MSCC, Sharon Jasprizza, Event Date: December 3, 2024, @ 9:30 am on ZOOM.US
SUMMARY
- Paul Graziano, Save 1 Family NY: Paul opposes the “City of Yes” plan in New York City, which he believes primarily benefits developers rather than the communities it claims to help. He is part of a coalition of over 200 organizations that argue that the plan, set for a vote soon, will lead to negative consequences for neighborhoods, particularly affecting affordability and stability
- Rose Roach, National Coordinator for the Labor Campaign for Single Payer and Chair of Healthcare for All Minnesota: Healthcare should not be a bargaining chip in negotiations, suggesting that unions need to shift their focus from negotiating healthcare benefits to advocating for universal healthcare solutions
- Samuel Turvey, the chairperson of Rethink NYC and Coordinator of the Empire Station Coalition: Provided an update on significant projects surrounding Penn Station, which collectively represent up to $50 billion in federal spending. The four major initiatives:
-
- Gateway Tunnels: Two new tunnels under the Hudson River are intended to provide redundancy for the aging 1910 tunnels and support future capacity increases
- Penn Expansion: This involves the controversial proposal to demolish parts of the neighborhood south of Penn Station to build a new New Jersey Transit station, which Turvey referred to as an unnecessary expansion
- Penn Reconstruction: Aiming to create a modernized station that befits the region, this project has been criticized for its reliance on a development plan that could demolish significant portions of the surrounding area
- General Project Plan: This plan suggests enhanced zoning for real estate development, allowing for the extensive demolition of buildings around Penn Station, which has faced pushback from community advocates
CHAIR: John Mudd, MSCC
SECRETARY AND MINUTES: Sharon Jasprizza, MSCC
POLICY MEETING UPDATES
There were no updates for the 8:30 AM Homeless and Housing Policy
NOVEMBER HIGHLIGHTS
- Exciting news! MSCC extends a heartfelt thanks to the West Side Community Fund for the generous spring funding received earlier this year to feed people without access to fresh food. We finalized and submitted our final report on November 21, 2024! Together, we’re making a difference!
- More Exciting news! MSCC has secured fall funding from the West Side Community Fund to expand the MSCC Urban Farm Program in early 2025! Together, we’re growing a greener future for our community!
THE CITY OF YES IS MISLEADING
Paul Graziano, Save 1 Family NY, paulgraziano2013@gmail.com
- Paul opposes the “City of Yes” plan in New York City, which he believes is primarily beneficial to developers rather than the communities it claims to help. He is part of a coalition of over 200 organizations that argue that the plan, set for a vote soon, will lead to negative consequences for neighborhoods, particularly affecting affordability and stability. Graziano criticizes the mayor and city council members for making misleading claims about the plan’s potential benefits, including an assertion that it will promote racial harmony by allowing Black people to move into predominantly white neighborhoods. He emphasizes that the communities impacted, particularly in southeast Queens, largely oppose the plan
- Argues that the real issue facing New York City is not a housing crisis but an affordability crisis, stating that there is ample housing available, but it is not affordable for many residents. Graziano expresses concerns that the plan will exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them and indicates that legal action is being considered if the plan passes. He highlights the misconception that building more housing will resolve affordability issues, asserting that the city has seen a decline in population, which complicates the narrative of a housing crisis.
- Addresses the complexities of housing and population dynamics, emphasizing that people’s decisions to move are influenced by various personal reasons, such as marriage, job changes, and retirement, rather than solely by housing affordability. He notes that despite the construction of 800,000 additional housing units since 1960 and the recent approval of 150,000 more units, rents have not decreased, indicating that the issue is not merely a lack of housing supply. Graziano argues that landlords who control rental prices are a significant factor in the ongoing high rents, which persist regardless of the number of new units built
- Contrasts his situation with cities that have undergone significant zoning changes, highlighting that many of these cities were predominantly single-family zoned, unlike his area, which is primarily multifamily zoned. Graziano expresses concern that current policies may lead to unregulated development, referencing a past initiative from the Giuliani administration that was similarly criticized and ultimately rejected. He conveys skepticism towards the effectiveness of the proposed solutions in addressing the underlying issues of housing affordability and availability
- Discusses the complexities of housing movement and the factors that affect rent prices. He notes that while there has been significant growth in housing units since 1960, with 800,000 additional units and 150,000 already permitted for 2028, rents have not decreased. Graziano emphasizes that the issue is not purely about housing supply but rather about landlord control over rental prices. He points out that even with continued development, rents have remained stable across various cities, citing Minneapolis as an example where rent decreased only slightly after significant zoning changes
- Concerned about the current zoning structure, which is already 75% multifamily, and warns against deregulation in development. He references a historical initiative from the Giuliani administration that faced public backlash for prioritizing developers over community needs, suggesting that current proposals may similarly benefit developers at the expense of local residents. He concludes by asserting that the ongoing changes could have disastrous consequences for communities throughout the city
- Discusses the impact of rezoning and gentrification in New York City’s communities, particularly emphasizing that the narrative linking opposition to development with white racist communities is misleading. He highlights that many of those opposed to gentrification are from diverse neighborhoods in Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Graziano points out that areas that have undergone upzoning in the last two decades have experienced significant gentrification, leading to the displacement of long-time residents as luxury developments replace affordable housing
- Long Island City can be used a case study while noting a drastic increase in rent and income levels while questioning the morality of displacing existing residents for the benefit of newcomers. Graziano emphasizes that previous zoning regulations aimed to keep housing affordable for first-time buyers and that current policies are reversing those efforts, making homes less accessible. He argues that the changes encourage the redevelopment of homes for luxury housing rather than supporting homeownership, which is particularly vital in boroughs like Queens and Staten Island
- Discusses the implications of certain development strategies, emphasizing that they do not support homeownership. Instead, they promote the construction of luxury rental units. He warns that increasing buildable square footage can lead to a rise in the speculative value of properties, which could further exacerbate the issue of affordability and accessibility in housing
DISCUSSION
- Paul Graziano expressed the importance of coalition-building among various groups, including tenants, social and environmental justice organizations, and homeowners. He emphasized that they are all in the same struggle against an administration that aims to create divisions among people
- John Mudd inquired about their communication with tenant groups and housing conservation coordinators in Manhattan, to which Graziano responded that they primarily collaborate with the Met Council on Housing, a network of numerous organizations. John Mudd highlighted ongoing issues related to NYCHA, upzoning, and developments around Penn Station, stating that they’ve been fighting these issues for about four years.
- Luana Green asked about the timing of an upcoming vote, which Graziano indicated would occur around 11:30 AM on Thursday. Green expressed concern about the overwhelming support for the “City of Yes” plan among elected officials and organizations that typically advocate for the homeless, noting the potential displacement risks highlighted by past developments in areas like Soho and Tribeca
- Paul Graziano clarified that he does not serve on the Met Council but considers it a coalition partner
- Luana Green questioned how they could assist NYCHA residents in preventing displacement
- Paul Graziano mentioned plans to file an Article 78 proceeding against the proposed developments. He strongly criticized the environmental impact statements associated with a current proposal, describing them as “a piece of garbage” after 27 years of professional experience in the field. He announced plans to take legal action, stating that the basis of the proposal is fundamentally flawed due to inaccuracies in the environmental impact statement. Fundraising efforts for the legal challenge would begin soon, with expectations to raise several hundred thousand dollars through a GoFundMe campaign. He expressed a willingness to collaborate with other organizations and individuals interested in joining the lawsuit, emphasizing that the issue affects the entire community, not just specific groups. He pointed out recent changes made by the City Planning Commission, including a decision against allowing campus infill on NYCHA properties, while highlighting ongoing intentions to privatize and redevelop NYCHA. He also mentioned the “green fast track” initiative, which he criticized for eliminating environmental reviews for small development projects—defined as those with fewer than 175 units. He expressed concern that this move undermines necessary checks and balances in the development process, framing it as a misguided effort to promote housing at the expense of environmental considerations
- Paul Graziano emphasized the diverse coalition of community members from various neighborhoods and backgrounds who are uniting against a significant issue that threatens their communities. He mentioned that they are currently in the process of finalizing a legal team, which will likely include well-known experts experienced in challenging city policies
- John Mudd inquired about the legal team
- Paul Graziano refrained from naming specific individuals until everything is confirmed, but assured that they would be recognizable figures in the field.
- Alex Yong from the Westside Neighborhood Alliance expressed interest in collaborating and mentioned an upcoming meeting on Thursday. He highlighted the involvement of various coalitions, including tenant organizing groups and housing justice initiatives
- Paul Graziano acknowledged the importance of connecting with these groups and stressed the uniqueness of Article 78 proceedings, indicating the need for careful preparation and expertise for their legal challenges. Paul emphasized the importance of identifying and invalidating certain bills, expressing his concerns about their validity and potential negative impacts
- Alex Yong from the Westside Neighborhood Alliance brought attention to a specific bill, S. 925, and its Assembly counterpart, A. 4933, which he criticized as “nefarious” for being developer-friendly and attempting to circumvent environmental reviews. He described the bill as promoting “sustainable, affordable housing,” which he and Graziano called “greenwashing.”
- Paul Graziano provided details about the bill and its sponsors, noting that it limits environmental review requirements for new residential units, which he questioned how it would effectively address housing sprawl
- Alex Yong from the Westside Neighborhood Alliance expressed surprise at the involvement of certain co-sponsors, including Anna Kellis, while also acknowledging the situation’s complexity due to ongoing legal matters related to Article 78
- John Mudd, expressed concern about the devaluation of green spaces, emphasizing their importance for community well-being. He likens the situation to living “like rats in a maze.”
- Paul Graziano, highlighted the significance of maintaining single and two-family zoning, which includes side, rear, and front yards that are essential not only for aesthetics but also for water absorption. He discusses the unique geological and hydrological challenges faced in areas like Queens and Brooklyn, noting rising water tables and increased flooding incidents in his own home. In the past five years, his house has flooded multiple times, a significant change from the past. Graziano criticizes proposals to reduce yard sizes and increase impermeable surfaces, arguing that these changes would exacerbate flooding issues and undermine necessary green spaces. He points out the outdated infrastructure in many neighborhoods, particularly in areas like Rosedale, Queens, which experience significant flooding even on clear days. Graziano stresses the importance of maintaining green areas for water management amidst aging infrastructure challenges
- Paul Graziano expresses concern about the development in the community that dates back to 1963, noting that it has taken 60 years for the infrastructure to catch up. He criticizes the new plan that would significantly increase density, pointing out that official statements claim there will be no impact on city waters, sewers, neighborhood character, or socioeconomic conditions, despite the plan’s potential consequences. Paul references a recent technical memo indicating that modifications made by the City Council will not affect the environmental impact statement. He also questions the credibility of a promised $5 billion funding, stating it is not securely locked and can be easily removed from the budget.
- John Mudd expresses amazement at the City Council’s lack of thorough examination of the infrastructure during the hearings, suggesting that the rush to implement the plan lacks careful consideration. He describes the situation as a “money grab” and a “land grab.”
- Leonard Polletta seeks clarification on the current opposition within the City Council regarding the proposal. He inquires about whether any council members opposed to the plan will join a potential lawsuit.
- Paul Graziano confirms that many council members are opposed to the plan and anticipates a close vote. He mentions that at least 9 to 10 council members, along with assembly members and state senators, are interested in joining the lawsuit against the proposal. Paul stresses the importance of a broad coalition of elected officials and community organizations in the lawsuit.
- Leonard Polletta raises a question about the impact of term limits, suggesting that they may contribute to a City Council that lacks the necessary experience or knowledge to navigate these complex issues
- Paul Graziano expressed concerns about the lack of accountability among elected officials, specifically mentioning Adrienne Adams, Rafael Salamanca, and Brennan, who are all pursuing new positions due to term limits. He argued that this creates a situation where officials prioritize their next jobs over the responsibilities to their constituents, as they know they won’t be held accountable after their terms end. Graziano criticized the idea that term limits would improve accountability, stating that it often results in officials treating their roles as mere jobs rather than as public service
- Leonard Polletta agreed with Graziano’s points, emphasizing the need for accountability in public service
- John Mudd suggested they might need to reconvene after the upcoming vote to strategize on development issues, indicating a willingness to continue the conversation and collaborate effectively. He also mentioned the need to set up a GoFundMe page and promised to keep everyone informed, emphasizing open communication
LABOR CAMPAIGN FOR SINGLE-PAYER
Rose Roach, National Coordinator for the Labor Campaign for Single Payer and Chair of Healthcare for All Minnesota
- Highlights the intersection of labor rights and healthcare justice. Drawing on her 34 years of experience in the labor movement, Roach emphasized her commitment to transforming the current fragmented healthcare system into one that prioritizes patients and providers
- Expressed gratitude for the opportunity to speak and acknowledged the interconnectedness of social and economic justice efforts with the healthcare justice movement. The social determinants of health significantly influence health outcomes, framing health as a critical issue of intersectionality within broader justice movements.
- The mission of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer seeks to integrate more unions into the healthcare justice movement, positioning it as a natural fit for labor to engage with. Pete Buttigieg during the electoral campaign, highlighted the potential of Medicare for All to enhance workers’ bargaining power and benefit the labor movement as a whole.
- The critical challenges unions and workers face in the current healthcare landscape, particularly regarding employer-based insurance systems, include unions’ role in protecting workers from healthcare costs. Yet, this protection comes at a cost, often resulting in wage stagnation and compromising other employment conditions.
And includes the unsustainable nature of the current system, where employees encounter rising costs due to copays, deductibles, and narrow provider networks
- Healthcare should not be a bargaining chip in negotiations, suggesting that unions need to shift their focus from negotiating healthcare benefits to advocating for universal healthcare solutions. It is important to address racial disparities in healthcare and link the fight against systemic racism to labor movements and the broader struggle for equitable healthcare access
- The Labor Campaign for Single Payer supports the need for incremental public health infrastructure reforms to achieve Medicare for All. She proposes evaluating these reforms based on their ability to strengthen social insurance models and decommodify healthcare
- Health should be viewed as a public good rather than a consumable product influenced by market dynamics. She critiques the notion that healthcare operates under traditional supply and demand principles, highlighting the unpredictability of health crises like heart attacks, which cannot be negotiated or discounted like other goods. Roach questions whether current healthcare policies move society closer to a Medicare-for-all system or reinforce the existing medical industrial complex
- Significant advantages of a Medicare-for-all system include eliminating the need to negotiate healthcare access, enhancing bargaining power, and addressing wage stagnation. Roach points out that the current privatization of healthcare is detrimental to both patients and providers, leading to increased inequality. The Labor Campaign is focusing on education to help workers understand the economic sacrifices made in negotiating healthcare benefits
- The complexities unions face regarding Medicare Advantage plans, which are different from traditional Medicare, may not serve retirees’ best interests. She calls for unity across political lines to protect public health and advocates for a collective effort to combat the privatization of Medicare and other public health programs
- The detrimental impacts of Medicare Advantage Plans are on patients, providers, and the Medicare Fund itself. She highlights a resolution passed by the Washington, Maine, and Minnesota State AFL-CIO federations, which frames the privatization of Medicare as a threat that could hand the program over to Wall Street. Roach emphasizes the historical role of labor and the civil rights movement in establishing Medicare and Medicaid, advocating for a reevaluation of labor’s stance on privatization
- There is a need for education and awareness regarding the fraud associated with overpayments to Medicare Advantage Plans and the necessity to utilize these funds to protect and enhance traditional Medicare. She stresses that a unified effort among unions and labor councils is essential to foster discussions on the implications of Medicare privatization
- A future where the labor movement is actively involved in shaping healthcare reforms, so that the current healthcare spending is redirected to create a humane system that benefits all working people. She advocates for Medicare for All, asserting that it would remove healthcare costs from negotiations, allowing labor to focus on improving wages and working conditions
- There are fears surrounding the transition to a single-payer system. The narrative pushed by opponents underscores the urgency of changing the perception of healthcare from a negotiable benefit to a fundamental necessity
- The importance of building a robust, people-centered campaign for Medicare for All, is a collective act of solidarity. Drawing an analogy from the movie “A Bug’s Life,” she highlighted the potential power of grassroots movements, stating that if the “puny little ants” (the people) unite, they can challenge the status quo and disrupt oppressive systems. Rose declared that Medicare for All represents a significant shift towards equity in healthcare, encapsulating the essence of solidarity
DIISCUSSION
- John Mudd acknowledged Rose’s insights and inquired about her connections within the healthcare advocacy community
- Leonard Polletta asked about her contacts in Connecticut
- Rose Roach shared that her primary connection is Sheldon Taubman, an attorney involved in Medicaid de-privatization efforts. She expressed a desire to connect with others in the labor movement in Connecticut. She underscored the necessity of focusing on de-privatizing public health programs as a critical step forward in their advocacy work, particularly in Minnesota
- Leonard Polletta expressed enthusiasm for a presentation on healthcare activism, emphasizing its relevance to various activist groups in Connecticut
- Rose Roach shared her perspective on the challenges posed by Medicare Advantage plans, noting that over 50% of retirees are enrolled in these plans, often due to lack of awareness about their negative impact on Medicare. She advocated for a strategy to educate labor unions about the benefits of traditional Medicare and to encourage resolutions against Medicare Advantage at state federations
- Leonard Polletta suggested that Rose’s presentation would be significant for the Central Labor Council, and he inquired if she had presented there before
- Rose Roach acknowledged she had not but recognized the importance of addressing the issues without getting involved in internal union conflicts in New York. She expressed a desire to collaborate on strategies to ensure labor’s involvement in healthcare bill discussions, emphasizing that labor can play a crucial role in advancing single-payer healthcare initiatives
- Miriam Fisher shared her experience with Medicare Advantage in New Jersey, noting that she was switched without being informed of her options. After consulting colleagues, she was able to revert to Original Medicare. Recently, she discovered that her premiums have significantly increased while her Social Security benefits decreased, leaving her confused and seeking clarification on new regulations
- Rose Roach expressed uncertainty about the specific regulations Miriam mentioned but acknowledged that she, too, experienced rising Medicare premiums and a minimal increase in Social Security benefits. She explained that the increase in Medicare premiums often offsets Social Security gains. Rose expressed concerns about the potential privatization of Medicare under future administrations, citing Dr. Oz’s intentions to push people into Medicare Advantage plans, and emphasized the need for vigilance against these changes to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits
THROUGH-RUNNING
Samuel Turvey, the chairperson of Rethink NYC and Coordinator of the Empire Station Coalition. https://midtownsouthcc.org/blogs/sam-turvey-rethinknyc-penn-station/
- Sam provided an update on significant projects surrounding Penn Station, which collectively represent up to $50 billion in federal spending. The four major initiatives:
- Gateway Tunnels: Two new tunnels under the Hudson River are intended to provide redundancy for the aging 1910 tunnels and support future capacity increases
- Penn Expansion: This involves the controversial proposal to demolish parts of the neighborhood south of Penn Station to build a new New Jersey Transit station, which Turvey referred to as an unnecessary expansion
- Penn Reconstruction: Aiming to create a modernized station that befits the region, this project has been criticized for its reliance on a development plan that could demolish significant portions of the surrounding area
- General Project Plan: This plan suggests enhanced zoning for real estate development, allowing for the extensive demolition of buildings around Penn Station, which has faced pushback from community advocates
- Turvey noted that while there is community support for the Gateway Tunnels, there is strong opposition to the Penn Expansion, notably as recent railroad outreach has failed to address community concerns about the necessity of expanding southward. He argued that the capacity increase could be achieved through modern operational standards within the existing station. Despite the challenges the railroads’ plans posed, Turvey emphasized his commitment to ongoing advocacy against the expansion and for alternative solutions
- Despite years of planning and substantial financial investment, the authorities have struggled to develop a viable plan to achieve the target of 48 trains per hour. Turvey expressed skepticism regarding the feasibility of this target, noting a history of shifting estimates—from initial claims of 42 trains to more recent figures of 38 and 40 trains per hour. He criticized the formation of a station working advisory group, dubbed “SWAG,” for its seemingly trivial name in light of serious housing displacement issues.
- Turvey highlighted concerns regarding the Gateway program and its implications for properties owned by Vornado, particularly about preservation efforts for historical buildings like the Gimbels building and the Gimbel Skybridge. He anticipated that plans would likely incorporate mixed-use developments with minimal affordable housing
- He also addressed the looming reconstruction of Penn Station, mentioning that the involved railroads intend to go through the environmental impact process for the station’s expansion. However, he doubted the government’s initial plans, which proposed improvements that looked better on paper than in reality, especially given the potential overshadowing effects of new high-rise buildings surrounding the station
- The ongoing plans and proposals for the reconstruction of Penn Station highlight the variety of approaches being considered. There are several architectural proposals, including one by Alex Washburn that suggests building a park over much of Penn Station, and a modernist design by the firm Astm, led by Vashant Chakrabarty. Turvey notes that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has also introduced a separate plan
- The current state of the project reveals that there are five different plans under consideration. He refers to a recent statement by the Governor, who expressed a desire for a Penn Station that rivals the quality of the Moynihan Train Hall and encouraged competition among firms to create a “world-class masterpiece.” However, he contrasts this optimism with a grim update from the railroads, which indicated that they have underestimated costs and will need to scale back their plans significantly. This includes abandoning specific improvements such as the mid-block train hall and a pathway to Herald Square
- There is uncertainty regarding the project’s future, especially in light of conflicting announcements about funding and planning. There may be a more favorable outcome for the project with the current political climate
- The several architectural proposals, including those from Alex Washburn and the MTA, highlight the competition for creating an improved station. Turvey notes a recent statement from the Governor, who desires a “beautiful” Penn Station akin to the Moynihan Station and emphasizes the need for competitive input from various firms
- Concerned about the current state of funding and planning, citing a recent meeting where railroad representatives indicated a scaling back of initiatives due to underestimated costs. This has led to fears that essential improvements, such as a mid-block train hall and a pathway to Herald Square, may not be realized
- There is skepticism about the influence of political leadership on the project, speculating that the reconstruction might fare better under former President Trump than under President Biden, particularly due to Trump’s connections with key stakeholders. He calls for a more effective process to advance the reconstruction efforts, inviting further discussion and engagement with the proposed plans, along with a push for momentum to overcome the current challenges facing Penn Station.
Ttechnocrats pose challenges in the context of transportation planning, particularly regarding the railroads. He argues that these technocrats should not be in policymaking roles, as they often frame issues as purely technological rather than considering broader impacts on communities and the environment. Turvey highlights a recent proposal by the railroads to exclude the reconstruction process from environmental reviews, which he views as an aggressive and undemocratic move that eliminates public input and legal recourse. He contrasts this with the positive outcomes of a more inclusive public process, as seen in the Port Authority Bus Terminal project, which integrated community feedback and resulted in a more comprehensive development plan
- There is skepticism about the claims of cooperation among different rail entities, likening the situation to a couple claiming to have a great marriage while simultaneously pursuing a separation. He criticizes the disproportionate influence of Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor Commission, arguing that it undermines democratic representation and decision-making in rail service management
- There is the necessity for a singular, accountable leadership figure in transportation management, and Andy Byford, a respected figure with extensive experience in urban transit systems, is a potential leader who could navigate these complexities effectively
- There are concerns about the integrity of independent reviews conducted by firms involved in the project, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. He insists that a genuine independent review would favor a more efficient and community-focused approach to rail service, such as the “through running” concept, without requiring the demolition of key infrastructure
- The “through running” concept in New York City is seen in other major cities worldwide. He argues that the existing infrastructure at Penn Station already supports such a system, allowing trains to operate more efficiently without backtracking, which would benefit underserved areas like Newark and Yonkers while enhancing overall transit connectivity. Turvey desires an independent review of transit plans, criticizing current proposals prioritizing real estate development over effective transit solutions. He references a past promise from the Governor for an open competition among architects and engineers to design a new vision for Penn Station, noting that this commitment has since been neglected. He critiques the limited proposals presented thus far, emphasizing the need for a more innovative and aesthetically pleasing design that honors the legacy of the original Penn Station
- Alex Washburn’s proposal for a smaller station near 7th Avenue would include a park nearly the size of Bryant Park. Turvey appreciates the idea of a translucent reflecting pond designed to allow natural light to reach the station’s track level, acknowledging the cleverness of the concept while noting the area’s lack of green space. He mentions a recent rendering by Rethink, which presents three designs based on the potential fate of Madison Square Garden and 2 Penn Plaza
- There is a need for effective governance and accountability in the Penn Station project, stressing the importance of public and community input. He criticizes the lack of diverse voices on the project committee, pointing out that many stakeholders, including architects and community organizations, were excluded. He believes this exclusion undermines genuine community engagement, asserting that public review processes should not allow for selective input. Turvey concludes by referencing John F. Kennedy’s belief in civility and sincerity, questioning whether the current efforts are genuine or superficial
DISCUSSION
- Luana Green expresses her sorrow over the loss of the Penn Hotel, questioning whether the architect’s renderings presented affect the 780 block or are limited to the area around Madison Square Garden
- Sam Turvey clarifies that the renderings are confined to two blocks, emphasizing that their plan is non-demolition and does not intend to remove existing structures unless the community decides otherwise. He mentions past proposals for a park where a parking garage currently exists but states that he is not currently advocating for demolition
- Luana Green asks about Madison Square Gardens’ connection to the transit plans for Penn Station
- Sam Turvey explains that some improvements are being made to access points and infrastructure around the Garden. However, he expresses skepticism about the overall quality of the plans, suggesting they are merely an improvement over the existing conditions but still lack greatness
- Luana Green concludes by asking how they can support Turvey and his team in being heard in the planning process
- Sam Turvey affirms he is in contact with the relevant parties and acknowledges the importance of being included in discussions, although he feels adequately busy with other commitments. He reflects on the disconnect between the optimistic statements from officials and the reality of the plans being discussed. Sam expresses enthusiasm for enhancing the transit system, advocating for more visibility and attention, specifically on platforms like *60 Minutes*. He highlights the strong performance of grassroots organizations despite challenges and criticizes the lack of responsiveness from key decision-makers, including Schumer. Turvey points out that existing train routes could be better utilized and emphasizes the need for innovative thinking about the transit systems, mentioning the impressive transit in London as a benchmark. He reiterates his desire for increased media coverage to raise awareness about these issues
- Luana Green supports Turvey’s initiative and suggests organizing a letter-writing campaign to further the cause
- Harvey Montague, AIA: commends Turvey for his insightful summary and passion for the project but expresses concern about the current administration’s funding and leadership regarding transit issues. He notes recent safety concerns with existing tunnels and calls for more substantial solutions, criticizing the state and Amtrak executives’ lack of strong leadership. Montague mentions that while discussions are happening, effective action remains lacking. Harvey expressed deep concerns regarding the potential lack of funding for urban transit projects, suggesting that discussions might stagnate for years without financial support. He drew parallels to the delays experienced with the Moynihan Station project, which was put on hold during economic turmoil and leadership changes
- Samuel Turvey echoed Montague’s sentiments, criticizing Amtrak’s management and emphasizing the need for effective leadership in transit to avoid further setbacks, and agreed that a focused approach to planning would ensure sustainable systems for the future
- Harvey Montague, AIA: stressed the importance of proper planning and allocating resources to build a functional transit system that could serve the community for decades. There are inefficiencies and excessive costs associated with proposed transportation upgrades at Penn Station. He criticized the decision-makers for opting to build a new station south of Penn Station rather than utilizing the existing infrastructure, which could support a surround sound system with multiple speakers for better connectivity. Instead of implementing straightforward upgrades, such as converters to enhance the current setup, planners suggest a costly project that could exceed $70 billion and take decades to complete
- Samuel Turvey expressed frustration over this approach, arguing that it undermines competitiveness and practicality for commuters facing poor travel experiences. He emphasized the need for proper environmental reviews and thorough analysis of the proposed changes, advocating for optimizing existing facilities rather than unnecessary construction. In response to concerns about the economic motivations behind these decisions, he suggested that future steps should focus on ensuring accountability and thorough assessments in transportation planning. Sam is concerned about the environmental impact review process for the Penn Station project, emphasizing the urgency of addressing issues before the station’s construction plans are finalized. He noted that local elected officials have generally supported the coalition’s efforts, particularly regarding Block 780, but highlighted the need for continued advocacy to ensure a comprehensive environmental review is conducted. Turvey criticized the current approach taken by authorities, suggesting they may attempt to bypass thorough community review by presenting misleading information. He stressed the importance of maintaining pressure on local politicians and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to uphold community interests and ensure that public scrutiny is not minimized. Turvey underscored the need for a coordinated response from various organizations within the Empire Station coalition to challenge the perceived shortcomings in the project’s review process
CHAT BOX
- Alex Yong: Inquires about the timing of the vote on Thursday and shares concerns about the upcoming vote feeling “pro forma” after Adrienne Adams revised the CoYHO. He expresses concerns about the Sustainable Affordable Housing and Sprawl Prevention Act (S 925 / A 4933), noting its potential negative impact on environmental reviews and its developer-friendly nature
- Leonard Polletta: Asks about the current lineup in the Council
- Sueranna Antoine: Apologizes for being late to the discussion
- Renee Keitt: Comments on the influence of elected officials on organizations, suggesting they have been compromised
- Robert Robinson: Provides context about the Met Council and its affiliations with tenant organizing groups and coalitions, and shares a personal connection to the community of Rosedale, noting its challenges
- Miriam Fisher: Mentions Vornado’s attempts to gain support from disability groups
- John Mudd: Shares resources and links related to the discussion, expressing support for through-running at Penn Station
- Alex Yong: Comments on Bill S 925 and expresses suspicion about motivations behind certain actions, suggesting potential bribery
COMMUNITY EVENTS AND PUBLIC CONCERNS
- Alex Yong, Westside Neighborhood Alliance, discussed an important upcoming event, the 19th annual Saturday Conference, which mayoral candidates are expected to attend. Alex requested for a PDF he had sent regarding the event to be shared
- John Mudd expressed support for the annual event, highlighting its significance, especially this year, and noted that it was included in their newsletter, along with another event hosted by Layla. John confirmed that Layla’s forum was happening that evening and encouraged everyone to read the newsletters he put effort into
- Leonard Polletta inquired about the specifics of that evening’s event
- John Mudd mentioned that he had not heard from Ray Rogers regarding a presentation on stock transfer tax, as Ray was sick. He then checked in with Renee Keitt about the NYCHA project
- Renee Keitt replied that there is ongoing conflict, mentioning an article that clarified the term “demolition” was not used in surveys related to the project, indicating they received some positive media attention
- Miriam Fisher, a transportation activist: shared exciting news about the approval of an elevator installation at the 23rd Street and 7th Avenue subway station by the MTA, marking a significant victory for accessibility. She emphasized that while the project is approved, it won’t start immediately but is on the agenda, with future considerations for additional elevators along 23rd Street. Fisher highlighted the collaborative efforts with local elected officials and community members, including a rally held on September 30th, where they garnered strong support for the initiative
- John Mudd acknowledged Fisher’s efforts and discussed the broader implications of transportation accessibility, stressing the importance of health, development, and housing. He pointed out that while elevators are vital for many, they should be seen as essential infrastructure rather than mere accessories
- Miriam Fisher responded by reiterating that improved accessibility benefits everyone, including parents with strollers and those with physical limitations, aiming to encourage the use of mass transit over cars
- Luana Green added a light-hearted remark about people’s reluctance to walk upstairs, supporting the need for elevators
- John Mudd agreed, recognizing the significance of providing transportation choices for all community members
NEXT Meeting Homeless and Housing Meeting: 9:30 AM Tuesday, January 7, 2024. Always the 1st Tuesday of every month. Contact hello@midtownsouthcc.org or john.mudd@usa.net for more information and Zoom invitations.