March 5, 2018

BROOKLYN COMMUNITY BOARD 6

ECONOMIC/WATERFRONT/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING

COMMITTEE MEETING

March 05, 2017

Attendance:

R. Bashner P A. Krasnow P D. Payne P D. Carcache P J. Li P A. Ramdhari P M. Carter A C. Linsenman A G. Yedwab P E. Causil-Rodriguez P R. Luftglass A N. Zephyrin P G. Fabbri A V. Malerba JR P V. Heramia P L. Mattern P P = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, C = Conflict

Guests: O. Jonas, Rep. for Hon. Velmanette Montgomery, State Senator J. Brown R. Dubois L.Gouff

**THESE MINUTES ARE CONSIDERED A DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED AT THE

SUBSEQUENT ECONOMICS, WATERFRONT, COMMUNUNITY DEVELOPMENT,

AND HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING**

Agenda: 1) NYCHA NextGen Development, Wyckoff Gardens 2) Superfund Enhancement Act of 2018

Location: Wyckoff Gardens Community Center

1) Presentation by Resident Association of Wyckoff Gardens  JoAnne Brown: CB6 member, NYCHA Community United, works with FUREE & FAC  Residents Association of Wykcoff Gardens: Valerie Bell, President o Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer: present  Charlene Nimmons: Former RAofWG President, Public Housing Communities, Inc.  Wyckoff Gardens Stakeholders Committee: Craig Holmes, Chairperson,  Sabine Aronowsky (former Steering Committee/neighbor & Stakeholder Committee/FAC)  Monica Underwood: FUREE Approx. 65-70 residents attended. (78 sign-ins, including CB6 members and speakers) A draft letter to Community Board 6 was presented to the EWCDH Committee members from the Resident Association of Wyckoff Gardens and residents. The letter includes a list of demands; concerns and issues, accusations of misconduct on the part of NYCHA, and a number of HUD Regulations that the residents claim NYCHA is in violation of for not having adhered to them. General issues:

1

 Lack of transparency. NYCHA failed to disseminate and share information regarding critical project details in a timely manner.  Lack of true resident representation: A Stakeholder group was formed by NYCHA that allowed very few residents, and tightly controlled information. A Steering committee was also formed. There seems to be a lack of clarity in roles and different levels of representation.  Renovations: There is no Physical Needs Assessment or plan for critical structural repairs to Wyckoff Gardens. Concern that building repairs will be cosmetic and not treat root problems.  Repair Cost estimates: How much does NYCHA have now and what is the cost of repairs (city-wide and for Wyckoff Gardens)  General Development concerns o Construction impact: Past construction projects have not been done safely and carefully o Environmental impact: Additional density, already increased development is impacting neighborhood, more sewage, traffic, density, current overcrowding will get worse. Air quality, reduction in trees, reduction in light and air for existing residents. o Safety concerns o Affordability of new affordable housing – will they be low enough for existing neighborhood residents? o Parking removed. Parking problem: higher incomes, more cars Specific Requests (see letter from residents for all demands):  Copy of the disposition application submitted to HUD for use of NYCHA property for the new development.  Release of all of all 12 Proposals in response to the RFP for development of the site  Proof that the parking lots are underutilized and a list of the parking space requests.  Response to the Question: Were other funding sources such as RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration), or Choice Neighborhoods considered as options to raise funds for repairs? HUD Regulations: (see letter from residents for specific HUD Regulations considered to be in violation) Other issues raised:  100% of all residents at the meeting said NO to the development project. They said they do not want it. In past meetings with NYCHA their input was stated as conditional, only “if” the project proceeded. A Petition to stop the project will be attached to the letter.  Environmental requirements: Federal level required review first.  Superfund cleanup: How will 500+ new toilets & sinks be factored in?  Resident Participation: Steering Committee and Stakeholder Committee: o Criteria for selection was not clear and appeared to be arbitrary. o NYCHA was not consistent in its approach to resident input – rules seem to change.  Area Overdevelopment: 3rd & 4th Avenue, Schermerhorn Street, and downtown Brooklyn. Creating gentrification; new apartments are not affordable or only for a very few.  NYCHA Accountability: Wyckoff Cultural Center – what happened to plans for repairs.

2

 Proposed Developer: NYCHA released the selected develop without notification to the Residents Association. Only Craig Holmes (Stakeholder Committee) was asked to come to a meeting on March 14. Selection was announced at the end of January. This is not acceptable.  CB6 was not adequately represented on the Stakeholder’s Committee. Going forward, CB6 will remain involved. Motion: CB6 will send a letter identifying issues that were heard and attaching meeting notes and other documents received from the Residents Association. Will be sent to NYCHA leadership and NYC Law Department. Letter will request a date for NYCHA to respond. Quorum. Unanimous vote: Yes.

2) Superfund Enhancement Act

Presenter: Melissa Ortiz, Congresswoman Nydia M. Velasquez’s office.

This new bill is intended to bring back the “Superfund Tax”, repealed in 1995, which allows for government to tax industrial polluters (some industries had been dropped from the initial 1980 list) to fund remediation of “orphaned” sites. In addition, the bill would create assistance through SBA for loans and tax deductions, to assist businesses forced to relocate due to superfund cleanup. Questions:  How will assistance funding be allocated to businesses? o What is the distance, related to the contamination, from which businesses can apply o What are qualifications for the business grants o Should this be a grant instead of a loan?  Businesses that purchased a site after environmental assessment (or superfund designation) made it clear that there was a pre-existing toxic condition, should not be eligible for assistance.  Can the assistance also apply to residents?  Why is this bill being enacted at this time? Given the number of unresolved questions about the bill, there was no motion and no vote. CM Velasquez’s office will respond to questions and the issue can be brought to a full Board vote on Wednesday, March 14.

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were presented by Ariel Krasnow.

3