Flushing West: Recommendations for a Just Rezoning

8/17/2019 Flushing West: Recommendations for a Just Rezoning

1/45

Flushing West:Recommendations

for a Just Rezoning A Research Report from the

Flushing Rezoning Community Alliance


2/452

The Flushing Rezoning CommunityAlliance (FRCA) wants to thank all of the

community members, volunteers andparticipants in our community meetings,trainings, town halls, door knockingand other outreach & engagementefforts. Your involvement, ideas andhard work have already done so muchto help dene and reshape the planfor Flushing West. Let’s keep it up!

We want to offer special thanks toProfessor Tarry Hum of the QueensCollege Department of Urban Studies.In addition to providing research andauthorship of signicant portions ofthis report, she has also engaged anumber of her classes as well. Wewant to thank members of her QueensCollege Service Learning Class from theSpring of 2016 that helped to authorsections of the paper, especially JeremyMagno. We also want to think JaneGuskin for her demographic researchand analysis of Flushing. Finally, we

want to thank all of the students andJing Wang for their help in producing“The Future of Flushing”. This short

video was produced for the FRCA &provides similar context and background

as pieces of this white paper. For moreinformation, please watch the video atthe following link:https://vimeo.com/158716376

This research report is only possiblethrough the support of technicalassistance providers, including theCenter for Urban Pedagogy, theHester Street Collaborative, the PrattCenter for Community Development,the Urban Justice Center and theAssociation for Neighborhood Housingand Development. In particular, theFRCA would like to thank CaseyWang, Elena Conte, Cassie Ang, IngridHaftel and Jonathan Furlong for theirinvaluable help in research, writing,graphic design & overall support ofthe work of the FRCA. We also wantto thank Ismene Speliotis from theMutual Housing Association of New

York Inc., who has been a visionary

around affordable housing policy inNew York City and helped to informthe FRCA principles, visions and goals.

Acknowledgements and Authorship


3/45

4 Introduction

5 Section 1: Overview of Flushing Rezoning Community Alliance& Our Principles for Just Development

9 Section 2: Overview of Demographics and Housing Stock inDowntown Flushing

12 Section 3: Impact of Rezoning On Current Residents &Housing Stock

20 Section 4: Broken Public Engagement Process In Rezoning

23 Section 5: Recommendations for Building and PreservingDeeply Affordable Housing

34 Section 6: Important Additional Factors for Just Development

38 Section 7: Conclusions

39 Appendices

Contents


4/454

Recommendations for broader

neighborhood concerns

Incentivize development of seniorcenters that meet the needs of adiverse immigrant neighborhoodin “community facility” spacewithin rezoned neighborhoods

Increase 7 train service duringrush hour commutes

Create additional subway

entrances in rezoned area toreduce street congestion

Use city funds to develop a busdepot that can reduce pedestrianand car trafc in Downtown Flushing

Environmental remediation ofFlushing Creek and improvedsanitation and solid wasteservices in Downtown Flushing

If these steps are done comprehensively, we believe that the rezoning canresult in improved & more just development in Downtown Flushing to meetthe needs of a diverse, vibrant and thriving community. Without these stepsand future efforts to increase affordable housing, we fear that the DowntownFlushing rezoning will be another step along a path of unchecked real estateprot for multi-national corporations on the backs of working class and immigrantNew Yorkers. The Mayor, Councilman Koo and all of our city council havestark choices to make. These recommendations offer a pathway forward.

This research paper result of public input gather by the Flushing RezoningCommunity Alliance–a grassroots organizations dedicated to assuring just

development in Downtown Flushing, especially in the proposed rezoning ofFlushing West. From over 325 extensive community surveys, to neighborhooddoor knocking, visiting religious services, to monthly town halls, trainingsand forums, our coalition has been working diligently to both educate andengage the public in the rezoning process that will reshape downtownFlushing. This research report captures the stories and ideas of communitymembers for more just development in Downtown Flushing. The Alliance hascreated six concrete recommendations for affordable housing developmentand preservation and ve recommendations for community needs.

Recommendations for

housing policy in rezoning

Select MIH options thatprovide the deepest level ofaffordability for Flushing West

Incorporate the results of the studyof the FAAB model to examine howdensity can be used to leveragemore equitable development

Use city resources to ll enrollment

gaps in SCRIE and DRIE programsMaximize residential zoningon Municipal Lot 2 to createopportunity for 100% affordablehousing development

Pass anti-harassment and anti-displacement legislation like the“Certicate of No Harassment”before rezoning is nalized

Provide safety and job

training standards for workerscombined with local hiring

1 1

2

2

3 3

44

5 5

6

Introduction


5/45

Section 1:Overview of Flushing RezoningCommunity Alliance & OurPrinciples for Just Development

The Flushing Rezoning Community Alliance (FRCA)is an alliance of local community, faith, socialservices, and ally organizations. We advocate forthe rights and quality of life of Flushing residentsand for community planning and developmentthat promote justice and equality. Real community

development must be equitable, protect theinterests of the most vulnerable in our community,and serve the needs of the community as a whole.

The Alliance has been formed to be an advocacyvehicle for diverse Flushing community members,organizations and institutions to assure that theplanned rezoning of the West Flushing neighborhoodbrings deep community benets along with theadditional development. This includes deeplyaffordable housing for neighborhood basedincomes, protections against displacement and

harassment for existing residents, good union jobs with local hiring career opportunities, acommitment to supporting infrastructure andgreen space improvements, dedicated seniorhousing to protect our most vulnerable communitymembers, environmental remediation, and aplanning process that engages all sectors of theFlushing community in envisioning our own future.

What is the Flushing RezoningCommunity Alliance?

Trilingual canvas teams from FRCA speaking to neighborsabout impacts of rezoning


6/456

The Flushing Rezoning Community Alliance wasformed in July of 2015 by the MinKwon Center forCommunity Action, Faith in New York, the YWCAof Flushing, St. George’s Episcopal Church, theUnitarian Universalist Church of Queens, and KoreanCommunity Services of Metropolitan New York.

DC 9 Painter and Allied Trades joined the coalitionshortly after its launch. The FRCA is aligned with thecity wide Real Affordability for All (RAFA) coalition.

Since May 2015, member organizations have hostedvarious public events where Flushing residents couldinteract and learn about fundamental of housingdevelopment and how it affects neighborhoodduring and after the rezoning process. Organizationsparticipated in public events hosted by city agenciessuch as Department of City Planning and Departmentof Housing Preservation and Development.

Independently from city agencies, FRCA hosted itsown public events, most notably its monthly townhall meetings where Flushing residents could voicetheir concerns about the rezoning process. Throughthese public forums, FRCA has engaged hundredsof Flushing residents in English, Chinese, Korean andSpanish about the rezoning process and its impacton the community. These meetings have shaped therecommendations and demands laid out in this report.

Councilmember Peter Koo addresses a packed crowd at thFRCA Town Hall in March 2016


7/45

Good jobs for local residents, and preservationand promotion of small businesses

Flushing continues to be a gateway for generations ofnew immigrant households. There is an active localeconomy, with many businesses being immigrant-owned small businesses that employ local residentsand that serve a local consumer base. We wantto maintain the character of the community aswelcoming of newcomers, immigrants, and start-up businesses. New developments should creategood jobs for local residents, and preserve andpromote small businesses. There should be alocal hire program for any new construction that

pays prevailing wage along with apprenticeshiptraining for long-term career development.

Infrastructure and transportation improvementsin conjunction with development

Infrastructure and transportation improvements aremuch needed in Flushing, and are essential with anyincreased density given the existing overcrowdingand congestion. Investment in transportation,schools, drainage and other basic infrastructureneeds that exist in Flushing and that will result from

additional density simply cannot wait. Steps mustbe taken up front to guarantee the implementationof needed infrastructure improvements.

The FRCA believes the following principlesshould be upheld in any rezoning and prioritizedin future development decisions in Flushing:

FRCA principles for just development

Real, permanent, affordablehousing targeted to the incomes

of current Flushing residentsNew housing developments must create real,permanent, affordable housing for our localresidents in Downtown Flushing as well as thegreater Flushing area. (In 2014, the area medianincome in Downtown Flushing was $34,000, farbelow the rest of Queens at $57,000.) At least ftypercent of new apartments created in each newdevelopment should be affordable to local residents.Real affordability should be tailored so that long-term residents are not priced out. Development

should preserve and expand real affordabilityin wFlushing rather than further endanger it.

Low-income senior housing for ourelders and aging population

After struggling to raise their families, many ofour elders are locked out of affordable housingprograms altogether due to their low and staticincome. Those who are limited English procientand immigrant also face additional barriers. Newhousing developments should create low-income

senior housing to ensure that our seniors arebetter cared for and are not displaced, whichcould place them at risk of homelessness.

1

2

3

4


8/458

Strong anti-harassment and anti-displacementpolicies to protect the community

The City administration must ensure that rezoningin Flushing does not lead to harassment ordisplacement of current residents. Rezoning willdramatically increase the value and price of land,and many landlords could easily raise rents oflongtime residents as a result. It is absolutely crucialfor the City administration to work with all partnersin city and state government to enact strong anti-harassment and anti-displacement policies thatwill protect our community for years to come.

Sound environmental restoration andpreservation, and access to open green spaces

Before any development can proceed, a sound,transparent, and thorough environmental investigation

and cleanup is needed of any environmental hazards.This includes the polluted Flushing Creek and thecontaminated ground soil in the ‘Flushing West’rezoning area. A plan is also needed to preservethe wetland areas, manage storm-water runoff, andprevent potential ood water damage. The long-termhealth and safety of all occupants of any rezoningarea and of all Flushing residents is paramount.Flushing Meadows Park is difcult to access and hasbeen underinvested in for decades. In rezoning, theCity should nd ways to not only create new open

spaces in the rezoned area, but also ease access toexisting green spaces like Flushing Meadows Park.

Real and meaningful communityengagement and participation

There should be real and meaningful engagementwith the community in neighborhood planning anddevelopment processes that are authentic, andthat respect the community life and residents. Atevery stage, the City should engage and involveall Flushing residents in an open, transparent,and accountable manner that truly enablesthe community to shape our own future.

Given the diverse, immigrant populations inFlushing who speak different languages andthe rate of limited English prociency, it isvital that the City’s community engagementprocess is language accessible to speakers ofChinese, Korean, Spanish, Bengali, and more.

Furthermore, while the engagement processis important, it is a means, not an end untoitself. Community input must actually bereected in the plans that go to ULURP and inthe rezonings that ultimately take place.

5

6

7


9/45

Section 2:Overview of Demographics &Housing Stock in Downtown Flushing

Queens has historically been New York City’s mostdiverse borough. In the past 5 years more than75,000 new immigrants have come to live in Queens—this represents the biggest inux of new residentsin the entire city.1 From Flushing to Richmond Hill,newcomers from China, Guyana, Korea, Ecuador

and Mexico, among other countries, helped fuel theborough’s biggest population spike since 2000.

Downtown Flushing represents the busiest and oneof the most diverse areas of Queens, and is home toimmigrants from thirteen different countries. The 2010census put the population of Flushing, encompassingan area beyond downtown, at 72,000 — 69.2 percentAsian, 14.9 percent Hispanic, 9.5 percent white and 4.2percent African-American. Flushing is perhaps bestknown to New Yorkers as a Chinatown in Queens—indeed, the neighborhood has grown increasingly

Asian, and especially Chinese, since 2000. From 2000to 2010, the percentage of Flushing’s populationidentifying as Chinese nearly doubled, from 25% to47%. It is also an increasingly immigrant neighborhood,with 71% of its residents foreign-born as of 2014.2

When we look at the specic census tracts closestto the rezoning, we also see a very clear needfor affordable housing, with incredibly high ratesof rent burdened households. In the six censustracts closest to the rezoning East of Flushingcreek, more than 54% of residents spend more

than 35% of their gross income on rent.

Despite an inux of foreign capital for developmentand a booming enclave economy, the proportionof the population age 18-64 living in poverty

Flushing’s Demographics

1 Department of City Planning2 NY Daily News, April 2014 “Queens Immigrant Population Keeps Booming”

Map of the six census tracts closest to rezoning with tableshowing rent burdened households


10/4510

increased almost 30% from 2009 to 2014, andmedian gross rent as a percentage of householdincome grew 11%. Flushing residents pay nearly40% of their household income in rent.

In looking at the overall housing needs within theFlushing West study area, there is a signicant needfor deep affordability, especially among seniors.Senior households make up 28% of the rentersin Flushing. The Median Household Income inCommunity Board 7 has declined every year since2000 and is currently $51,929, with nearly 50%of renter households making less than $35,000in the past year. In taking a closer look at theneighborhood of Flushing itself, nearly half of allrenter households (45.6%) make $35,000 or less,and more than 50% of low income renters (53%)are severely rent burdened. Nearly 10% of rentersface moderate or severe overcrowding, meaningthat there were more than 1.5 persons per room.3

3 2014 ACS 5-Year Summary File B25070, 2014 CS 5-Year Summary File B25091, 2014 ACS 5-Year Summary File B25014 4

Housing Stock Text and Table from 2014 HVS Survey Data

2009-2013 ACS Housing Profle Source: NY Census FactFinder

Selected Tract(s): Queens 871, 869, 853, 849, 865. 855

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (GRAPI)

Number Percent

Selected Housing Characteristics(Grayed values denote less reliable estimates)

Estimate Marginof Error

CV* Estimate MOE

Occupied units paying rent(excluding units where GRAPI cannot be computed)

7,571 378 3.0 100.0%

Less than 15.0% 892 219 15.0 11.8% 2.8%

15.0% to 19.9% 593 187 19.1 7.8% 2.4%

20.0% to 24.9% 561 164 17.7 7.4% 2.1%

25.0% to 29.9% 713 204 17.4 9.4% 2.7%

30.0% to 34.9% 680 193 17.2 9.0% 2.5%

35.0% or more 4,132 402 5.9 54.6%% 4.6%

Downtown Flushing and the greater Flushing areais home to a wide range of housing types, with

1 to 4 family homes making up nearly half of thestock. 35% of the population in Flushing resides inin rent-stabilized housing and the neighborhoodis home to two large NYCHA developments:Bland Houses and Latimer Gardens.4

Flushing’s Housing Stock

Housing Type Percentage of Units

1 to 4 units 49.7%

Multi-Family 50.3%

Rent-Stabilized 35.8%

Section 8 1.2%

NYCHA 1.0%*

* Data taken from NYCHA Unit Counts


11/45

Map of Flushing Housing Stock


12/4512

In attempt to understand the impacts of a potentialrezoning and the already wide-scale development inDowntown Flushing, the Flushing Rezoning CommunityAlliance, led by the MinKwon Center, conductedsurveys from May until September of 2015. 334community surveys were conducted at congregations,local businesses, community centers, and on the street.

The Urban Justice Center helped to analyze the surveyresults and the Center for Urban Pedagogy helped totranslate them into visuals. They paint a stark pictureof a community in deep distress about affordability,rising rents and a changing neighborhood.

Demographic Breakdown of Survey Respondents

The survey sample closely mirrors the demographicbreakdown of Downtown Flushing. The majorityof respondents were of Asian descent, spoke alanguage other than English, reported annual incomesbelow $50,000, and were renters. Almost 75% of

FRCA Community Survey

respondents were Asian; about 15% were Hispanic orLatino; 6% Black or African American; 5% white; and1% identied as other. 60% of respondents speak alanguage other than English as their primary language

17% of respondents report an annual income below$10,000, and almost half (46%) of respondents reportan annual income of $15,000 to $49,999, while 29%reported incomes of $50,000 and higher. Respondenwere mostly tenants that rent their home or apartmen(79%), while homeowners comprised about a fth(21%). A majority of the respondents are female, (65%and about one third of respondents (30%) are 65 yearold and over. The average household compositionwas two adults and one child. In addition to livingin Flushing, almost a third of respondents work inFlushing (28%), 27% of respondents reported that theregularly visit Flushing with their families, and abouta fth of respondents (22%) report that they have aconnection to Flushing through a religious institution.

Overview of survey respondents

Section 3:Impact of RezoningOn Current Residents& Housing Stock


13/45

Changes in Neighborhood

Most respondents reported an increased cost ofeveryday goods (49%) over the past three years, whilemany also responded that there have been moresmall business closures (45%). Many respondentswere concerned about increased commercial andresidential rent prices, lack of sanitation, publictransportation capacity, and congestion from

automobiles. About half of respondents (48%) arevery concerned about having real input into the[rezoning] processes and the changes happeningin the neighborhood; of those respondents, 70%of respondents have incomes below $50,000,

Neighborhood changes in thepast 3 years

compared to 31% with incomes above $50,000.

In the past 3 years:

- About half (49%) of all respondents noted thateveryday goods have become more expensive.

- Most (72%) of these respondents had annualincomes below $50,000, compared to less thana third (28%) with incomes above $50,000.

- 70% of respondents who indicated that theyhad noticed an increase in small business closureshad annual incomes below $50,000, comparedto 30% with incomes below $50,000.


14/4514

Housing Changes

Overall, respondents report that apartments areno longer affordable (51%), and that increasingly,neighbors are forced to move out (28%). Mostrespondents (74%) are very concerned aboutincreasing rent prices and many respondents (40%)report that at least half of potential new housingshould be set aside for people who already live in the

neighborhood, while 84% of respondents believe thatat least half of new housing should be set aside forhouseholds with annual incomes below the medianincome of $34,000. These trends are particularly acutefor households making less than $50,000 annually.

Housing affordability

Rezoning Concerns

In the survey, Flushing residents and businessowners were asked specically about theirconcerns as it related to the rezoning process.

The biggest concerns about the rezoninginclude affordable housing, sanitation,overcrowding and crowded sidewalks. Otherpriorities are air pollution and a lack of publictransportation to meet neighborhood needs(68% & 64% very concerned, respectively).


15/451

Who should housing built inthe rezoned area benet?

Top four concerns aboutrezoning


16/4516

Community Needs and Priorities

The survey also sought to address the prioritiesthat community members would like to see infuture development. Across respondents, amajority of those surveyed reported needs aroundincreased housing, community and spaces, as wellas improved sanitation and public transportation.

Top four improvementsneeded in Flushing


17/45

Paul Nathan emigrated from Jamaica as child to the USand has been in living in Flushing for decades. Paul has

lived at the Summit at 132-40 Sanford Ave since he was17 years old. When he rst moved to Sanford it was atthe height of disinvestment and the crack epidemic,and Downtown Flushing was completely different.

In April of 2016, he gave a walking tour to 3 studentsfrom Queens College who captured Paul’s narrative ofa drastically changing Flushing that is pushing out low-income, and especially black tenants. In meeting withstudents, described Sanford Ave as a predominantlyBlack enclave in Flushing dating back decades.However, in recent years Paul has gotten the clearsense that “Flushing no longer wants black people.”

When he rst came to Sanford Avenue, Paul’s familywas able to receive a rent-stabilized apartment withoutshowing any employment history. His building wasa crack den and he vividly remembered the vialsthat were imprinted into the concrete and blanketedthe sidewalk. The low re escape of his buildingcreated many opportunities for break-ins and theftsfor addicts to get their next x. He recounted howhard he fought to save his building through thecreation of a tenant’s association with a neighborand how their efforts turned around the area.

Today, Paul is tired of ghting. The community he knewis a shell of what it once was. He says his building isdown to four African Americans, including himself. Heis being harassed by his landlord who cuts the heatand hot water off in his apartment in hopes of forcinghim out. In the winter time, elderly tenants huddledin the lobby, the only properly heated part of thebuilding. The superintendent of the building toldPaul, “We’re xing up the building, but not for you.”

Paul’s story of harassment of rent stabilized tenantsis part of a broader trend. He shared with studentshow MCI (major capital improvement) increases havebeen a common tactic from landlords to push out rent

Paul Nathan: Prole of Flushing Tenant

stabilized tenants all over Sanford Ave and downtownFlushing. Even though the city voted down rent

increases in 20155, there exists a loophole throughMCIs. Paul explained, “Say you have 10 tenants andwant to replace doorknobs that will cost $100. Now thlandlord can split the cost of the doorknobs betweenevery tenant and add it to their monthly rent inperpetuity.” Because of this loophole, landlords of renstabilized buildings are able to pass on the expenseof major capital improvements in rent increases.

The students walked with Paul down to 132-70Sanford6 where Paul noted that these tenants weresaved by then State Attorney General AndrewCuomo. The property owner, Vantage, was exploitingtenants who did not know their rights.7 As per areport on the Attorney General’s website, ‘TheAttorney General’s investigation into Vantagehad revealed that the landlord was attempting toforce long-term, rent-regulated tenants to moveout of their homes in order to impose signicantrent increases on new tenants and increase prots.’Cuomo had the following to say about the case:

“Landlords who harass tenants harm all New York Cityresidents by displacing long-time tenants from stableneighborhoods and exacerbating the affordablehousing shortage. In these tough economic times,the preservation of affordable housing is of theutmost importance. Today’s agreement with Vantagenot only preserves the rent-regulated apartmentsowned by them, but also sends a strong messagethat my ofce will continue to protect tenantsand bring unscrupulous landlords to justice.”

Paul helped to paint a vivid and disturbingportrait of landlords in Downtown Flushing

intent on moving out rent-stabilized tenants tomake way for higher income market housing.

5 http://ny.curbed.com/2015/6/30/9944654/new-york-city-board-makes-history-approves-rent-freeze 6 http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20151204/REAL_ESTATE/151209927/new-jersey-rm-bets-on-queens-buys-138-8-million-apartment-portfolio-in-ushing-and-elmhurst 7 http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/new-york-state-attorney-general-andrew-m-cuomo-announces-1-million-settlement-new-york


18/4518

As Paul’s story shows, perhaps the tenants most atrisk from displacement due to coming rezoning and

increase in development in Downtown Flushing arethose currently living in rent stabilized housing in andaround the Flushing rezoning. To this end, ProfessorTarry Hum from Queens College Urban StudiesDepartment conducted a study of this housing stockand potential and real threats to these tenants.

By examining sales records for rent-stabilizedbuildings, Professor Hum was able to create alist of apartment buildings that have either beenpurchased in their entirety since the rezoning anda list where individual units with a rent-stabilizedbuilding have been converted to co-ops. Theseunits are likely to be the target of harassment anddisplacement tactics by landlords, as they seekto push out long term rent stabilized tenants infavor of market rate and/or condo conversions.

Based on this data, it is apparent that manyFlushing rent stabilized buildings are mixed,deregulated buildings with apartments thathave converted to co-op ownership.

Appendix 2 lists Flushing’s rent stabilized buildings

that sold since the announcement of rezoningin the BOA study. A total of 42 rent stabilizedbuildings with 1,800 apartments sold. Within thesetransactions, some disturbing trends have arisen.Although further study is needed, it appears that inDowntown Flushing rent stabilized building have beentargeted by international investors, often shieldingtheir investments with layers of shell companies.

Perhaps the best example of this practice is the 4properties owned by Plaza Realty Investors. Thefollowing four buildings were owned by Plaza Realty

Investors NY LLC which sold them on December4, 2015 to an investor group - Flushing ColumbiaAudubon LLC (37.7%), Flushing West 163 LLC (8.15%),Flushing West 131 LLC (12.36%), and Flushing QF

Rent Stabilized Housing at Risk forDisplacement in Downtown Flushing

Portfolio LLC (41.71%) - and nancialized by the samemortgagor - Delphi CRE Funding LLC. The sales pric

for each building is next to the building address.

132-25 Maple Avenue $52,940,5558 132-40 Sanford Avenue $14,755,761 133-17 Sanford Avenue* $16,501,595 132-57 Sanford Avenue $32,650,562

*(Paul Nathan’s Residence)

The new investor group owner’s’ address is c/oTreetop Development LLC in Teaneck, NJ and themortgages secured to purchase these buildings is

from Delphi CRE Funding LLC c/o ACORE CapitalMortgage LP in Larkspur, California. Delphi CREFunding LLC was founded in May 2015 (a fewmonths before they purchased these buildings) andnancialized with a $1.6 billion capital commitmentfrom Delphi Financial Group, Inc. which is a whollyowned subsidiary of the Tokio Marine Group -the largest publicly traded insurer in Japan.

8 The Maple Avenue building was purchased along with 41-40 Denman Street in Elmhurst, Block 1566, Lot 21 by the same investorpartnership and mortgagor for $48,600,000.


19/451

Flushing has also seen a rapid increase in the priceof land since the announcement of the rezoning

BOA study in 2010. In the past 5 years, real estateprices and transactions have skyrocketed in theDowntown Flushing area. There is perhaps no greaterexample of this out of control real estate speculationthan the Assi Plaza in the rezoning study area.

Assi Plaza - Case Study in Speculation

Flushing’s waterfront boasts one of the mostspeculative and hotly contested pieces of real estatein New York City. The area consists of many industrialwarehouses, vacant lots, and several properties that

have risen in price by tens of millions of dollars sincethe Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC (FWPCLDC)received a $1.5 million Browneld Opportunity Area(BOA) grant in 2010 and the city announced itsproposed rezoning in Flushing. The former site of theAssi Plaza Supermarket at 131-01 39th Avenue whichshuttered in 2014 serves as the most vivid case study.

Assi Plaza Supermarket opened in 1994 as animportant community institution with almost 100,000square feet dedicated to a variety of Chinese andKorean products. Property records show that the

Rhee Brothers received the deed to the land in 1993and took out a $4.2 million mortgage to nance the

Speculation Accelerating RapidRise in Real Estate Costs

property. After two decades, the Rhee Brotherssold the site to Outlet Plaza LLC for $54.6 million in

September 2014; the new owner immediately lookedto ip the property. Within a month, a contract of salewas arranged with Ranger Sagamore Flushing LLC anan agreement was made with another company, TripleStar Realty LLC. By July, 2015 Outlet Plaza LLC movedthe property to 131-01 39th Avenue Owner LLC for$78.3 million—a $24 million prot in nine months.This also represents a $74.1 million property valueincrease in just 22 years, an appreciation of 1764%.

Reports have indicated the purchaser as Triple StarRealty. Their plans are to construct an immensemix-used site development that will containcondominiums, ofces, numerous retail options,and a hotel that will rival nearby Skyview Parc.

Unfortunately, Assi Plaza is not alone. AcrossDowntown Flushing and especially near therezoned area, there is an unchecked real estateboom that raises serious concerns about theviability of Downtown Flushing to remainas an enclave for the larger immigrant andworking neighborhood that it is today.


20/4520

The Flushing West rezoning study area is one ofthe smallest pieces of land the city has designatedfor rezoning. The Flushing West rezoning studyarea is the only rezoning proposal that wasinitiated by a private corporation. As mentionedin relationship to Assi Plaza, in 2011 the Flushing

Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation(FWPCLDC) received a NY State Departmentof Statement Browneld Opportunities AreasProgram grant to study development potential ina 60 acre areas that includes the exact 32 acresof land currently being studied for rezoning.

Under the BOA Grant guidelines, municipalities,community organizations and community boardsare all able to receive grant funds “to completerevitalization plans and implementation strategiesfor areas or communities affected by the presence of

browneld sites, and site assessments for strategicbrowneld sites.” It appears the FWPCLDC qualiedas a “community based organization”, that for thepurposes of this grant, are dened as: not-for-prot corporations that are incorporated underSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Codewhose stated mission is to promote communityrevitalization within the geographic area in whichthe community based organization is located;has 25 percent or more of its Board of Directorsresiding in the community in such area; andrepresents a community with a demonstrated

nancial need as indicated by high unemployment,low resident incomes, depressed propertyvalues, and/or high commercial vacancy rates.”

After receiving nearly $1.5 million to conduct a studyof the area, The FWPCLDC has actually contractedthe Department of City Planning to move the zoningproposal through the the environmental review andULURP process. Although city planning has claimed9 that it is baseless to say the LDC has any “outsize

inuence on the process”, the similarities between theDraft Scope of Work from City Planning and the MastPlan created by the LDC would suggest otherwise.

The zoning recommendations from the LDC werepresented to the Department of City Planning inOct of 2013 before any of the public input processesthat the Department of City Planning led in Aprilof 2015 through April 2016. However, the zoningrecommendations are from the LDC are nearlyidentical to the Draft Scope of Work released by theDepartment of City Planning in November of 2015.

The LDC’s plan creates a “Special Waterfront District”that is mirrored in DCP’s plan. It recommends anupzone from C4-2 to C4-4 for the exact same sites,and even mirrors DCP’s proposed zoning changes onM1-1 lots to mixed commercial and residential zoning

All of these similarities seem particularly problematicwhen we know that the board of the LDC includesbankers, lawyers who specialize in development.11 TheBoard members include employees from Citi Bank,The Mattone Group, KEPCO, Inc., Graf & LewentArchitects, the Flushing Development Center, New

York Community Bank, Flushing Bank, Onex RealEstate Partners, Ciampa organizations, Farber, Rosen& Kaufman PC, the New York Mets, the BriarwoodOrganization, TD Bank, F & T Group, and a few othermajor corporate interests.

9 From an Op-ed from the Director of City Planning for Queens – John Young – published on July 13th 2015 and available online at:http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150712/OPINION/150719986/city-planning-ofcial-wants-to-set-the-record-straight-about-neighborhood-project 10 Analysis of the BOA master plan developed by the Hester Street Collaborative11

List of Board Members for Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp: http://www.queensalive.org/

Section 4:Broken Public EngagementProcess In Rezoning


21/452

Almost all of the members of the board couldbenet from increased in development in Flushing

– from directly developing property in the rezonedarea and surrounding to community to servicesimportant to developers including architecture,accounting, legal experts on development

issues, and banks that lend to developers.This is all particularly problematic, given that theLDC was found guilty of illegally lobbying citycouncil members along with the New York EconomicDevelopment Corporation as part of a state attorneygeneral investigation into the passage of the Willet’sPoint deal.12 Other organizations, including Willet’sPoint United, have already raised concerns about thelegality of having the LDC initiate a rezoning process.13

12 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/city-economic-agencies-admit-illegal-lobbying-support-willets-point-plan-article-1.1107377 13 http:// www.timesledger.com/stories/2015/23/ushingldc_2015_06_05_q.html


22/4522

New York City Planning Map of Zoning Recommendations Compared with LDC ZoningRecommendations Map


23/452

Section 5:Recommendations forBuilding and PreservingDeeply Affordable Housing

Using the above analysis and monthly town hallmeetings, Flushing residents, congregations,labor organizations and community organizationshave determined six actionable steps thecity must take to insure more equitabledevelopment with the rezoned area.

Prioritize MIH options that provide maximumlevel of deeply affordable housing

After years of debate, the city council passedlegislation in March that created the city’s rstMandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program.This program originally did not meet the needs oflow-income New Yorkers, only reaching depths ofaffordability far beyond the residents in Flushing.Through concentrated efforts from Real Affordabilityfor All, community coalitions in neighborhoods

slated for rezoning across the city, and the workof progressive city council members like JumaaneWilliams, the mayor was forced to improve theinitial MIH program to include add-ins to achieveaffordable housing at 40% AMI. At a town hallin March hosted by the FRCA, CouncilmemberKoo vowed to only support MIH if it includedan option with housing at 40% AMI or lower.

Although the FRCA still nds many aws withinthe MIH program, echoed by activists citywide, itdoes create income bands for affordable housing

that closely resemble the incomes of currentFlushing residents. To achieve the maximum levelof affordability within the Flushing West rezoning,Councilmember Koo, with community support,must push for the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing(MIH) option with the lowest Area Median Income(AMI) bands: 25% of the units will have rentsat an average of 60% of AMI or $51,800, with arequired band of 10% of the units at 40% AMI or$34,500. This option can also be paired with anadditional ‘deep affordability’ option which would

allow developers to build 20% of the units at 40% ofAMI ($34,500) instead of 25% of units at 60% AMI.

To assure that the maximum number of unitsare affordable to Flushing residents, the FRCAwill adamantly oppose any rezoning that doesnot assure that the maximum number of unitsare available via MIH at 40% AMI or lower.

In addition, in all affordable housing created throughthe rezoning process and as part of the “SpecialFlushing West District” created in the rezoning, allefforts should be made to assure that 50% of housinglottery is set aside for local residents. Normally, thegeographic designation to determine “local” hasbeen Community Board 7. However CommunityBoard 7 is one of the largest areas of any CommunityBoard in the city, and spans a number of differentneighborhoods with highly different needs. Whencreating a local priority in the rezoned area, andespecially with the “Special District”, we shouldfocus in on the zip codes and census tracts withthe highest numbers of renters closest to thedowntown core. This will assure that affordablehousing is available to those most impacted bythe development pressures from the rezoning.

Attempt to Incorporate Results of City Led StudyAround Mechanisms for Deeper Affordabilityand Labor Standards in Flushing Rezoning

As part of the Real Affordability for All (RAFA)coalition, the FRCA has supported and continuesto support using density to achieve deeper andgreater quantities of affordable housing and jobstandards in rezoned neighborhoods. In a recentop-ed, the Campaign Director for Real Affordabilityfor All, Maritza Silva Ferrell, articulated the broadercoalition’s vision for what the study can achieve,particularly related to creating affordable housingunits for those making below 40% AMI and achievinglocal hiring, apprenticeship and safety standards in

1

2


24/4524

Flushing Income Demographics Compared to City’sMandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Program


25/452

rezoned neighborhoods. The mayor has committedto conducting this study to examine ways toleverage density to get to deeper affordabilityand job standards in rezoned neighborhoods.

Up to this point, Flushing has not been includedas a place where the results of this study can beapplied because it has advanced to far in theenvironmental review stage and scoping of therezoned area. FRCA believes that this should bechanged. In the census tracts closest to the rezoning,

nearly 30% of residents make less than 30% of AreaMedian Income, and the mayor’s MIH plan will notprovide any affordable housing for these residents.Additionally, although there is a limit to the densitypossible in the rezoned area because of ight pathrestrictions from La Guardia airport, there are somea number of lots that are receiving massive increasesin their zoning with almost nothing in exchange.

In the above analysis based on the DCP’s projecteddevelopment sites, Casey Wang from the HesterStreet Collaborative was able to show that on at

least 2 of the rst 14 projected development sitesthere is a massive increase in the Floor Area Ratio(FAR) and buildable square footage. This is especiallytrue in the areas of the rezoning that are currentlyzoned for manufacturing and have a proposedchange to residential / mixed use zoning. On thetwo sites that were analyzed by the Hester StreetCollaborative, there was a projected increase from0 residential FAR or 2.43 residential FAR to 4.3residential FAR, which means an increase of 199,000square feet of residential building space for theowners of these lots. This type of density give away

is the exact item that RAFA is proposing be capturedfor community benet through rezonings. If nothingelse, administration must examine ways to capturecommunity benets in Flushing on lots being rezonedfrom manufacturing to high density residential uses.

Use Public Resources to Fill SCRIE/DRIE Enrollment Gap

As communities across the city struggle to preserveunits of affordable housing from gentrication and

displacement, tenants and advocates have beensearching for ways to fully utilize the resources thatdo exist to keep residents in their apartments.

In 1970, the City of New York began the Senior CitizeRent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) program, offeringqualifying senior citizens an exemption from futurerent increases. In 2005, it was expanded to includequalifying tenants with disabilities under the DisabilityRent Increase Exemption (DRIE) program. Theseprograms help eligible senior citizens (aged 62 andover) and tenants with qualifying disabilities stay

in affordable housing by freezing their rent. Underboth programs, a property tax credit covers thedifference between the actual rent amount and whatthe tenant is responsible for paying at the frozen rate.

According to the Department of Finance, as many as155,366 households may qualify for these programs.Of this number, 61,319 already receive the benet,and as many as 94,047 additional City residents thatare not enrolled could be eligible. This suggests thatthe current enrollment rate is approximately 39%of what it could be. The reasons eligible residents

are not enrolled are cultural factors, including

3


26/4526

language barriers, insufcient public communicationthrough government and the media, and a negativeperception of receiving government support.

According to the 2014 census, 41,767 seniorcitizens live in Flushing, making up 17.2% of thetotal population. Within that population, 11.4%are currently enrolled in SCRIE, representing thelowest enrollment percentage in the 5 boroughs.

In order for members of the Flushing community tofully utilize the benets offered by SCRIE and DRIE,the city should do everything in its power to boostenrollment among residents who live in and aroundthe Flushing West study area. This should include:

- Informational materials about SCRIE and DRIEin all languages spoken by Flushing residents

- Investing resources from the NeighborhoodDevelopment Fund to directly hire or contract withlocal, culturally competent and multilingual agenciesto go door to door in rent stabilized buildingsto invite participants to join SCRIE or DRIE

- Using the map of rent stabilized buildings within thedowntown Flushing area, and especially the building’sidentied in this report as potential hotspots fordisplacement and harassment targets, to assure thatall seniors and Flushing residents with disability areable to receive the rent protections they deserve

Use public owned lots to create deepaffordability in rezoned area

Muni Lot 2 is the city’s best opportunity to buildtruly affordable housing. In the rezoned area, thereis limited opportunity to create deeply affordable

housing because of a combination of a strong marketand almost all lots being privately owned. The cityhas used subsidy extensively to create affordablehousing plans at deeper levels of affordability in otheneighborhoods, but HPD and DCP have suggestedthat developers are unlikely to seek subsidy within the

West Flushing area. Because of this, one of our thecity’s greatest resources to develop deeply affordablehousing is the last remaining piece of publicallyowned land in Downtown Flushing: Municipal Lot #2.

FRCA has two important recommendations toassure that development in Flushing includes 100%deeply affordable housing on Municipal Lot 2.

Include Municipal Lot #2 In the FlushingWest Rezoning ULURP Process

As can be seen in the following map, Municipal Lot

2 is directly outside of the current proposed zoningchanges. By including Municipal Lot 2 in the rezoningwe can assure that one of the greatest remainingassets for affordable housing development inDowntown Flushing is included in the rezoning proce

4


27/452

Existing DCP Rezoning Area andProposed Expanded Rezoning Area


28/4528

Maximize Residential Building on Municipal Lot 2 toAssure a Maximum Number of Affordable Units

The following tables and graphic illustrate adevelopment analysis of Municipal Lot #2, createdby Hester Street Collaborative. It shows the existingzoning for Municipal Lot #2, plus four options forrezoning the lot. Each scenario notes the total number

of residential units allowed, plus some more technicalzoning information. See the notes below the graphicfor help understanding these technical details.

EXISTING ZONING

Development currently allowedon the site, “as-of-right”

Total Residential Units 32

Zoning Designation C4-2

Maximum Residential FloorArea Ratio (FAR)

2.43

Maximum ResidentialSquare Footage (SF)

32,401

DCP’S WEST FLUSHING REZONING PROPOSAL

Development allowed if DCP’s proposal for WestFlushing Rezoning Study Area were applied


Zoning Designation C4-4A


4.60


149,043

FRCA MAXIMUM RESIDENTIALREZONING PROPOSAL

Proposal to rezone for maximum residential space


Zoning Designation C4-4D


7.20


233,285

FRCA MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL

REZONING PROPOSALProposal to rezone for maximum commercial space


Zoning Designation C4-5D


5.60

Maximum Residential

Square Footage (SF)

181,444

FRCA COMPROMISE REZONING PROPOSAL

Proposal that presents a compromise betweenmaximum residential and commerical space


Zoning Designation C4-5X


5.00

Maximum Residential

Square Footage (SF)

162,003


29/452

Notes:

All zoning scenarios assume a maximum building height of 120’, to ensure they do not violate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)restrictions on building height near LaGuardia airport ight paths.

Key to technical terms:

- Total Residential Units: The total number of residential units the zoning scenario would accommodate. These numbers are based ona requirement of 1,000 square feet for each residential unit.

- Zoning Designation: The technical name of the zoning scenario in the city’s zoning code

- Floor Area Ratio (FAR): FAR is a formula the city uses to limit the size and shape of a building. It’s the total square footage of all theoors of a building, divided by the total square footage of the lot it’s on.

- Maximum Residential Square Footage (SF): The total number of square feet that could be dedicated to residential units.


30/4530

FRCA recommends a zoning of C4-4D on MunicipalLot #2, which will maximize the number of residentialunits on the lot. By rezoning to C4-4D and providingdeep levels of city subsidy, the city could assurethe construction of 100% affordable housing atneighborhood based incomes which would add

an additional 233 units of affordable housing tothe current plan proposed in the scope of work.This would increase the number of affordableunits to be developed through the rezoning fromthe current expectation of 515 to 748 units, whichrepresents a 45% increase without adding anyadditional market rate units.17 The type of citysubsidy necessary to achieve 100% affordabilityshould be viable, given the multi million dollar citysubsidy commitments to other neighborhoodsbeing rezoned with few comparable sites in Flushingthat are expected to chose to take city subsidy.

Anti-harassment & anti-displacementmeasures put in place on the front end

All over New York City, low-income tenantsare being displaced from their homes aschanging neighborhoods give landlordsthe opportunity to increase their prots bybringing in new, higher-paying tenants.

Many landlords resort to harassment and other illegaltactics, especially in rent stabilized apartments,because getting long-term tenants out gives thelandlord the opportunity to renovate the apartment,raise the rent (often even taking it out of rentstabilization entirely), and increase their prots with

higher-paying tenants. Harassment is already illegaland rent stabilized tenants can go through housingcourt or through a state process to try to stop it. Butthese options aren’t enough to protect tenants inNew York City’s high-pressure housing market. Manylandlords calculate that the risk and price of getting

caught for harassing tenants are both low enoughto be worth it - and current support mechanismsfor tenants facing harassment only kick in after theharassment, and often displacement, has occurred.

Certicate of No Harassment

One of the primary ways landlords raise rents andeventually deregulate rent stabilized apartmentsis renovating apartments (or some!mes wholebuildings) after tenants move out. The upgrades helpto attract higher-paying tenants, allowing landlordsto pass on some of the costs of the renovations.

These renovations often require permits from theDepartment of Buildings, which are currently fairlyeasy to get. Following the model of an alreadyexisting Certicate of No Harassment program in theClinton Special District of Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattaif landlords with a history of harassing tenants can’tget the permits they need to do the renovationsthat help them raise rents, many landlords will bediscouraged from pushing tenants out as the riskto their own prots would simply be too high.

Legislation to expand this model citywide hasalready been introduced to the City Council byCouncilman Brad Lander, and would function byrequiring landlords to obtain a Certicate of NoHarassment in all cases before they can get the

5

17Based on the Flushing West Rezoning - Draft Scope of Work with a waiver for additional height from the FAA and a 25% MIH optionto achieve deeper affordability. See draft scope of work pages 23 - 25 available here: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloapdf/applicants/env-review/ushing-west/draft_scope.pdf


31/453

permits from DOB required to renovate any units.

More specically, HPD would be required to keepa citywide database of buildings with indications ofpossible harassment. The database would include suchrecords such as Tenant Protection Act lings, NewYork State Housing and Community Renewal lings,housing court cases initiated against tenants, andserious Housing Maintenance Code violations. HPD’sdatabase would also include reports of harassmentsubmitted by community groups. Based on set criteria,any building with excessive numbers of the recordsdescribed above would be agged as a Building withHarassment Indicators. Any landlord seeking an Alt1 or Alt 2 permit from DOB would be automaticallyand promptly checked against HPD’s Buildings withHarassment Indicators list. Landlords applying forpermits for buildings that are not agged by the

ist would be reviewed quickly and would likely beapproved by HPD to proceed through the current DOBpermit process. In cases where buildings were agged,andlords would have to go through a more stringentadministrative process to determine whether harassmenthas occurred - and if it had, would incur punishmentbeyond not obtaining the renovation permit.

Members of the FRCA conducted a town hall todiscuss this mechanism with current tenants of rent-stabilized buildings, who expressed that even insituations where they knew their rights to call out

harassment, the legal aid provided by the city orother institutions was too little and too late. Theyoverwhelmingly expressed favor for a mechanism thatwould change the incentive to harass tenants, and feltthat a Certicate of No Harassment - if accompaniedby city commitment to publicizing, implementing, and

tracking the process to report harassment and obtaincerticates - would serve that need. Additionally, a“punishment” for landlords who do harass tenantscould be requiring additional set-aside of new,permanently affordable units, which would help toalleviate pressure on the affordable housing stock.

Good Neighbor Tax Credit for Small Homes

As neighborhoods and communities across the citycontinue to change in the face of steady developmenevery facet of New York’s housing stock has becomeessential to tenants looking for an affordable placeto live. While rents have continued to climb, tenantshave found rental opportunities within smaller 1-4 unibuildings, and 2-3 family homes. Many neighborhoodin areas being rezoned contain a portion of smaller,owner-occupied buildings, whose landlords are facing

tremendous displacement pressure. The City mustuse every tool that it currently has at its disposal andexplore every legislative and policy option for creatingothers, so that it can assist small building ownersand protect a critical supply of affordable housing.

Owners often make rent-setting decisions thattake into account whether the tenant would bevulnerable to dramatic rent increases (becausethey are, for example, a xed-income seniorcitizen, a single parent, disabled, or simply low- ormoderate-income). But as taxes and other expenses

increase, owners may be forced to raise rents. A Good Neighbor Tax Credit, which wouldincentivize modest tenant protections by providingan un-regulated, month-to-month tenant a one-year lease. In exchange, the landlord would receive


32/4532

a property tax credit from the city. In addition,the coalition recommends the city implementthe following policies to assist homeownerswho may be impacted by the rezoning:

- Lower water & sewer rates

- Down payment assistance programs- Expansion of small homeownercounseling programs

Tenants consulted by FRCA expressedinterest in this program, especially forhouseholds not exclusively within the rezoningtract but within the entirety of CB7.

Strengthen Legal Protections for All TenantsFacing Eviction - Right to Counsel

Although providing voluntarily legal services is a

good step, it is not the same as guaranteeing legalrepresentation. For those tenants most at-risk,tenants currently facing eviction, the city must passlegislation that assures those tenants are guaranteedlegal council. Particularly, tenants interviewed bythe FRCA expressed that even in cases where theydo wish to engage legal services in disputes withtheir landlords, legal services are both too slowto engage as well as frequently inaccessible inlanguages other than English (including Spanish,Chinese, and Korean). Protecting the Right to

Counsel for tenants facing eviction, and ideally,any housing court case, would allow tenants tounderstand their rights more fully and subsequentlyeffectively enforce those rights in legal proceedings.

Regulations on Major Capital Improvements

When engaged in small group conversations aboutchallenges faced by tenants, many also notedstruggles with major capital improvements (MCIs).In many buildings in the Downtown Flushing areaand greater Flushing, tenants noted problems withshared resources in the building, including brokenelevators, broken front doors, dangerous front stepsoutside buildings, and other shared resources. Whenlandlords were approached to x these problemsin the form of major capital improvements, tenantsreported that landlords were either unwilling tocover the costs of the repairs without higher-income tenants, or threatened to pass the costsdown to tenants themselves. Enforcement of majorcapital improvements without increased costs totenants is critical to ensure safety and operability

of much of the housing stock in Flushing.Fair Chance Affordable Housing

In affordable housing units subsidized by theDepartment of Housing and Preservation (HPD),many tenants who qualify because of theirincome are disqualied because they do notmeet HPD’s guidelines and regulations in termsof background, credit checks, and immigrationstatus. However, HPD has the discretion not touse such strict guidelines so that such housingcan benet the largest group of people.

The Flushing scope should include legislation thatmakes it illegal for landlords who receive city subsidieto discriminate against tenants based on designationsof credit, immigration status, or background. For


33/453

buildings with city subsidies, it should be ensuredthat landlords make apartments available to residentswho may not be able to document lawful immigrationstatus and should accept forms of identicationand income verication available to undocumentedindividuals. With 71% of Flushing residents being

foreign-born, this legislation is particularly crucial toprotect Flushing tenants’ access to affordable housing.

Labor Standards in Development Projects

In Flushing, we are not only concerned about whatis being built, but also who is building it and whowill work there after the project is completed.It is essential that the jobs created throughconstruction and permanent service positions in newdevelopments provide fair wages and safe workingconditions and hire locally from the community tocreate opportunities for good paying careers.

Good jobs and Local Hire

New construction and businesses will mean alot of new jobs in the area and the City shouldguarantee that those jobs create career opportunitiesfor local residents. Developers should not beallowed to build unless they commit to usingcontractors that are part of a NYS approvedapprenticeship program that will provide a pathwayto well trained careers for local residents.

- The City should provide funding for programs toensure that local residents are eligible and preparedfor the state certied apprenticeship programs,including GED programs, stipends and childcare.

- The City must also adopt local hiring requirements fothe rezoned area. This can be done either through thecreation of special purpose districts that mandate locahire and/or through an executive action that mandateslocal hiring for all projects using city subsidies.

- As of 2014, 34 percent of Flushing residents worked

in the service sector, making the service sector thelargest employment sector for Flushing residents. Thisrezoning is going to create a lot of new service sector

jobs for cleaners, concierge, supers, handymen, etc.working in the new residential buildings. It is importantthat we examine ways to assure that developerspay prevailing wages for services workers in theirbuildings to assure dignied permanent work.

Safety and Training for Workers

There recently has been an alarming increase inconstruction worker fatalities and life changinginjuries in New York City. 18 construction workersdied in the eld from the beginning of 2015 todate. In rezoning, we can work to attach safetyand training standards that can protect workersfrom dangerous conditions and mistreatment.

- The City must mandate provisions for worker safetyand training to ensure our most vulnerable workersare protected. Developers should not be allowedto build unless they commit to using contractorsthat are part of a NYS approved apprenticeshipprogram. This is especially important for anyproject that receives subsidy from the City.

6


34/4534

Although the FRCA has focused in our efforts onissues related to affordable housing because ofthe diverse and valuable civil service and nonprotorganizations in Flushing that have focused on otherways that development is impacting downtownFlushing. However, throughout the process the

members of the Flushing Rezoning CommunityAlliance have lifted up consistent and clear concernsaround congestion & overcrowding for car trafc& pedestrians on the sidewalks, the need forenvironmental remediation, the impacts of overdevelopment on infrastructure, overcrowded subwaytrains, & social services for seniors that reach thevarious racial, language and ethnic groups in thediverse community. In our community meetings, wehave created ve specic policy recommendationsin response to these consistent concerns.

Incentivize development of senior centers that meetthe needs of a diverse immigrant neighborhoodin “community facility” space within rezoned area

Flushing is home to a range of aging immigrantcommunities that are seeking spaces to socializeand receive needed social services and assistance.In meetings with the Department of City Planning& in FRCA internal meetings, residents and seniorshave expressed dismay over the lack of spacesand services available to senior citizens, especiallygiven the diversity of immigrant groups in Flushing.

Spanish speaking seniors have noted that to receiveany type of senior center services or activities, theymust travel all the way to Jackson Heights. Korean& Chinese speakers have also complained about alack of programs, services and activities for seniors.

Slide from DCP’s May 21 2015 Town Hall Presentationdetailing existing senior centers

Section 6:Important Additional Factorsfor Just Development


35/453

In the rezoning proposal, one of the potentialbenets identied in the Draft Scope with the currentzoning proposal is an increase in the expectedarea of development for community facilities, from48,500 sf under current zoning to 139,856 sf withthe rezoning, an increase of nearly 91,356.

However, NYC Zoning Text denes communityfacilities in broad terms, and includes colleges &universities, professional schools (but not businessor trade schools), dormitories for colleges, libraries,museums, non commercial art galleries, longterm care facilities, monasteries, convents, nonprot hospital dwelling, philanthropic or nonprotinstitutions with sleeping accommodations, schools,ambulatory diagnostic or treatment health carefacilities, clubs, community centerhs or settlementhouses, houses of worship, rectories or parish houses,

non-commercial recreation centers, hospitals andrelated facilities, seminaries and welfare centers.

With this wide range of possible uses, it is essentialthat the city work with developers to assure thatcommunity facility spaces are used to supportthe creation of senior citizen based services &programs that are accessible to the various languagegroups spoken by the Flushing community.

Increase 7 train service during rush hourcommutes & explore ways to reduce

fares for LIRR trips to Penn StationRush hour commutes from the Main St. terminal indowntown Flushing can be a harrowing experiencefor many, with intense overcrowding and pedestriancongestion. With the potential of 2500+ additionalresidents in new building created by the rezoning,

there will only be increased pressure on 7 trainridership. To help alleviate pressure, the cityshould work with MTA to maximize the number of7 trains leaving from and returning to Flushing.

However, certain limitations around 7 train serviceexist because of limited space for track storage, soalthough taking every possible step to maximizethe number of 7 trains during rush hour commutesis essential it probably will not solve the problem ofovercrowding on its own. The city should work withthe MTA and the LIRR to explore the possibility ofcreating reduced fare passage from the LIRR stationin Downtown Flushing to Penn Station. Currently,the fare for LIRR trip from Downtown Flushing toPenn Station is $10.50 round-trip, more than doublethe $5.50 cost for a round-trip subway ride.

Use city, MTA and other funds to developa bus depot that can reduce pedestrianand car trafc in Downtown Flushing

One of the members of the FRCA, St. George’sEpiscopal Church, was directly impacted by thehigh number of bus layovers in the Downtown area.In 2012, the church was fed up by the number ofcity buses parked around the church. Fr. WIlfredoBenitez, the rector from St. George’s, shared that

“they used almost the entire block around our churchas a parking lot and the fumes were unbearable.

It was a major health hazard for members of ourchurch and community.” Alongside CouncilmemberKoo, St. George’s was able to restrict the numberof buses in lay over in the area around the church,but it didn’t solve the long term problem for theneighborhood - there is simply no adequate placefor buses to layover in an area with many bus lines.


36/4536

At the Draft Scoping Hearing held in November of2015, the Department of City Planning shared thatafter signicant public input and feedback, therewere tentative plans to coordinate across agenciesto acquire a property of sufcient size to createa layover station for the various bus routes thatconnect in Downtown Flushing. As the FRCA, wesupport this measure that could help to reduce

trafc and pedestrian congestion in the downtownarea and assuring that residents see reducedhealth risks from exposure to bus exhaust.

FInally, as the city’s own representation of the busstation above shows, other cities have creatively usedbus transit centers not only as an opportunity tocreate better trafc ow, but also as an opportunity

Slide from Draft Scoping Hearing Presentation on Nov 17 2015

to construct affordable housing. If the city and MTAwere to acquire additional property to create a bustransfer station, it would be essential to examinethe ways that they can leverage this city ownedproperty to create 100% affordable housing as well.

Create additional subway entrances inrezoned area to reduce street congestion

One other important recommendation that has comethrough DCP’s outreach and community engagementthat the FRCA supports is widening and expandingthe number of exits from the 7 train. In talking totenants while door knocking and in FRCA communitymeetings, it is clear that the 7 train commute andovercrowding is a daily problems for thousands of


37/453

Flushing residents. We support nding additionalexits and entrances to the 7 train, particularly nearthe rezoned area that can help reduce congestion.

Environmental Remediation and Sanitation Services

Two primary issues exist to assure that increased

development does not unduly increaseenvironmental damage in the Flushing area:cleaning Flushing creek & assuring improvementin services for solid waste and sanitation.

Flushing Creek Clean Up

At the public scoping meeting in November 2015for the Flushing West Rezoning Proposal, Councilmember Peter Koo said, “As we know the creek isbasically a cesspool which lls up when it rains. Noone wants to go near it because it stinks. I have

not heard a real solution for a sustainable creek. Iexpected Flushing West will change that, otherwisewho wants to live there?” The Tallman IslandWastewater Treatment Plant handles Flushing’ssewage. But the facility works at capacity, so whenrainstorms ood the City’s sewer lines, the combinedsewage and runoff from city streets is dumpedstraight into the creek without being treated.

Raw sewage from over one million square feet ofnew Flushing West development will be above andbeyond present quantities of raw sewage which

already cause polluting CSO’s (combined seweroverow) into Flushing Creek. The NYC Dept. ofEnvironmental Protection’s Flushing Creek Long TermControl Plan (LTCP) was submitted to the NYS Dept.of Environmental Conservation on Dec. 31, 2014. TheNYC DEP determined not to proceed with any ofthe aggressive and expensive methods of reducingCSO’s into Flushing Creek. In addition to prohibitivecosts, DEP cites numerous technical challenges thatcomplicate implementing more effective methods

of reducing CSO’s, such as building deep tunnels.

More likely methods to be used by DEP includeoutfall disinfection by dosing with low levels ofchlorine for bacteria load reduction and buildingbioswales (curbside gardens to collect stormwater). Even these less expensive and less effectivemethods need to go through approval processesand will not be implemented quickly, accordingto DEP staff at DCP’s Flushing West’s CommunityMeeting on Feb 11, 2015. It is essential that citynd appropriate ways to clean Flushing Creek fromits current state of contamination and pollution.

Improve Solid Waste and SanitationServices in Downtown Flushing

In the FRCA Community Survey, 73% of respondentscomplained about sanitation services. Walking

around downtown Flushing, it is hard not to observelarge numbers of bags of solid waste piled uponsidewalks at most times. According to the Draft Scopof Work, the Flushing West Rezoning is expectedto result in a net increase of more than 50 tons perweek, which requires an assessment of solid wasteand sanitation services. This assessments determineswhether the increase in solid waste produced mayoverburden available waste management capacity orotherwise be inconsistent with the City’s Solid WasteManagement Plan or with the State policy related to

the City’s integrated solid waste management systemEven without new development, the City doesnot appear to be meeting the collection anddisposal needs of downtown Flushing.


38/4538

Councilmember Koo has provided real leadershipby standing with his colleagues and pushing forchanges in the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Planto include lower levels of incomes that are muchcloser to the incomes of current Flushing residents.Councilmember Koo will need to continue to

provide leadership to assure that the administrationcreates a rezoning and neighborhood plan thatmeets community needs. The Flushing RezoningCommunity Alliance has and is ready to continueghting and organizing for a more just rezoning.

In this report, we have highlighted ourclear recommendations that can create apathway to just rezoning, including:

Selecting MIH options that provide the deepestlevel of affordability for Flushing West

Incorporating the results of the study of theFAAB model to examine how density can beused to leverage more equitable development

Using city resources to ll enrollmentgaps in SCRIE and DRIE programs

Maximizing residential zoning on MunicipalLot 2 to create opportunity for 100%affordable housing development

Passing anti-harassment and anti-displacement

legislation like the “Certicate of NoHarassment” before rezoning is nalized

Providing safety and job training standardsfor workers combined with local hiring

Although these recommendations and steps will notresolve the affordable housing crisis in its entirety, webelieve they are a step in the right direction to assurethat current residents benet this rezoning process. Inaddition, Flushing has a highly taxed and overcrowdeinfrastructure, so it is essential that Councilmember

Koo and the administration work together to addressbroader neighborhood concerns, including:

Incentivizing development of senior centersthat meet the needs of a diverse immigrantneighborhood in “community facility”space within rezoned neighborhoods

Increasing 7 train service duringrush hour commutes

Creating additional subway entrances inrezoned area to reduce street congestion

Using city funds to develop a busdepot that can reduce pedestrian andcar trafc in Downtown Flushing

Environmental remediation of FlushingCreek and improved sanitation and solidwaste services in Downtown Flushing

Together these neighborhood and housingrecommendations offer Councilmember Koo and theadministration a pathway forward for a rezoning that

benets, rather than displaces, Flushing residents.

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

Section 7:Conclusions


39/453

Appendices

Appendix 1: Flushing Rent Stabilized Buildings by Status

The following table is an analysis of the types of subsidy and status ofrent stabilized buildings within the downtown ushing area.


40/4540

Appendices

Appendix 2: Buildings Sold from 2010-2016 withinFlushing Study Area Containing Rent Stabilized Units


41/454


42/45


43/454


44/4544


45/45

Documents

Flushing West: Recommendations for a Just Rezoning