Visit Our New Office:

105 E. 116th Street
New York, NY 10029
Tel:    (212) 828-9800

Dear Colleagues:

In East Harlem, large-scale development is reshaping our neighborhood. However, now that our community has become more desirable, longstanding resident s and business owners must not be pushed out. These projects promise to revitalize our community; but without the active participation of current residents in this process they will not be respectful of our community’s needs and will not fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. In its current form, the Uptown NY project does neither.

I would like to call your attention to a critical tool that can allow our community to participate in shaping these proposed revitalizations, Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs). CBAs are a critical tool that allows the local community to influence what shape the proposed revitalization is to take. In the case of the project being discussed tonight, Uptown NY, the New York City Economic Development Corporation needs to work in tandem with Community Board 11 to ensure that the surrounding neighborhood actively participates and helps to define the proposed project.

CBAs provide much needed accountability to help protect the environment, expand affordable housing, job training and employment, and small business opportunities for minority and women owned business.

As EDC attempts to move this project forward in the upcoming months, the following are areas of concern regarding CEQR No. 05DME015M that can be addressed with a Community Based Agreement:

1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Concern:  East Harlem currently has the second highest asthma rate of any community in the country, after the South Bronx. The site is adjacent to the Triboro Bridge, the Third Avenue Bridge, the Willis Avenue Bridge, Second and Third Avenues, the Harlem River Drive, the new Auto Mall (Potamkin), the proposed East River Plaza shopping mall and an existing surface parking and bus depot for uptown MTA buses, already generators of a lot of traffic.

Recommendation:  EDC should discourage additional traffic and parking at this site.  Any development on this site needs to incorporate green technology to assure that the adverse environmental impact is minimized.

2. PROPOSED HOUSING

Concern:  Many families are double and tripled up in existing housing. Current rentals and homeownership opportunities are beyond the reach of many of this community’s residents. The proposed housing is categorized as mixed use but no income guidelines are provided nor are there any recommendations as to how the proposed housing units will be allocated.

Recommendation:   EDC should consider affordable housing for low, moderate and middle-income households. The new housing should be 1/3 low-income ($18,000 to $37,000), 1/3 moderate-income ($37,000 to $62,000) and 1/3 middle-income ($62,000 to $80,000).

3. ZONING VARIANCE

Concern:  The site requires a zoning change from R7-2 (medium density residential), M1-1 and C4-4 to C4-6, a high density commercial and residential equivalent (R10). The City and Community Boards 10 & 11 recently adopted contextual zoning districts for significant parts of their neighborhoods that encourage medium density building with height limitations. The proposed rezoning would deviate from this line of thinking.

Recommendation:   EDC should consider a medium density, contextual rezoning for this site.

4. JOB CREATION

Concern:  Proposed retail stores are not required to hire locally nor are they required to provide living wage jobs that include benefits.

Recommendation:  

• Assure Job Quality – jobs that provide a living wage, healthcare, union neutrality, and project labor agreements for construction jobs
• Guarantee Local Hiring –jobs in development reserved for local residents; better coordinate existing training or pre-apprenticeship programs for community members to gain qualifying skills and experience
• Create opportunities for local business, particularly small, independent, women and people-of-color/minority owned businesses.

The benefits of the construction of the project and its operation need to be made available first to the surrounding community.

As highlighted by the report Livable Neighborhoods for a Livable City: Policy Recommendations to Strengthen Community-Based Planning in New York City, issued by the Municipal Art Society of New York: “At a time when New York is engaged in the most ambitious and widespread development planning in decades, the conflicting visions of city planners, developers and local neighborhoods have never been more apparent and the stakes have never been higher.” A more meaningful role for communities in New York City’s planning and decision-making processes must occur. As the report further highlights: “Based on the premise that the people who live and work in a neighborhood are among the best equipped to plan for the future of that neighborhood, we are laying the groundwork for the formal adoption of community-based planning as official New York City policy.”

We believe that a Community Benefit Agreement is such a policy that we strongly EDC to implement.

Submitted By:  Melissa Mark Viverito, El Barrio/East Harlem Community Resident and Activist, (212) 348-4106. Gloria Quiñones, El Barrio/East Harlem Community Resident and Activist, (212) 348-8004.