NOT the Official Website for CB#1

NOT the official website for Community Board #1.
Their official site is located at: www.cb1.org

WE NEED A DESIRE AND PROCESS FOR CREATING REAL SUBJECT MATTER COMMITTEES. CB #1 IS THE ONLY BOARD IN THE CITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE COMMITTEES TO FOCUS ON TOPICS SUCH AS:

LAND USE OR ZONING
SOCIAL SERVICES FOR PEOPLE OVER 17
PARKS
TRANSPORTION ISSUES
LICENSES FOR LIQUOR, SIDEWALK CAFES OR STREET CLOSING (STREET FAIRS)
INSTITUTIONS

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 to discuss these issues, even if the are for the full board. 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 subject matter committee that is board-wide. The residents of Community Board #1 deserve the same process for all other items as well. No comprehesive or board-wide planning can occur under this current NIMBY (not in my backyard - one hand washes the other) approach to manipulating how community board 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.

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.
Here are two examples why.

50 WEST STREET VOTE
The Geographical Committees, the Youth Committee and the Quality of Life Committee prepared and voted on the Joint Committee 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 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. The Planning Committee was not even involved and couldn't vote on the committee resolution.

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 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. 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.
WRITTEN IN 2005----Next year I hope that our Community Board has an more entensive 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. Annual 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