IV. the challenges
From BeyondVoting
NOTE: This page can not be edited. Place your comments in Discussion above.
The first step toward establishing new policy is to examine the city’s existing planning framework in order to identify the nature and scope of the obstacles to effective, consensus-driven planning. These obstacles range from the abstract—misperceptions and lack of awareness—to the concrete—resources, training, and legislative measures, none of which are insurmountable. The “Solutions” section of the report offers ways to overcome the following obstacles:
- Increase public awareness of community boards and community-based planning
Community boards are the grassroots level of government. Boards are also the gateway for the officially recognized community-based planning process through their role in the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the 197-a process, and bear much responsibility for their districts’ interests.
Effective consensus-driven planning depends on the boards’ representing the district and partnering effectively with local community-based organizations.
Yet the percentage of New Yorkers who do not know that community boards even exist is probably greater than the percentage of those who do. Some people avoid community boards until the board takes a stance that is perceived as contrary to neighborhood interests. Others may feel that the board will not embrace their interests, or that boards wield no true power in the political process. As a consequence, participation in development decisions and official planning efforts is rarely what it could be. Few people know that committee and board meetings are open to the public or that non-board members can serve on board committees. There is also the perception that community boards are not open to new immigrants and that membership requires close political connections. The means by which people discover community boards are few. There is no systematized, ongoing outreach campaign sponsored by the city. Public schools rarely make civic engagement or awareness of the local political process part of the curriculum. There are no public service announcements encouraging application for membership.
- Encourage diversity and participation of underrepresented communities on community boards and in planning processes
Despite the amazing diversity of New York’s population (an estimated 170 different languages are spoken here)(5), there are no procedures or accountability standards to ensure or even to document guiding principles for achieving appropriate representation on community boards.
Accurate and up-to-date information on neighborhood demographics is critical for evaluating effective representation, targeting outreach and determining a balanced board membership. Each community district may contain several smaller “communities” or “neighborhoods,” each with unique needs, skills, resources and demographics. Even though nearly one-third of New York City’s population is foreign-born6, the city has not yet crafted the means to engage all New Yorkers in planning decisions. There is no systematized outreach to youth—in fact, budget cuts under the last administration eliminated the youth coordinators who had served this function. Each of the five boroughs of New York City has a different application form for new potential community board members, and no city agency is responsible for making sure that the pool of applicants is sufficiently diverse.
(PHOTO)
Main Street in Flushing, Queens, a neighborhood with one of the highest concentrations of new immigrants in New York City.Photo:Liz Laser
Open and transparent governance and planning efforts can bring disparate neighborhood groups together to hash out differences and understand common interests and goals. Consensus-driven planning is a way to increase public knowledge and awareness and to foster an understanding of democratic processes.
- Increase training and technical resources for community boards and community-based organizations
The average community district has a population of over 100,000, which makes it comparable in size to Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Albany, New York. All board responsibilities are carried out by a very small staff typically consisting of the district manager and one or two administrative assistants. Any extra personnel, such as planners, must be paid from funds raised beyond the board’s approximately $200,000 annual budget—which also pays for all salaries, office supplies and equipment, printing, and mailing. In comparision, Albany’s Division of Planning has an annual budget of $369,996 and employs six full-time staff.
In addition to their land use and service delivery roles, Charter changes made in 1989 explicitly gave boards the right to develop 197-a plans and the right to professional planning expertise. Community board members themselves contribute a variety of skills to planning efforts, but these skills vary from board to board. While the Charter authorizes community boards to hire planners, the city has never appropriated funds for community planners, and no community board currently employs a full-time planner.
As it now stands, standard training for community board members is six hours for their entire tenure. The Mayor’s Community Assistance Unit, in partnership with borough presidents’ offices, provides handbooks and minimal training for board members when they are first appointed. As a result, board members are sometimes unclear about their duties and responsibilities and over-reliant on district office staff. There is no refresher training and, no training in technology or communications. Community boards can request training on an ad hoc basis from the Department of City Planning, the Independent Budget Office, or borough presidents’ offices, which in many cases do their best to provide some level of support, but this training is not standardized, required, nor considered to be an obligation. Non-profit organizations, graduate urban planning programs, and for-profit planning firms occasionally provide pro bono assistance, but this help is never guaranteed.
The lack of training of both community board members and district office staff is a major obstacle to public participation. Staff are consequently constrained in their effectiveness, and the perception of the board’s ability, both by insiders and outsiders, is diminished. The pace at which the board can process budget, planning, and development decisions is slowed. There is very little guidance available on managing a community board office.
- Make 197-a planning effective
Despite the 1989 Charter provisions for 197-a planning, only nine plans sponsored by community boards have been officially submitted to the city. Of these, only seven have been adopted by the City Planning Commission and the City Council.8 The obstacles to 197-a planning are many: training, funding, investment of time, lengthy city approval process, uncertain outcome, etc. Those engaged in 197-a planning often have high expectations for outcomes that are rarely met, while other people avoid getting involved because they feel the plan will have no impact or because they feel they do not have sufficient time or skills.
Plan preparation requires maps, data, planning expertise, outreach, and, in some cases, community organizing. Currently there is no systematic way or centralized clearinghouse from which communities can identify and obtain such resources. A 197-a plan can cost between $50,000 and $250,000 just to create, depending on the size of the area and the scope of the plan. Yet there is no collective pool or even reliable source of funding for community-based planning. Sometimes partial funding can be obtained from the local city council member or the borough president; other times from private foundations or grants, all of which require time and a bit of political skill or savvy to obtain. Community boards have the additional burden of having to establish a non-profit 501c(3) entity to receive funds from private sources.
Not all planning goals require the creation of a full 197-a plan. Smaller community-based plans, focused on a specific issue or a smaller geographic area, could form the basis for future plans and guide future decisions by the board. Less time-consuming and less costly, these smaller plans can convey a community’s ideas more quickly. While not a substitute for a community plan, the Department of City Planning frequently undertakes rezoning studies and sponsors 197-c (rezoning) applications in collaboration with affected community organizations.
[Photo]
Graduate Planning schools can be a resource for research, data collection and meetings. Here, students facilitate a workshop at Summit 2004.Photo:Liz Laser
- Identify and initiate the critical policy, legislative, and fiscal measures that support community-based planning in New York City
New York can draw on the experiences of a host of other municipalities in the United States to formulate new policy. The cities that have incorporated community-based planning into the official planning and budget framework—Seattle, Minneapolis, Houston, Baltimore, and Rochester, for example—generally begin with a set of guiding principles based on the concept that livable neighborhoods make a livable city. There is a commitment to broad community participation, development of collaborative partnerships, and strengthening of local capacities. Each city has a unique process, but there are underlying similarities:
- a link between neighborhood plans and a comprehensive city plan;
- explicit support from and partnership with city government;
- a clearly defined planning process;
- benchmarks and predictability of outcome; and,
- commitment to implementation.
New York City is arguably far more complex in its political organization and diverse in its neighborhoods than other U.S. cities, which may make the creation of a new planning framework more of an undertaking. Yet it is precisely for these reasons that a decentralized, predictable, and transparent planning process is in order. A new planning framework must also be able to accommodate calls for changes to city policy—addressing critical and growing needs for affordable housing, job creation, open space, and sustainability.
As it now stands, planning in New York City is heavily politicized, driven by market forces, and has in the last few decades taken place largely outside the public realm. The current administration has done a better job at conferring with communities about zoning decisions. But there is much more to be done before we can declare that New York City is balancing efficiency with equity and has embraced a new approach to planning.
[Photo]
View of the Manhattan skyline from a decaying pier in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.Participants in discussion at Community-Based Planning in New York City: Summit 2004.Photos: Liz Laser
Section Notes:
(5) The “Newest New Yorkers 2000,” The Department of City Planning, 2005.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Albany’s Division of Planning is responsible for the administration and procedural requirements of the development approval process. In this capacity, the office functions as staff to the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Board, Historic Resources Commission, and Common Council.
(8) As of March 2005, adopted 197-a plans submitted by community boards are: Bronx CB3 (1992); Manhattan CB4 (1996); Brooklyn CB6 (1996); Manhattan CB6 (1997); Brooklyn CB1—Williamsburg Waterfront 197-A Plan (2002); Brooklyn CB1—Greenpoint 197-A Plan (2002); and Bronx CB8 (2003). Two 197-a plans submitted by community boards were not adopted: Manhattan CB2 - withdrawn (1996); and Queens CB 11 – disapproved (1999).
Read Another Section?
