Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

New Bills: Curbing to Cutting Trees


After approving the biggest rezoning plan in the city’s history at its stated meeting on September 10, several City Council members introduced legislation to take care of smaller, quality of life issues, such as regulating curb cuts, air conditioners and trees on construction sites.

Curbing Extra Curbing

Since 2004, Councilmember Vincent Gentile has introduced legislation twice calling for the restoration of curbs that have been illegally cut - which eliminate parking spots and allow cars to enter driveways - as well as for the notification of community boards when a construction project plans to propose one. Each time the legislation has stalled in the council’s transportation committee.

But he is trying again. Gentile, who represents Bay Ridge, often sees parking spots whither away as curb space is taken over by extra large driveways for particular residences, said his spokesman Eric Kuo. Under legislation introduced with Councilmember Domenic Recchia at the council’s stated meeting on September 10, (Intro 619), applications for curb cut permits to the Department of Buildings would have to be examined and forwarded to community boards for review.

" When someone does an illegal curb cut that takes away another parking space," said Kuo. "The intent is to get rid of illegal curb cuts. It's already been a big problem in our neighborhoods in Bay Ridge."

In companion legislation introduced by Gentile and Recchia, (Intro 620) residents could be fined for illegal curb cuts on their property. When illegal curb cuts are found, according to the bill, the Department of Transportation would require property owners to restore the curb or cover the cost for the department to do so. Kuo could not estimate how much the fines for such restoration would be.

According to the legislation, it is unclear how the transportation department would be notified of illegal curb cuts or how the restoration would be enforced. Kuo said they would work with the community and the council's transportation committee staff to work out the details.

Conditions for Air Conditioners

When residents of her Upper West Side district were reportedly ticketed for not using brackets to support air conditioners, Councilmember Gale Brewer introduced legislation that would clarify when brackets would be necessary.

The bill (Intro 618) requires brackets be installed when air conditioners cannot otherwise be safely attached to building facades. Because of new technology and updated units, brackets are often unnecessary.

Trees At Construction Sites

Councilmember Michael McMahon also introduced legislation (Intro 621) that mandates that trees larger than a six-inch diameter be protected during construction. When construction occurs on any building, curb, sidewalk or roadway a protective guard would have to be erected around the tree, under the new bill.

 

 

 

Electricity, Gas and Broadband


Should broadband access join water, gas and electricity and be a basic utility available to all New Yorkers? Some advocates say yes and are likely to press that point as the New York City Broadband Advisory Committee continues to conduct hearings throughout the city.

The Broadband Advisory Committee, created by Local Law 126, exists to advise the mayor and City Council speaker “on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies within the city of New York.” Broadband, as defined by that law is a “high-speed connection to the Internet” that enables the “fast relay of voice and data that many have come to expect.” Broadband capabilities are essential to many online activities, such as sharing videos, and make many other on-line tasks easier and quicker.

After holding hearings in all five boroughs, the advisory committee will issue recommendations on broadband policy to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Telecommunications Policy Advisory Group.

The Broadband Advisory Committee has 15 members, eight appointed by Bloomberg and seven appointed by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. In the main, the mayoral appointees are focused on how to implement telecommunications policies that will enhance the city’s economic competitiveness, while the council appointees have a stronger interest in reducing the “digital divide” between people who can afford broadband access and those who cannot.

A DEMAND FOR BROADBAND

The concern for easier and more affordable broadband access figured prominently in the most recent hearing, held in Brooklyn in late May. Senior citizens spoke of facing discrimination and isolation because they did not have strong computer skills. High school students explained about how high-speed Internet access could assist with their studies. And library administrator Steven Schecter described how people sit outside the walls of Brooklyn central library on Grand Army Plaza to enjoy the free wireless signal during hours when the library is not open. (Wireless is the most practical form of broadband access for outdoor spaces at this time.) Many people bemoaned the paucity of broadband access in various neighborhoods, as well as the high cost of the service that is available.

(Appropriately enough for a hearing about broadband access, most of the speaker presentations are available on YouTube – and would be painful to watch the clips on a dial-up connection. Carlos Pareja of Brooklyn Community Access TV produced a montage of testimony about how enhanced broadband access would benefit senior citizens who wish to re-enter the job market or keep in touch with their grandchildren. Clips of the day’s events are available on the advisory committee’s blog, along with transcripts of spoken testimony. Finally, an audio file of the entire three- hour hearing is available.)

At the hearings, according to coverage on the Empire Zone blog, many who spoke faulted the cost and quality of broadband service now available.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS RESPOND

In comments after the hearing, several members of the Broadband Advisory Committee commented on the necessity of good, quick Internet access, but with different degrees of intensity.

Shaun Belle, president and CEO of the Mount Hope Housing Company and chair of the advisory committee, said it “would be in the best interest of NYC as a whole to develop a comprehensive approach to developing at a minimum a broadband infrastructure for public consumption.” In Belle’s view, broadband should be “a public utility of sorts.” But he said , recognizing it as such would require the city to invest in “private partnerships and infrastructure.”

“The city has a responsibility to intercede and in effect declare the Internet is a ‘Public Good’ and guarantee delivery of low cost broadband access to everyone,” said Andrew Rasiej, the founder of the Personal Democracy Forum and an unsuccessful candidate for public advocate in 2005.

To provide this service, he said, the city should build a ‘’wireless mesh network’’ over the entire city that would avoid copper or cable hardwire delivery and accelerate access. Radically enhancing wireless access was the centerpiece of Rasiej’s campaign for public advocate.

Matthew Eisner, a Brooklyn writer who testified at the May hearing would go even further. “Why not just supply all New Yorkers with free, wireless Internet access?” he reportedly said. Explaining that he pays $60 a month for what he described as poor service, Eisner continued, “We’re a progressive city — why can’t we just have the city provide us with good, free wireless Internet service? I can’t think of a greater democratizing force than putting high-speed Internet service in the hands of all New Yorkers, not just those who can afford it.”

Failing to improve Internet access could have economic ramifications, Steven Masur, lawyer for start-up businesses, told the hearing. “If we in New York want to be competitive with places like the Silicon Valley, Mumbai or Shanghai, we need cheap widespread broadband access,” he warned the committee

But what does the administration plan to do? Wendy Lader, vice president of telecommunications policy at the Web New York City Economic Development Corporation, which includes the Telecommunications Policy Advisory Group, wrote, “The Bloomberg administration is committed to promoting innovative broadband solutions to support businesses and residents throughout neighborhoods in all five boroughs.” Ladet also said the corporation has commissioned a study on the current state of broadband in New York City and what steps the city might “take to ensure all New Yorkers have access to robust broadband services.”

In her comments, Lader did not explicitly make the “public good” arguments put forth by Belle and Rasiej. This difference of perspective could make for fascinating debate among advisory committee members but could also hinder their ability to provide clear, unanimous recommendations to the mayor and the City Council.

AN UNCHARTED PATH

But even if the committee agrees that the city must have universal, inexpensive – if not free — broadband access, New York would still face substantial challenges. No American city has yet developed a comprehensive policy for enhancing broadband access. In municipal government terms, this is still very new territory.

Philadelphia and San Francisco have both announced ambitious plans to enhance wireless access in each city. (This is analogous, but not identical to, increasing broadband access.) Advocates for enhanced municipal wireless access often hail these efforts. But nothing comes easily.

San Francisco reached an agreement under which EarthLink would build a citywide wireless network and Google would provide free basic Internet service. Mayor Gavin Newsom termed it “the best proposal of its kind in the United States.” But last month the city’s Board of Supervisors voted to delay action on the plan. Some critics expressed concern that the system could be used to store private information on individuals and charged that the free service might not be exactly free after all.

Philadelphia, which could have “America's biggest citywide wifi network,” would make Internet access available to low-income residents for $9.95 a month. But some Comments Potential users have objected, arguing the service should be entirely free.

In New York City, a robust dialogue about the future of broadband access is underway, accelerated by the committee hearings. But no meaningful policy action will occur until policymakers decide whether broadband is a utility or a luxury.

 

Latest Round in the Garbage Wars


Protesters charged Manhattan "dumps on" poorer neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

Raising signs calling for "environmental justice" and shouting "NIMBY no, justice yes," residents of the Bronx and Brooklyn circled the office of State Assemblymember Deborah Glick last week.

The protestors, members of the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods said they are tired of getting dumped on, quite literally, and want the state to clear the way for a recycling station in downtown Manhattan.

The station is intended to ease the burden on the Bronx and Brooklyn, which now take most of the city's trash, and is part of an effort to make the city's solid waste management system fairer and more environmentally friendly. But in the latest development in the city's garbage wars, several Manhattan Assembly members and parks groups want to block the station. Glick, whose district abuts the site, and others said the peninsula simply is not a good place for the recycling station largely because it would impinge on Hudson River Park. Their critics, however, have accused of NIMBYism (not in my backyard) sentiments.

"It's Manhattan using its privilege," said Elizabeth Yeampierre , chair of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance and executive director of UPROSE, a Latino community group based in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. "We want to let Glick know she is in the way. She is in the way of borough equity."

As the hours in the current state legislative session dwindle, some organizations and politicians still hope to get this final piece of the Solid Waste Management Plan approved in Albany. Although the City Council approved the plan last summer -- a decision mired in years of debate -- the state must still vote to allow construction of the recycling facility and education center on the Gansevoort peninsula in the Hudson River near 14th Street.

The Latest Chapter

The history of disposing waste in New York City is wrought with controversy. For five decades, all residential waste (now estimated at 12,000 tons per day) was taken to Staten Island. After former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani closed Fresh Kills in 2001, city officials scrambled to deal with the 50,000 tons of waste and recyclables collected each day. Meanwhile, most trash has been trucked through communities in the Bronx and Brooklyn where it is transferred to larger trucks that transport it to landfills, many out of state.

A 2004 report by a national environmental group concluded that 80 percent of the city's trash collected at private waste transfer stations piled up in just four of the city's 59 community board districts. All were outside of Manhattan, even though that borough creates 40 percent of the city's waste. As garbage trucks tore down city streets in the Bronx and Brooklyn, asthma rates in adjacent neighborhoods skyrocketed, an increase many link to the garbage trucks.

The plan proposed by Bloomberg and approved by council last year aims to shift the hauling of waste from trucks to barges and rails. It also would require every borough take care of its "fair share" of waste.

Under the plan, the city's waste would still end up in far-flung -- and costly -- landfills. But, according to city officials, the plan would eliminate 5.6 million truck miles annually and reduce the city's carbon emissions as well. The Gansevoort facility alone, they said, would reduce truck trips by 30,000 miles annually.

Although City Council passed the entire waste management plan last year, it has not yet been implemented. Some of the marine transfer stations are under construction, while others are being designed, said chair of the City Council's Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Committee Michael McMahon.

The Latest Hurdle

Some opponents of the Gansevoort facility want the recycling station moved to Pier 76, pictured here.

The state government also has approved the entire plan. But because the Gansevoort facility will be within Hudson River Park, it requires a second OK from the governor and legislature. The site is part of a five-mile stretch of open space running from Battery Place to West 59th Street. Opponents of the transfer station said its location would compromise the park, no matter how small the recycling facility may be.

Washington Heights Assemblymember Adriano Espaillat has introduced legislation that would allow the station to be built. He said he is optimistic that the legislature will consider the bill before the conclusion of its session this week. "There is never a perfect place and communities never really welcome this type of initiative," Espaillat said. "Many neighborhoods in the city have been relegated as dumping grounds. We must change that paradigm."

Bloomberg is pressuring Albany to pass Espaillat's legislation. In a letter sent to every member of the state legislature last week, the mayor stated it is "more than reasonable" to open the recycling station, which will take up two-thirds of an acre in a 550-acre park. Bloomberg also argues that the Department of Sanitation studied other sites for the marine transfer station, including those being proposed by opponents, and none were suitable.

Pier 76 especially, the letter states, is "ill-suited" for public use because roads and ramps would create narrow park spaces that would bring about safety concerns. Its proximity to the Lincoln Tunnel would also complicate the site's access.

The reactivation of the recycling marine transfer site at Gansevoort - where a station had operated until 1991 - would free up space currently taken up by recyclable materials at another waste transfer station on 59th Street. That, in turn, could further relieve pressure on the transfer stations in the Bronx and Brooklyn.

In particular, though, supporters of the solid waste plan fear any change in it -- such as moving the recycling facility from Gansevoort -- could derail the waste management plan, allowing trash to continue to pile up in less affluent communities outside of Manhattan.

"That part of the plan cannot go forward and you will have a domino effect," McMahon said.

In an attempt to protect the waste management plan, the City Council endorsed the reactivation of the Gansevoort station by a vote of 48 to 3 last week and urged the legislature to approve the bill. Those voting against the measure were Councilmembers Gale Brewer, Daniel Garodnick and Jessica Lappin, all of which are from Manhattan.

The plan's supporters also want the legislature to act before the end of the session, claiming the issue could be placed on a back burner and ultimately jeopardize the entire plan. "If it's not passed now... it's potentially a really missed opportunity," said Gavin Kearney, an attorney with New York Lawyers For The Public Interest, which works with the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods. "The push that we're getting from opponents to study alternative sites could really kill it."

Parks Versus the Plan

Opponents of the facility, including Friends of Hudson River Park, the Coalition to Protect Our Parks and Manhattan assembly members, Glick, Richard Gottfried and Linda Rosenthal, said the Gansevoort site poses an array of problems.

In a statement, Glick said, "It is unacceptable for the mayor to tout his environmental vision for the future, while his administration is seeking to dramatically reduce critical parkland in one of the most park-starved communities in the city."

Matthew Washington, the deputy director of the Friends of Hudson River Park, said the station could be built on other sites on the West Side -- areas that would not threaten parkland. A study by the groups supports a combined transfer facility at Pier 76 near 36th Street. The pier, the current site of the Manhattan tow pound, is more than twice the square footage of the Gansevoort and 59th Street sites combined, according to the study.

Park advocates have said their opposition is not a case of NIMBYism. "We think it's important for each borough to handle its own waste," Washington said. But, he added, "One of the things that's important to us is not alienating parkland."

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years