|
|
|||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||
|
|
Testimony Of State Senator Liz Krueger Before The
New York City Planning Commission Regarding The
“Hudson Yards” Plan September 24th,
2004 My name is Liz Krueger and I
represent the 26th Senate District, which includes the Upper East
Side, East Midtown and Midtown areas of Manhattan. I am grateful to the City Planning Commission for the
opportunity to testify today. The most impressive aspect of the
Hudson Yards proposal is this Administration’s attempt to design a
comprehensive plan for the Far West Side.
This is precisely why it is so unfortunate that the public review
process for the project is fragmented and inadequate. We are being asked to evaluate the merits
of a land-use action that would serve as a funding mechanism for components
of the project where there may be no opportunity for public review. The proposals for the construction of a
football stadium and Javits expansion should be subject to the City’s Uniform
Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and should not be reviewed separately from
the actions before us today. These
procedural mistakes undermine the integrity of the entire public review. It makes little sense to discuss
the Hudson Yards plan without discussing the proposal for a football stadium
over the Western Rail Yards. I
believe that the stadium would be a colossal mistake. It contradicts both sound planning
principles and rational economic development policy. My district extends to 8th
Avenue and as far south as 19th Street, and I can say with
confidence that a stadium surrounded by excessive commercial development
would be extremely detrimental to contiguous residential neighborhoods and to
the Theater District. Furthermore,
the 30 story, 3-square block stadium and the dense development planned for Eleventh
Avenue would block access to the waterfront that we have just begun to
reclaim. From an economic development
perspective, the problems raised by this project have citywide
repercussions. The total cost to
taxpayers may approach $1.2 billion.
Leading economists characterize public subsidies for stadiums as a
transfer of funds from taxpayers to a small number of team owners, players,
and fans. It is painfully obvious
that dedicating prime real estate to a land-intensive stadium will physically
deter economic development and undermine public investment on the
waterfront. Using the MTA’s six acres
of valuable riverfront property for a stadium, instead of for the highest
value and best use, would result in a loss of MTA revenue at the expense of
affordable mass transit and capital projects such as the Second Avenue
Subway. The Governor’s claim that the
stadium is needed for the Javits expansion is disingenuous. The needs of the Javits Center should be
our first priority in deciding how to expand it, and there are many reasons
to believe that the proposed stadium actually imperils the Javits plan and
would eventually interfere with its operation. As for the rest of the
development plan, I am concerned that the revenue generating function of the
rezoning action seems to have taken precedence over sensible planning. It is clear that this district should no
longer be zoned for low-density industrial use, and I agree with the
Department of City Planning’s objective of planning for a multi-use, transit-oriented
neighborhood. However, the plan is
far too focused on the creation of office space at a density that is far
higher than any other commercial district in the City. And with overly restrictive clauses that
mandate commercial development in certain areas, it is done at the expense of
housing. As the Ranking Democrat on
the State Senate’s Housing Committee, I am most troubled that this
redevelopment plan neglects the City’s greatest need—affordable housing for
low and moderate income people. There
are currently no guarantees that any of the housing created would be
permanently affordable. With all of
the innovative zoning proposals that are part of this plan, I am disappointed
that the DCP has not sought to incorporate new incentives and mechanisms to
foster development of housing for a range of income groups. I believe this would
result in a new, vibrant neighborhood that would itself be an economic engine
for the City. The redevelopment plan does not
reflect the values of New Yorkers, who unequivocally give priority to
education, health care, and housing over speculative mega-projects with
questionable potential for public benefit.
It behooves the City Planning Commission to take a close look at
alternative visions, like the plan proposed by the Hell’s Kitchen/Hudson
Yards Alliance, and the principles to guide development in the area set forth
by the Regional Plan Association. Once again, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. |
|||||||
