, NYU; BP Reynoso Q&A).
- Use environmental impact thresholds (Basha Gerhards, REBNY).
- Add pre-certification deadlines (Woelfling; Byrd).
- Reform Community Board appointments/structure (Vaughn; Jay Sorid).
- Improve, rather than replace ULURP, through assessment (Rod Herbert).
Establishing a Framework: Comprehensive Planning & Fair Share
Many testifiers argued that fixing the project-by-project review process isn't enough; the city needs a more proactive, integrated planning framework.
- The Case for Comprehensive Planning: Proponents argued a legally required, citywide plan integrating housing, infrastructure (transit, schools, sewers, climate resilience), and equity goals is essential for predictable, equitable growth.
- Enforcement & Fair Share: A major challenge discussed was how to ensure such plans are followed and lead to equitable outcomes (Fair Share). Ideas included mandating district-level targets with enforcement mechanisms (Williams Q&A), strengthening existing Fair Share rules (Justin Wood, NYLPI), or giving teeth to the Council's Fair Housing Framework (Williams; Craig Gurian, Anti-Discrimination Center; Britny McKenzie, FHJC).
Specific Housing Policies & Strategies
Beyond process, testifiers offered policy ideas aimed directly at housing supply and affordability:
- New Supply Approaches:
- Architect Vishaan Chakrabarti (PAU) suggested zoning changes to enable more cost-effective low/mid-rise construction. (See his NYTimes essay on the topic.)
- Former CM Benjamin Kallos proposed a vacancy tax, converting shelter funds to purchase housing, and changing unit counts to incentivize family housing.
- HPD (Commissioner Carrión Q&A) emphasized leveraging city-owned land.
- Prof. Moss (NYU) suggested building code reforms (windows, ovens) could lower construction costs.
- Defining Affordability:
- Speakers argued "affordable" often isn't truly affordable for lowest-income New Yorkers (Alicia Boyd, Activist; Shanequa Charles, Miss Abbie's Kids).
- Ideas included using local census block income instead of AMI (Kallos) and focusing on deeply affordable supportive housing (Pascale Leone, SHNNY; Hadaryah Morgan, CUCS).
- Preservation Concerns:
- Some testifiers argued against sacrificing existing affordable units for new development (Simeon Bankoff, Roberta Gratz, Campaign for a Livable City).
- Proposed mechanisms like 1-to-1 replacement requirements for demolished units (Bankoff; Kallos).
- Supported preservation tools like adaptive reuse (Frampton Tolbert, HDC).
Adapting to Climate Change: Infrastructure, Resiliency & Process Reform
The Staten Island hearing particularly highlighted the intersection of charter rules and climate adaptation needs.
- Barriers to Climate Infrastructure:
- City agencies and advocates outlined how current processes hinder deployment of needed climate infrastructure.
- ULURP requirements complicate projects involving property acquisition, street grade changes for flood protection, waterfront access improvements, and solar installations on city property (Elijah Hutchinson, MOCEJ).
- Complex franchise and revocable consent processes create obstacles for deploying innovative infrastructure like curbside EV charging (Tiya Gordon, It's Electric).
- Expanding community solar access, crucial for renters and low-income residents, is hindered by lack of space and complex processes for using city assets (Steve Levin, Solar One).
- Proposed Charter Soluions:
- Streamline ULURP for specific climate-related actions (small property acquisition, street grade changes, etc.) (Hutchinson).
- Reform franchise/consent processes to support climate/social justice projects (Gordon).
- Make it easier for the city to partner with entities like NYPA for public renewable projects (Levin).
Improving Government Operations: Contracts, Budgets & Ethics
Testimony at the government reform hearings surfaced significant concerns about how the city manages its core operations:
- Failures in Nonprofit Contracting: A major focus was the city's persistent delays in registering contracts and paying nonprofit human service providers.
- Nonprofit leaders described severe financial strain and operational hurdles (Michelle Jackson, HSC; Lauren Siciliano, Legal Aid Society; Frederick Shack, Urban Pathways; Pascale Leone, SHNNY).
- CM Julie Won highlighted flaws in the PASSPort system.
- Charter reform ideas included mandatory payment timelines, interest penalties, elevating MOCS authority (IBO/Louisa Chafee also supports), and standardizing processes.
- A proposal sought mandated funding based on a "true cost of living" wage (Jennifer Geiling).
- Budget & Fiscal Oversight Concerns:
- Recommendations included strengthening rainy day fund rules and improving budget estimate accuracy (Andrew Rein, CBC).
- Calls to define budget Units of Appropriation (UAs) better for transparency and ensure budget independence for oversight agencies (IBO/Louisa Chafee; CM Gale Brewer).
- Ethics & Accountability Proposals:
- Ideas included strengthening the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) via independent funding (Ben Weinberg, Citizens Union).
- Creating an independent ethics commission merging COIB and lobbying oversight (Rachael Fauss, Reinvent Albany).
- Developing a charter-based process for mayoral removal for misconduct (Fauss; Weinberg).
Changing How NYC Votes: Open Primaries & Even-Year Election Timing
Electoral reform generated significant public testimony, particularly around primary access.
- Opening the Primaries: Numerous speakers argued NYC's closed primary system disenfranchises over a million independent voters and contributes to low turnout and polarization. They urged the CRC to put open or nonpartisan primaries on the ballot.
- Groups Supporting: Ben Weinberg, Citizens Union; Susan Lerner, Common Cause NY; Maria Danzillo, One City Rising; Melanie Wesslock, One City Rising; Jeremy Gruber, Open Primaries; Alex Hackworth, Unite New York; Richard Fox, Unite New York; John Ketchum, Manhattan Institute.
- Independent Voters/Public Members Advocating: Bernard O'Brien; Richard Ronner; Jeffrey Aron; Alan Cox; Marianne Birch; Danny Batista; Julia Ricci; Rev. Conrad Tillard.
- Election Timing: Moving city elections to even years to increase turnout was advocated, though the constitutional barrier and counterarguments were acknowledged.
- Proponents: Weinberg, Citizens Union; Ketchum, Manhattan Institute.
- Concerns Raised: Michael Schnall.
Reforming Police Accountability: Empowering the CCRB
Another focus emerged on the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and its effectiveness.
- The Central Argument: The current system lacks teeth because the Police Commissioner can override CCRB findings.
- Key Advocates: DeRay Mckesson, Campaign Zero; Cassandra Ippaso, Campaign Zero; Hassan Naveed.
- Data presented showed low rates of NYPD discipline following CCRB complaints (Abdul Nasser Rad, Campaign Zero).
- Proposed Charter Fixes: Granting the CCRB final, binding disciplinary authority was the primary recommendation, along with ensuring board independence and direct data access. (Ippaso).
Thanks for reading!
Comments, questions, or feedback? Reply to this email or shoot me a note at vikram@citymeetings.nyc