Great to get out this counter to Abundance, especially as it may be too focused on a place like NYC. But let's get down to brass tacks on this. Did you vote for or against the charter amendments on zoning? I still have a problem with a single council person having the power to veto a rezoning that could benefit the city as a whole. And it didn't look like the Council was ever going to change a practice as opposed to something that was required by law. As just one example, I wasn't against the Industry City rezoning (did you see "Emergent City"), and think the City would be better off if this project had been built. Not paradise, just a little better.
Hey Rich! Honored to have you as a leader. Haven't seen Emergent City and will try to watch. It's interesting you point to Industry City, as I think Jamestown badly bungled outreach to/engagement with the community in Sunset Park (they were hosting salsa dance nights in a heavily Latin community but basically targeting people from outside the neighborhood to attend, etc) so not super surprising that the project was deeply unpopular and Menchaca ended up reflecting his constituents feelings in opposing it:
On the charter amendments, I voted for 1 (on the Olympic facility in the Adirondacks, which, hilariously, was voted down, I think because no one understood what it was about – basically legalizing an already existing facility that will remain in legal limbo but continue to operate); no on 2, because I felt uncomfortable with this language:
"Further, to account for important differences between lower-density and higher-density community districts, districts would be assessed based on relative growth in affordable housing rather than the absolute number of affordable housing units permitted. By focusing on the rate of new affordable housing permitted relative to the existing housing stock, the Fast Track wouldn’t measure whether a low-density district created as many units as a higher-density one, but instead whether it added a similar share of affordable housing."
This goes back to my point that it is past time that we stop treating our internal suburbs with kid gloves. I live in a very dense part of the city that is steadily seeing significant development, and I didn't like the idea of our neighborhood being subjected to undemocratic development decisions while low-density neighborhoods got away with adding comparatively little housing. Obviously, they should be adding more housing of every sort, including affordable – they are low density!!!!
Yes on 3, both because it was more contained in scope, struck me as largely common sense, and in particular owing to the provisions about renewables and resilience.
No on 4, as this language (and really the whole proposal) struck me as amenable to abuse: "Second, the Appeals Board would come into play only for land use actions that would create additional affordable housing, such as a land use action that will involve, in whole or in part, application of the City’s mandatory inclusionary housing requirements." Easy to imagine lots of developers getting very good, very quickly at "actions that would create additional affordable housing" as an end around.
Yes on 5, as it was obviously a good idea!
And no on 6. As Mamdani just proved, people turn out for municipal elections if they feel people are addressing their needs, and I don't want NYC level issues getting lost in the tumult of our (idiotic) national politics).
Finally, I'll just add that I don't think these are the sort of questions that should really be handled via ballot measure. I personally don't know anyone outside of city gov't (and one friend we know in common who runs a city gov't-adjacent non-profit) who actually read the text of the proposals (including for interest for other readers):
and yet there people were voting on major changes to the city charter! Probably these things should be legislated instead, but then you'd have to go through the council...
In the end, I was more sympathetic to this take than the one you make, but I can see how reasonable people disagreed here, and the population has, of course, spoken:
Thanks Tom. I will concede that I am someone who voted just to make a statement on the need for a different housing policy and didn't focus on the wording (even though I'm a lawyer!). I will further admit that the language on affordable housing could have been tighter, but I was willing to give it a shot. I live in what is now one of the denser areas of the City, downtown Brooklyn (population density of 50,000/ square mile and do think maybe we already have enough tall buildings in this area. But maybe this policy will result in more density in the more suburban areas and not change mine much (do I sound like a NIMBY?). One last thought. Good projects shouldn't die because the developer should have done a better job on community outreach. For me that is why an appeal process makes sense even if we won't always agree with the result of that appeal process.
W/r/t Industry City, it goes well beyond failing at community outreach. People who actually live in Sunset Park had (and I think, continue to have) deep concerns about Industry City as an engine of gentrification and displacement that is delivering very little in the way to jobs or tangible benefits to long-time residents. Probably Jamestown should have taken their needs and concerns seriously, rather than treating the Gowanus Expressay like it was the proverbial railroad tracks!
2020 Census puts Manhatttan's density, island wide, at 72,918 residents per square mile. Welcome to the club ;) – but yes, I agree. You now have plenty of tall buildings in Downtown Brooklyn, and I'm not sure quite enough care was taken in cobbling them all together in that small space...
And finally, I think a lot of people voted to make a statement, but unfortunately, the devil is almost always in the detail of these sorts of things, and I believe the proposals were worded in such a fashion as to make them amenable to abuse. Time will tell, I guess. I'll be writing more on this and related issues in my next post, so very much looking forward to continuing the conversation :)
Great to get out this counter to Abundance, especially as it may be too focused on a place like NYC. But let's get down to brass tacks on this. Did you vote for or against the charter amendments on zoning? I still have a problem with a single council person having the power to veto a rezoning that could benefit the city as a whole. And it didn't look like the Council was ever going to change a practice as opposed to something that was required by law. As just one example, I wasn't against the Industry City rezoning (did you see "Emergent City"), and think the City would be better off if this project had been built. Not paradise, just a little better.
Hey Rich! Honored to have you as a leader. Haven't seen Emergent City and will try to watch. It's interesting you point to Industry City, as I think Jamestown badly bungled outreach to/engagement with the community in Sunset Park (they were hosting salsa dance nights in a heavily Latin community but basically targeting people from outside the neighborhood to attend, etc) so not super surprising that the project was deeply unpopular and Menchaca ended up reflecting his constituents feelings in opposing it:
https://www.metro-manhattan.com/blog/how-and-why-the-rezoning-of-brooklyns-industry-city-fell-apart-in-2020/
Even so, it's a funny example to use re: member deference as council came much closer than usual to over-riding him:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/09/industry-city-and-the-future-of-member-deference/175636/
On the charter amendments, I voted for 1 (on the Olympic facility in the Adirondacks, which, hilariously, was voted down, I think because no one understood what it was about – basically legalizing an already existing facility that will remain in legal limbo but continue to operate); no on 2, because I felt uncomfortable with this language:
"Further, to account for important differences between lower-density and higher-density community districts, districts would be assessed based on relative growth in affordable housing rather than the absolute number of affordable housing units permitted. By focusing on the rate of new affordable housing permitted relative to the existing housing stock, the Fast Track wouldn’t measure whether a low-density district created as many units as a higher-density one, but instead whether it added a similar share of affordable housing."
This goes back to my point that it is past time that we stop treating our internal suburbs with kid gloves. I live in a very dense part of the city that is steadily seeing significant development, and I didn't like the idea of our neighborhood being subjected to undemocratic development decisions while low-density neighborhoods got away with adding comparatively little housing. Obviously, they should be adding more housing of every sort, including affordable – they are low density!!!!
Yes on 3, both because it was more contained in scope, struck me as largely common sense, and in particular owing to the provisions about renewables and resilience.
No on 4, as this language (and really the whole proposal) struck me as amenable to abuse: "Second, the Appeals Board would come into play only for land use actions that would create additional affordable housing, such as a land use action that will involve, in whole or in part, application of the City’s mandatory inclusionary housing requirements." Easy to imagine lots of developers getting very good, very quickly at "actions that would create additional affordable housing" as an end around.
Yes on 5, as it was obviously a good idea!
And no on 6. As Mamdani just proved, people turn out for municipal elections if they feel people are addressing their needs, and I don't want NYC level issues getting lost in the tumult of our (idiotic) national politics).
Finally, I'll just add that I don't think these are the sort of questions that should really be handled via ballot measure. I personally don't know anyone outside of city gov't (and one friend we know in common who runs a city gov't-adjacent non-profit) who actually read the text of the proposals (including for interest for other readers):
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/charter/downloads/pdf/2025/7-21-2025-charter-revision-commission-adopted-final-report-digital.pdf
and yet there people were voting on major changes to the city charter! Probably these things should be legislated instead, but then you'd have to go through the council...
In the end, I was more sympathetic to this take than the one you make, but I can see how reasonable people disagreed here, and the population has, of course, spoken:
https://indypendent.org/2025/11/the-latest-developer-scam-city-charter-revisions-that-claim-to-fast-track-affordable-housing/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks Tom. I will concede that I am someone who voted just to make a statement on the need for a different housing policy and didn't focus on the wording (even though I'm a lawyer!). I will further admit that the language on affordable housing could have been tighter, but I was willing to give it a shot. I live in what is now one of the denser areas of the City, downtown Brooklyn (population density of 50,000/ square mile and do think maybe we already have enough tall buildings in this area. But maybe this policy will result in more density in the more suburban areas and not change mine much (do I sound like a NIMBY?). One last thought. Good projects shouldn't die because the developer should have done a better job on community outreach. For me that is why an appeal process makes sense even if we won't always agree with the result of that appeal process.
W/r/t Industry City, it goes well beyond failing at community outreach. People who actually live in Sunset Park had (and I think, continue to have) deep concerns about Industry City as an engine of gentrification and displacement that is delivering very little in the way to jobs or tangible benefits to long-time residents. Probably Jamestown should have taken their needs and concerns seriously, rather than treating the Gowanus Expressay like it was the proverbial railroad tracks!
2020 Census puts Manhatttan's density, island wide, at 72,918 residents per square mile. Welcome to the club ;) – but yes, I agree. You now have plenty of tall buildings in Downtown Brooklyn, and I'm not sure quite enough care was taken in cobbling them all together in that small space...
And finally, I think a lot of people voted to make a statement, but unfortunately, the devil is almost always in the detail of these sorts of things, and I believe the proposals were worded in such a fashion as to make them amenable to abuse. Time will tell, I guess. I'll be writing more on this and related issues in my next post, so very much looking forward to continuing the conversation :)