Red Hook is a fused neighborhood of mainly light density residential zones with heavy manufacturing zones. The Red Hook committee covers the on going daily struggles the community faces; from macro problems such as the unemployment rate, to micro problems like the relations between residents and business owners. The Red Hook committee tackles major issues of unemployment, educational achievement, and poverty levels. The community board also handles urban planning, urban design, and historic preservations. In 1994, the Community Board Six proposed a plan to regenerate the community after issues like unemployment and the low average level of academic achievements. The plan proposed was titled “Red Hook: A Plan for Community Regeneration,” it included the housing needs of the community along with a call for improvements in transportation, education, and employment.

During the community meetings, last February, the Red Hook Central School District part of the Board of Education held a regular meeting organized by President Mosher. The meetings main goal was to plan recreation and educational programming needs.

Some of the board members that attended were D. Morrison, R. McCann, J. Moore, along with K. Mosher. There was a sum of five visitors, including myself, who were allowed to question and make statements during the meeting. Some of their concerns addressed the school’s budget and where the school stands. President Mosher included a student member in the meeting who claimed the school raised over a thousand dollars, and that the student council would work towards bigger projects including a blood drive.

The meeting at Mill Road Elementary School, the school’s budget was mainly covered, together with the funds being spent on sport programs. For instance the pay roll of various coaches in the baseball, softball, track, lacrosse, and tennis team.

Also another community meeting occurred, this time at the Cobble Hill Community Meeting Room. The main topic of discussion covered the improvement at the industrial district and the housing issue. There were four people on the committee from the Red Hook district, however only Andrea Devening attended this meeting. Andrea Devening is part of the economic, waterfront, and housing sect. The discussion started with housing, what spaces and lots were available for housing. Then it shifted to “job creation at the Gowanus.”

John Douglas from Pratt Institute showed a presentation that explored the idea of an industrial bid. He went into details about the manufacturing policies around the Bid. The Bid would act like a bridge between the residential and manufacturing districts. The Bid would encourage the growth of the area, boosting the manufacturing causing an economic multiplier, more than retail and other economic engines. Ten percent of jobs come from manufacturing, this is important for job security.

However the push for the Bid is not so straightforward, as there is intense real estate pressure to change the area from manufacturing to residential and housing. Plus the district is a flood prone area; especially after Hurricane Sandy a lot of machinery and expensive equipment were damaged. Overall the meeting ended with a plan to survey if there was interest within the community to form a Bid.

On February 17^th, my group attended the Community Board 6 meeting of their committee for Economic/Waterfront/Community Development and Housing. The Community Board 6 represents Red Hook, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Gowanus, and Park Slope. Although Red Hook represents ten percent of the population of the community, it has twenty percent of representation in the board meeting.   This meeting focused mainly on two different ways of using a lot of the empty or unused lots that are scattered throughout the community. There were two presentations within this meeting both done by two planning fellows: John Douglas and Josh Thompson.

John Douglas’s presentation focused mainly on how the community could expand its manufacturing industry. He began discussing the benefits of manufacturing: specifically how it holds ten percent of the employment in the area, how its wages are double than other industries such as retail and restaurants as well as a huge job source, and how it is a larger economic multiplier.   Douglas suggested the use of a BID as a way to allow this manufacturing industry to flourish within the community. A BID is essentially a committee that is led by business owners and funded by businesses to help promote commercial and industrial districts. Douglas suggested using this bid to “advocate for policies, build stronger social cohesion between manufacturers, improve right of way, public spaces and infrastructure, buy bulk orders, institute energy efficiency projects on the neighborhood scale, and facilitate real estate needs of local businesses.” He then went into the logistics of creating a BID and the processes that the community must go through in order to establish a BID and stressed that this presentation was to see if there was any interest in creating a BID in the first place.

After the presentation was over, the committee members had a many questions concerning the BID and if it was a valid approach to developing the manufacturing industry within the community. Some questioned how would the BID deal with the conflicting interests of business owners and properties owners who might want rezoning. Or even the internal conflicts of non-manufacturing businesses that have different agendas. There was also a problem in the lack of a democratic system, since the more land you had, the more influence you had within the community and how it was run. These are all valid questions in the actual creation of a BID and if the conflict that would arise in the community would outweigh the actual benefits of the committee.

Josh Thompson then presented different opportunities to create additional housing. His presentation really opened my eyes to how under-utilized the area was. Even though there were already tons of areas zoned for residential construction, including 86 percent of lots, 77 percent of these lots were not being used to their maximum floor area ratio. Also, 60 percent of all residential lots have the potential for adding more units. This research is still in its baby steps, however.   There are a lot of limitations to take into consideration like the presence of landmarks, community gardens and playgrounds and shifting through all the data to find the clusters with the highest potential for additional housing.

Ultimately, this community board meeting was very eye opening and shed light on the problems of the community as well as possible solutions.

On Tuesday, February 17^th, my group and I traveled to Cobble Hill to attend a meeting of Community Board 6’s Committee for Economic/Waterfront/Community Development & Housing. Community Board 6 (CB6) represents the neighborhoods of Cobble Hill, Park Slope, Gowanus, Carroll Gardens, and our personal neighborhood of interest, Red Hook. The meeting was enlightening, to be sure – it provided not only a sense of what these neighborhoods are struggling with and how they are addressing local issues, but also a sense of how community-level activism works. In this way, seeing Community Board 6 in action was an informative and rewarding experience.

We were welcomed warmly by two guest speakers who had, like us, arrived early. They were planning fellows working for CB6, and we chatted casually with them while the board members trickled in. It seemed we were the only non-board members in attendance. The board members were a diverse group consisting of many people of different ethnicities, races, ages, and occupations. Much to my delight, there were 6 women on the board. After surveying the 15 people in the room, I buckled down to hear the planning fellows discuss their projects.

First off, one of the planning fellows discussed the feasibility of creating an Industrial Business Improvement District (iBID) within the domain of CB6. According to the NYC BID Association, a BID is a, “formal organization made up of property owners and commercial tenants who are dedicated to promoting business development and improving an area’s quality of life.” They do this by cooperating to provide supplemental services – like public safety and beautification – for the area. An iBID would be particularly beneficial for CB6 because many of the jobs in the vicinity are related to manufacturing: in NYC manufacturing accounts for 10% of all jobs, and this is especially the case around CB6. The planning fellow indicated that an iBID could be an invaluable benefit to the community, as it would do a number of things to improve the local economy and wellbeing of the neighborhoods. It would promote social cohesion between manufacturers, help advocate policies to support manufacturing, encourage the improvement of infrastructure, and help spur energy efficiency projects in the neighborhoods in question. All of these things would be overwhelmingly positive for the social and economic wellbeing of CB6’s communities. According to the planning fellow, the next step towards the establishment of an iBID would be to survey local producers to gauge interest.

The next planning fellow discussed the underutilization of housing around CB6. Specifically, he focused on opportunities for additional housing as-of-right. His statistics indicated that in Gowanus, a neighborhood within CB6, 77% of residential lots are underutilized, which means they are not built to their maximum floor area ratio (FAR). Furthermore, 60% of lots have the potential for additional units. Clearly the efficient usage of this space could do a great deal to alleviate the housing crisis with regards to CB6. The next step towards maximizing utilization would be to identify clusters with the most potential, and to conduct a comprehensive neighborhood evaluation of housing creation potential.

The presentations by these two planning fellows on some of the current developmental challenges facing CB6 were informative and helpful for understanding the locale. With an increased comprehension of the issues at hand, I am confident that my group and I can create a feasible proposal to encourage CB6’s growth.

I attended a community board meeting in Sunset Park on Wednesday, February 18th. Representatives from the offices of the DA, state senator and state assemblymen attended this meeting as well. There were many issues discussed at this meeting such as truck traffic, illegal parking, housing and education. Since part of Sunset Park is located near the Gowanus Bridge, many found that the truck traffic raises noise and safety issues. Also under the bridge boats and larger vehicles park for long periods of time illegally in the nearby lot. Even though these are important issues housing and education seemed to be discussed a bit more in depth. What I found out was that some families were forced to go to the Bronx shelter assignment office because there’s a lack of housing. This surprised me because there were a few vacant houses in the area which could be utilized. Furthermore, no homeless people were visible during any of the visits to Sunset Park. However, I did also recall how many people were there, especially around the commercial area. The community stressed this as a vital issue because they want to keep families from Sunset Park in Sunset Park. The thought of sending them to a different location, especially a different borough is unpleasant and destroys their sense of unity within the community. As a result, families double up because of the limitation of space and partake in illegal partitioning (dividing one’s house to illegally rent out that space). One solution that was thought about was building a shelter in Sunset Park. However, this plan isn’t official yet, mostly due to the fact that there isn’t much land to use for this purpose. A direct effect of overpopulation in the area is that many children are attending schools with crowded classrooms or not attending at all. At the meeting, they mentioned that plans to build another public school was in effect. Even though the construction of the school was approved, there are still many obstacles to overcome such as location, land and safety. The proposed location happens to be one of the more dangerous avenues in the neighborhood therefore causing more issues to arise. But, this school would be for new grade and middle school students and contain about six hundred seats. Overall, this was a fairly successful meeting since many important crises were discussed. Unfortunately, in the end the board committee said that this meeting would not be considered official because there weren’t enough people attending that day therefore meeting minutes were not approved. This actually shocked me. Even though this was the first public meeting I ever attending, I still thought there was a sufficient amount of people (about eighteen). Nonetheless, I found this meeting to be a useful source. It served as a reliable insight on the community. Even though I visited the neighborhood, I did not realize these issues existed since I was unable to actually go into the school I saw or one’s house. This meeting gave me an in depth perception of how families live there.

I attended my community board meeting on February 12th, in a really insanely beautiful building in Crown Heights. The atmosphere was welcoming: at the back was a table full of handbills for future community-related activities and opportunities, and another table with water, fruit, and red-velvet cupcakes. The meeting started with a member of the board going to the podium and announcing that 28 days is not enough, met with jocular agreement by seemingly everyone in the room—which was a very full room, by the way:

The meeting’s first “action item” had to do, broadly, with “housing.” Mostly there was a company interested in turning one of the derelict buildings in the neighborhood into an extension for the hospital facility, adding 280 for the nursing home. This is more or less all that was talked about for the next hour: every member of the community board was concerned about the possible jobs that the facility would bring. When the company in question (whose name I really should have written down) let it be known that they would not be accepting labor contracts from people in the community, there was a veritable outrage. Three of four people stood up and shouted over how that was the problem, that work that could be offered to the community was being sold away to outside labor contractors. The company tried to defend their decision in three parts: first, they bolded that the facility would be provided 150 jobs to the community after construction—150 jobs that would be held for community member—which the head “hoped [they] would be satisfied with”; second, they underscored that, because it was a hospital facility being built, that it was a very specialized and highly regulated form of labor that only certain contracting firms were actually qualified for. The community, not letting up, demanded more, and the company tried to cede on the point of apprenticeship programs: only after the head of the company guaranteed 15 possible apprenticeships would the community let the build pass.

What shocked me about all of this was just how demanding the community board was. Just before the motion was voted on, a man stood up demanding answers about some explosion of sewage at the construction site, which the head of the board refused to take. “We have to finish this up so we can get out of here by nine.” “Can I ask the question or not?” “No. Sit down.” This sort of energy, though, is exactly what I think Crown Heights needs. As someone told me after the meeting, “A lot of people are interested in investing in this community and the old people don’t want to get shafted.” So much so, that when the brief topic of renewing food and liquor licenses was brought up, 2 or 3 people questioned why the renewal was taking place, to which the meeting head responded “because these restaurants have been here for a while.”

The feverish defense the community presents gives me some hope for their work against gentrification, though.

At the Community Board 6 (CB6) meeting (for the town of Red Hook, Brooklyn), a main concern that was discussed was the creation of a business improvement district (BID). Josh Thompson (from Hunter), the CB6 planning fellow, lead the discussion regarding the establishment of a BID (which would include a manufacturing district) and maintenance of an industrial business zone.

There was talk about how people feel like Gowanus has no other place for housing and that is why they may have been resistant to rezoning. Rezoning would reduce the space for residential areas and increase the space for BIDs. According to the statistics given at the meeting, however, 86% of the current lots are residential and 77% of those lots are underutilized.

Intense real estate presures from 2004 to 2012 led to increased valuation of properties used for housing as compared to those used for public services. This increased disposition to developing housing would not be as good for economic development as a speculated BID would. A proposed $1.33 of growth was predicted for every $1.00 invested in the BID.

Another issue brought up was that people with more influence on the establishment of the BID were the ones with more money and who were stakeholders on the board. It was only those people who owned property, not those who necessarily owned the businesses or lived there, who would decide on the fate of the BID. The propery owners would be the ones who were ultimately taxed, and the money would go to funding things like Christmas lights, trashcans, and other public functions.

Should the proposal be approved by the city council, risks would have to be assessed. Red Hook is a flood prone area especially, and in light of Sandy, this poses some challenges for manufacturers because expensive equipment can be compromised.

An issue regarding the development of the BID was the rezoning of the area, since businesses were to be located in the industrial business zone (IBZ), not a residential area. Easing speculation would also help usher in more economic development and move away from the focus on housing usage of the current land.

To resolve this issue, the speaker explained that a survey would be issued soon to assess the area. It would be a questionnaire that would help determine how appropriate it would be to establish a BID here. If prospects were good, board members could meet up and vote. Any vote with a majority support for the BID would then allow for BID planning to start.

One topic I wish they discussed more was the issue of disproportionate representation. Those who own the property are not necessarily the ones commuting to work or living there and should people who actually interact with the area become disgruntled, there may be a problem.

Overall, the BID would improve “public right of way” and help promote local businesses. It would also create a stronger social network for manufacturers and give them more leverage to make policies to support the economic future of their town. Joining together would give them the ability to do things like buy materials in bulk to save money, give broadband access to local businesses, or start energy efficient programs to make the neighborhood more environmentally friendly.

The ULURP committee had a meeting on February 4 with the goal of answering questions about the recent proposal to apply upzoning to most of the area. The meeting was intended to resolve some of the residents’ fears and trepidations about the project, but the whole thing felt more like an episode of Jerry Springer. Amid the more relevant questions of the availability of affordable housing and the survival of small business were angry residents who were too emotional to fully convey their points. One lady went so far as to boo a speaker away from the podium and demand that the committee look each resident in the face before “kicking them out of their homes.”

It’s no secret, then, that there is much hostility about the prospect of high-rises and more expensive rent. The question was brought up over and over of what would be lost by not going through with the upzoning project. One Crown Heights resident, a middle-aged man, made a very good point; he averred that the committee needs to prioritize before upzoning, deciding whether it’s more important to make money or help the community. The committee responded by saying that the promised goal was to preserve the community while making it more financially prospective, but failed to delve into details on how this would be ensured.

As the Crown Heights residents went up to speak, the emphasis on community was apparent. Most speakers told their stories and shared how they wouldn’t be able to afford rent if the project went through. These speakers were supported by the audience, and someone went so far as to plead with the committee that: “we’re a community. I love these people. I don’t want to lose that.”

It seems the biggest concerns lied in the fact that with upzoning comes more expensive buildings. The poorest people would be pushed out and replaced because they can’t afford rent; those who were able to keep their domiciles would face issues with the more expensive market that would inevitably arise. Diversity, some residents argued, would be crushed; the neighborhood would become dominated only by “yuppies” who could afford the new expenses. Where would that leave the rest of the residents? Where would they have left to escape to?

The MTOPP, a neighborhood-born coalition, was present and passed out flyers. These detailed the many ways transit-oriented development in America has failed people in the past, citing San Francisco and Seattle as examples. Though their mission is with a good heart, much of the pamphlet was rife with propaganda and contradictions.

It seems to me that upzoning will, indeed, ruin much of the current community of Crown Heights. However, a louder voice needs to emerge to speak for the neighborhood, one that maintains a clear track of logic and who can represent fully the diverse community there. Until then, it appears that upzoning will most likely continue, and the people will end up displaced – or at least with the constant threat of displacement looming.

MTOPP’s website: http://mtopp.org

Community Board 9: http://www.communitybrd9bklyn.org/committees/