Two towers on Atlantic Avenue, east of the Atlantic Yards site, promised special benefits in exchange for permission for extra bulk. But things changed. Also, some thoughts on (hyper)local journalism.
I appreciate your bringing this situation to light. I would point out that your analysis shows that approximately 20% of the apartments in 880 and 1042 Atlantic are being marketed to tenants earning 40% AMI. That aligns with CB8's resolution to support their private ULURP applications contingent on the developers' commitments to make affordable housing under MIH Option 3 (deep affordability), and represents a higher percentage of deeply affordable housing than ended up in the CBA (20% vs. 15%). It also represents an even larger percentage of deeply affordable units than are required under the AAMUP rezoning (20% vs. 10%).
So while I also would have preferred the renegotiation of the 880 and 1042 CBAs to have happened in an inclusive way, I highlight that the end result is closer to what CB8 had wanted to see both for the private rezonings as well as the neighborhood rezoning.
Let me ask: how do you think about the developer's obligation here.... Should the commitment have been 35% of the original number planned? Or of the total units built?
In other words, is the gap just 24 units, as per Fifth Avenue Committee update (in an analysis posted last year) or is it larger? My article offers some alternative math.
I appreciate your bringing this situation to light. I would point out that your analysis shows that approximately 20% of the apartments in 880 and 1042 Atlantic are being marketed to tenants earning 40% AMI. That aligns with CB8's resolution to support their private ULURP applications contingent on the developers' commitments to make affordable housing under MIH Option 3 (deep affordability), and represents a higher percentage of deeply affordable housing than ended up in the CBA (20% vs. 15%). It also represents an even larger percentage of deeply affordable units than are required under the AAMUP rezoning (20% vs. 10%).
So while I also would have preferred the renegotiation of the 880 and 1042 CBAs to have happened in an inclusive way, I highlight that the end result is closer to what CB8 had wanted to see both for the private rezonings as well as the neighborhood rezoning.
Gib, thanks for your comment. Not enough space, of course, to get into all the nuances.
Even if the end result was closer to the CB8 goals, I'd note that CB8 leaders did endorse the outcome of CM Hudson's more ambitious negotiation:
https://us14.campaign-archive.com/?u=033ae799991f0d0434e9788f4&id=468d600de0
Let me ask: how do you think about the developer's obligation here.... Should the commitment have been 35% of the original number planned? Or of the total units built?
In other words, is the gap just 24 units, as per Fifth Avenue Committee update (in an analysis posted last year) or is it larger? My article offers some alternative math.