Downtown Citizen Reform Group for CB1

2008 PETITION OF THE CITIZENS OF LOWER MANHATTAN ASKING THE CHAIR OF COMMUNITY BOARD #1 TO CREATE A FORUM TO DISCUSS REAL BOARD REFORM.

We are requesting of CB#1 a public forum to discuss:

Creating more district-wide Subject Matter Committees, (ie. Parks & Transportation or Licensing,etc.) in lieu of the Geographical Committees

The Planning Committee to work on district-wide ULURP and Zoning/Planning issues instead of the Geographical Committees.

Conducting Annual Elections and a Review of the 7 Year TERM LIMIT for Chair.

Encouraging Affordable Housing in Tribeca instead of "illusionary" inclusionary zoning.

TWO MAJOR AREAS OF BOARD REFORM CONCERN:

COMMITTEE REFORM

ELIMINATION OF GEOGRAPHY AS THE NEXUS OF THE COMMITTEES IN EXCHANGE FOR PRO-ACTIVE COMPREHENSIVE SUBJECT MATTER COMMITTEES WHERE BOARD MEMBERS DEVELOP DISTRICT-WIDE EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE AND FOLLOW UP ON THESE TOPICS OF INTEREST.

CB#1 NEEDS TO CREATE REAL SUBJECT MATTER COMMITTEES (with board members from all over the entire district sitting on each Committee), LIKE THE OTHER 59 BOARDS AND FOCUS ON TOPICS SUCH AS:

Instead of people gaining expertise in these areas, or viewing the issues from a board-wide perspective, you would have to go to 4 Geographical Committees (who mostly discuss liquor licenses). Other topics, such as Landmarks, Youth and Education, and Waterfront issues follow the system used by the other 58 community boards and they have their own board-wide subject matter committees. The residents of Community Board #1 deserve the same process for all other items as well. No comprehensive or board-wide planning can occur under this current NIMBY ("Not In My BackYard" or "keep your nose out if I live within a block of a project, I want to decide...") approach to manipulating how community board committee resolutions are drafted. We must demand that the Board explore making changes to this flawed system. Then they should look at having real term limits, so that issues like these can actually be debated in contested elections.

ELECTION REFORM

THE NEED FOR ANNUAL ELECTIONS AND REASONABLE TERM LIMITS.
Why did our community lose its NYC Charter given right to hold an election of the Board officers next year? CB#1 Board Members voted to eliminate elections in odd years such as 2009. [Coincidentally, the elections for City Councilmembers fall out on odd years.] So instead of increasing "grass roots" democracy, there is no discussion of issues during those years. This is in addition to having a 7 year term limit for the Chair.

It is interesting to note all of the turmoil when Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council voted to extend their term limits, but CB#1 extended the 6 year term limit to 7 years for its seated Chair. So instead of the usual 2 year term limit, CB#1 now has a 7 year limit for its Chairs.

As a result, a strong centralized Chair can ensure no debates or Board campaign when running for City Council. Elections are one of the few rights given to community boards by the NYC Charter and CB#1 refuses to hold them every other year.

ON-GOING EXAMPLES OF FLAWS WITH THE GEOGRAPHICAL NON-COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

CB#1's Planning Committee must become the lead planning committee, so that we have appropriate development and not "Negotiated Developments". It should become a Land-Use Committee for real comprehensive planning and not have to go to 4 Geographical Committee meetings each month if land use issues arise in those areas. CB#1 needs more subject matter committees instead of these Geographical Committees.

50 WEST STREET VOTE The Geographical Committees, the Youth Committee and the Quality of Life Committee prepared and voted on the Joint Committee resolution. Julie Menin intentionally did not include the new Planning Committee (197-A) in the preparation of the resolution. So the outcome was a resolution favoring the sale of 183,000 square feet of surplus development rights from the Battery Tunnel Approach in favor of a promise for some laptop computers and some affordable housing. No one wanted to even look at the zoning analysis done by the new Planning Committee (which the Chair gave NO jurisdiction on any ULURP planning issues). It this building is 27 times its footprint, where in Tribeca residents are fighting over an FAR of 5.5 or 6.0.	C6-2A outside of the TMU Zoning Change Even though the Tribeca Geographical Committee was told that the area was outside of the TMU Special District and there was no leeway in changing the 6.02 FAR for the C6-2A district, the Geographical Committee pandered and gave false hope by asking for a C6-2A district with an FAR of 5.5. The full board once again backed the Geographical Committee, even though it is unconstitutional to not treat all similar situated people in a C6-2A district the same. Julie Menin, once again, intentionally did not include the new The Planning Committee in the preparation of the Resolution and we couldn't vote on the committee resolution.FOLLOW-UP: The City Planning Commission wrote "In response to the condition of the Community Board that FAR be limited to 5.5 and suggestions made at the Commission’s public hearing that the height of the building be limited, the Commission notes that such restrictions are outside the scope of this application." As I said at the meeting, you have to treat all properties in a C6-2A the same with the 6.02 FAR. This was an example of pandering or misguiding our neighbors.
CITY HALL BIKE LANE If CB#1 had a Parks or Transportation Committee, then there would be an interested and energized group of Board Members with a comprehensive view and expertise to fight this proposal. To read more about this controversy click here	BIKE PATH CONTINUED Once again the Geographical Committee was no help. The Seaport Commmittee naively voted in favor of the Bike Path with some conditions, that were ignored by the DOT. The Community at large had to come to protest and get the full Board to change its vote and disapprove of the bike path. There is no room for a bike path in these narrow twisting sitting areas. Accidents with pedestrians are foreseeable. We must find a better solution before CB#1 approves the proposal. Having a Parks/Transportation Committee (like other community boards) would help in this fight and to follow up with previous City Agreements that have not yet been fulfilled.
SEAPORT'S GENERAL GROWTH PROJECT As of July 8, 2008, I believe that Julie will now permit the Planning & Community Infrastructure to be a "joint committee" and assist and vote in the preparation of planning and zoning issues throughout the district. It is no longer just "invited to attend" with the rest of the world. If true, this is a tremendous step forwards towards real pro-active comprehensive planning. But the Planning Committee (maybe with the Waterfront Committee) should be the lead committee. It is unfair to expect the Planning Committee members to have to go to a Seaport Committee meeting in addition to their own monthly meeting.	BOULEY'S LIQUOR LICENSE FIASCO The Tribeca Geographical Committee voted to deny the liquor license for the new Bouley restaurant, but once again the Community-at-large had to come in and protest to get the full board to reverse the Committee's resolution.
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE'S ESTABLISHMENT at 6 Murray Street The Community Board didn't post the item on the Agenda, and then the Financial District didn't have a quorum to vote on the resolution, but voted 6-1 to permit the liquor license up to 4 am. Hopefully, there will be no problem. But look at the process... The establishment is on the south side of Murray Street in the Financial District Geographical Committee (and wasn't considered to be too residential), but the noise would go across the street to the northern side of Murray Street which is in the Tribeca District Geographical Committee (which is residential). This application shows not only due process flaws, but how arbitrary the use of geography is to handle Liquor Licensing issues. I hope that a liaison is created between the neighbors and the establishment so that if any future problems arise, they can be settled quickly.	The new establishment is where the red awning exists on the left and the residents are above and across the street in "Tribeca".
416-24 WASHINGTON STREET - Sidewalk and Marquee Problems Due to the lack of coordination between City agencies (DOT, Parks, DOB, etc.) and the inability of 311 to record such a problem and no actions from the LMCCC for over a year, the neighbors of 416-424 Washington Street are faced with a sidewalk that is non-code complying (way too narrow) and a Marquee that pours water on to the center of the sidewalk on Vestry Street since it has no drainage and does not go to the curb.	On Washington Street the trees are growing under the Marquee, but here it does go to the curb, so there are no drainage issues. This did not go to the Tribeca Geographic Committee, or the Planning Committee, but went to the Quality of Life Committee for follow up. As of July 21, 2008 no violations have been given for the failure to have tree pit permits, or the too narrow sidewalk or the lack of drainage. DOT has granted a permit for the raised loading dock, which permitted a higher ceiling height in the basement.
THE FOLLOWING ARE ITEMS REQUIRE SOME FOLLOW UP ATTENTION. WHEN THE TRIBECA REZONING PROPOSAL FINALLY GETS CERTIFIED BY CITY PLANNING THE COWS WILL BE OUT OF THE BARN AND THE BARN WILL BE A CONDO. Push to get the Tribeca Rezoning certified and approved with input from more than just the Chairs of the Board and Tribeca Committee. The Planning Committee should be involved in the discussions with City Planning too. Focus on ground floor uses in the Tribeca Special District to not allow residential uses. Secondary retail uses (with lower rents) tend to serve the community instead of high rent Avenue uses. Remove the 2,000 square foot minimum apartment size, to promote smaller units including units for smaller families or less expensive units too.	Have a discussion of where should noisy NIGHTLIFE go within the entire district. Which areas of the Special Districts (Lower Manhattan and Tribeca) should encourage NIGHTLIFE and which areas should discourage or prohibit NIGHTLIFE. Can NIGHTLIFE in general be made quieter? Where are the 16 Affordable Housing sites that were mentioned in the CB#1 Tribeca North Rezoning Resolution. No one ever got back and mapped these so-called sites. We requested a list of all RENT REGULATED units throughout the District so that we know what he are tring to preserve. This list has still not been made public. The moratorium on Signage Regulations has ended, but no enforcement of the signage regulations are in effect. We chose the Dunkin Donuts on Chambers Street as the test case. 50 West Street should be followed to make sure that the Affordable Housing component is finalized and that the lap top computers are delivered. We requested that the surplus funds for Affordable Housing from Battery Park City be discussed. Study the details of the Seaport Sub-district in the LM Special District to better understand the discretionary actions in the General Growth project.

It is interesting to note that on one hand, Julie Menin, the Chair of CB#1 has expressed some interest in the concept, yet has not made any effort to have a forum to see how the whole board really feels.

To: Rick Landman
Subject: Good idea
From: Julie Menin
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:08:44 +0000

Hi Rick, I like the idea of a Parks and Tranportation committee. I am going to look into this. Thanks. Hope you are having a good 4th. Julie
Julie Menin
Chairperson
Community Board 1

According to the Downtown Express, July 25-31, 2008
"Julie Menin, chairperson of the board, said she is open to creating more subject-matter committees, such as one for liquor licenses, but the board as a whole seems happy with the current structure."

May 2008

This is an open letter to Julie Menin, (Chair of CB#1) Scott Stringer, Borough President of Manhattan and to the Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA), Council Member Alan Gerson, and the Downtown Independent Democrats (DID)...

Like Scott Stringer, our Borough President, I strongly believe that our Community Boards perform a very important function of adding grass roots input into our City's Land Use decision making. ULURP (Section 197C of the Charter that created the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) gives Community Boards the power to participate in this process. But to my knowledge, only one out of the 59 Community Boards in our city has no Land Use Committee, or Zoning Committee or Planning Committee (with the right to write resolutions or vote on ULURP planning issues). Community Board #1 does not have a comprehensive board-wide Land Use committee which a diverse group of board members can meet and gain expertise and a sense of history over its land use matters. Instead, ULURP plannig decisions, such as Zoning Map and Text Changes and discretionary actions for major developments (ie. 50 West Street) go to parochial geographical committees.

Because CB#1 has this kind of structure, it has no time or room for more subject matter committees like the other 58 boards in the city.

I implore Julie Menin, the current chair of CB#1 to rethink her reluctance for change and learn from the rest of the City. We need the following committees, so that interested board members can have a place to focus on importance issues and follow up on them and gain expertise and a sense of history if they are not completed. We need:

A Land Use Committee- to vote on all ULURP and Planning Issues.
A Parks Committee - to work on protecting what we have, and make sure that all upgrades are completed (such as the proposed park at Canal and Varick) and find new places for open space.
A Transportation Committee- to deal with all of the street closings and traffic and safety problems.
A Social Service Committee- to expand the concerns of the Youth and Education Committee from K-12 students to include the needs of all ages; including the elderly and single people and couples without children.
A Major Institutions Committee- to deal with Authorities such as the Battery Park City Authority and Port Authority and MTA, Pace University, and Municipal Government.

A Licensing Committee- to give a comprehensive look at street fairs, liquor licenses and sidewalk cafe permits.

Over the years, CB#1 has made many reforms. We no longer send Landmarks issues, or Waterfront issues, or Quality of Life issues, or Youth and Education issues to the Geographical Committees. We should no longer send Planning issues there either. No one would expect the members of these committees to go to the Geographical Committees to advise, or weigh in, or just be invited as Julie Menin, the current Board chair expected the current members of the Planning Committee to do. She did not feel that ULURP issues belonged in the Planning Committee. I should know, I was the one who pushed her to create the Planning and Community Infrastructure Committee and chaired it until I publicly announced that I would not be seeking reappointment to the Board out of protest to how she was treating the new Committee.

I now implore the Borough President and the Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association to take a close look at how the process is working at CB#1. The Board did not even look at the zoning specifics when they voted to approve a 63 story building at 50 West Street and only focused on trying to obtain extractions (which were meager in comparison for another tower squeezed into a site that now has double the bulk (FAR) on its footprint as compared to the current zoning). I also call on the planning professionals to look at how parochial the process has become. The Court of Appeals mandated that all zoning regulations must be comprehensive in their approach and here at the second smallest community board in size, each little area writes its own resolutions and then the full board gives it a five minute review before approving the vast majority of resolutions.

I strongly suggest that the full board discuss this matter and not send it to the Executive Committee (which is comprised of the chairs of the Geographical Committee who are biased). I also know that there is a chilling effect for people to speak up since this current Board Chair (as well as previous ones) seem to run for City Council and if they win, can refuse to reappoint Board members who do not support her. That is why I also think that CB#1 should take another look at the 6 year term limit for Board Chair and the bi-annual elections, because this too creates a chilling effect on real debate or free discussions without the fear of retribution.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE OLD WEBPAGE FROM 2005. I STARTED THE CAMPAIGN TO CLEAN UP ELECTION AND OTHER BOARD ABUSES IN 1995 BEFORE WE HAD THE INTERNET. AFTER YEARS OF WAITING FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULING, WE LEARNED THAT THE BOARD'S PROCEDURES OF HAVING THE DISTRICT MANAGER SOLICIT, NEGOTIATE, APPROVE AND RECEIVE ABOUT $10,000-$15,000 ANNUALLY WAS IMPROPER. THE BOARD'S RULES WERE ALSO CHANGED TO BETTER MEET THE OPEN MEETING LAWS. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY AND REMOVED MANY OF THE ILLEGAL PROCEDURES, BUT WE STILL NEED TO LOOK AT OUR BOARD'S UNIQUE STRUCTURE, AND RETURN TO ANNUAL ELECTIONS WITH A 2 YEAR TERM LIMIT.
WRITTEN IN 2005----
NOT the official website for Community Board #1.
Their official site is located at: www.cb1.org

Next year I hope that our Community Board has a more intensive Election Procedure written into our By-Laws. Although this website started in February and was meant to bring up issues dealing with our internal Board operations, I offered it as a stop-gap forum to let each Candidate have more than a 250 word statement and publicly state where they stand on certain issues.

Three of the candidates sent in their responses to the issues stated below. Click on their names to see what they sent in. Two sent them in the first week and the third sent it in as I was going to Germany, but didn't give me enough time to reformat and upload. The fourth decided not to utilize this forum to state where he stands on the issues. If he does by Tuesday, I will gladly upload his response. I think that this will help members make a more informed decision on how we want our Board to be chaired.

Marc Ameruso
Richard Kennedy
Julie Menin
Anthony Notaro

QUESTIONS

SHOULD WE RESTORE ANNUAL ELECTIONS WITH TWO YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR THE OFFICERS OF THE BOARD STARTING IN 2006?

SHOULD ALL COMMUNITY BOARD AND COMMITTEE (SUB) MEETINGS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?

PLEASE GIVE A DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF "FRIENDS OF CB#1" AND THE ACTUAL BOARD AND THE PAID STAFF

SHOULD WE ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION FROM OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND REDUCE THE IMPACT FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE?

SHOULD WE INSTITUTE MORE "SUBJECT MATTER" COMMITTEES THAT ARE CB-WIDE (SUCH AS A "QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE" AND A LAND-USE COMMITTEE")?

SHOULD WE REMOVE THE CLAUSE FROM OUR BY-LAWS THAT PERMITS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (INSTEAD OF THE FULL BOARD AS THE CHARTER STATES) TO REMOVE A MEMBER FOR CAUSE?

NOW THAT THE FULL BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE STREET FAIRS TO RAISE OUR BOARD'S BUDGET, SHOULD WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON WHETHER THE FUNDS RAISED SHOULD GO TO A COMMUNITY GROUP OR TO INCREASE STAFF SALARIES?

CLICK ON THE RED TITLES FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON PAST CB#1 ABUSES AND HOW LONG THIS STRUGGLE HAS BEEN GOING ON...

RESTORATION OF ANNUAL ELECTIONS & 2 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR OFFICERS
1. We should amend the By-Laws to restore annual elections of Board Officers. To the best of my knowledge, ours is the only Board that voted to have two year terms. Elections are one of the few powers that the Charter gives us and two year terms are not co-terminus with the reappointment of half of the Board each year. New members coming aboard in April will have no opportunity to vote on their leadership. This is contrary to the former Board goal of increasing leaders in our community.

CREATE A STREET FAIR PROCESS THAT CONFORMS WITH THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ADVISORY OPINION AND DEBATE IF THE MONEY RAISED SHOULD GO TO INCREASE STAFF SALARIES OR GO TO COMMUNITY PROJECTS.
For years the District Manager has been selecting and negotiating the contract with the street fair promoter and then the promoter would increase the Community Board's budget, thus increasing the district manager's salary. Only in 2005 did the full Board even vote on the approval. In the past the District Manager or sometimes a committee approved the transaction. Other community boards use fund raising moneys to help community projects instead of using the funds for staff increases.

DELETE FROM THE BY-LAWS THE POWER OF THE CHAIR AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER FOR CAUSE WITHOUT THE VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD. Contrary to the Charter, upon a request from the Chair, the Executive Committee can vote to remove a Board member for cause. The Charter states that it is only the full Board who can remove a Board member.

FOLLOWING THE NYS OPEN MEETING LAW
1. We should enforce that All Committees and Sub-Committees should follow the Open Meeting Law and not have secret strategy sessions or private meetings. Merely calling it a "Friends of CB#1" meeting or saying that one forgot to announce the meeting does not get around the law.

If you want to read the entire text from the Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government stating that these meeting should have followed the Open Meeting Law - click here

In response to the letter from the Executive Director of the Committe on Open Government our District Manager responded with, "we feel that the marked section of the City Charter governing Community Boards allows us to conduct private hearings/meetings provided the Board takes no action at such meetings". I am expecting a second letter from the Committee on Open Government responding to our District Manager's claim. Whe it arrives, I will post it here.

CLARIFYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY BOARD AND "FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY BOARD #1"
1. Since both entities have the same leadership, address, phone, fax etc.on both CB#1 and "Friends of CB#1" we should clarify the difference between the two entities, especially when it comes to which community issues are funded by "Friends" now and in the future (if the membership changes). What if the President of "Friends of CB#1" is no longer a member of the Community Board? What controls do the Board have that the funds are spent in accordance with the Board's best interests?

WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A LAND-USE COMMITTEE?

1. Most other community boards work with a limited number of "Subject Matter Committees" with a smaller Executive Committee. Our Board has so many Committees with so many Executive Committee members and a "Balkanized" approach to our Board. We should harness the expertise of all of our Board members and have a community wide policy on many issues. We used to have a "Quality of Life" Committee to handle all permits etc. and most Community Boards have a Land-Use Committee to handle zoning issues, etc. Maybe our Board Members could have handled the Land-Use issues in Tribeca without having the "Friends of CB#1" hiring an outside planning consultant before having one public of the Tribeca Rezoning Subcommittee?
Email me if you want to leave me any comments