The New York Times wrongly posited a NIMBY backlash, missing the Community Board's affordability gain, and downplayed reasons for skepticism. But yes, it was Council Member Hudson's call.
There's such a thing as a story being too comprehensive. I think the key point here is that by rejecting the spot rezoning, the Council member will end up with fewer affordable units at a higher AMI than she will get at 962 Pacific under AAMUP, the broader rezoning that will pass today. There's a brief mention of that in this incredibly thorough piece, but it will be lost amid all the other details.
“Notably, Brooklyn Community Board 8 didn’t offer knee-jerk opposition, but successfully negotiated more affordable housing than landowner Nadine Oelsner initially proposed and some CB 8 leaders, as well as Oelsner’s nonprofit housing partner, were willing to accept.”
There's such a thing as a story being too comprehensive. I think the key point here is that by rejecting the spot rezoning, the Council member will end up with fewer affordable units at a higher AMI than she will get at 962 Pacific under AAMUP, the broader rezoning that will pass today. There's a brief mention of that in this incredibly thorough piece, but it will be lost amid all the other details.
Third paragraph of the article:
“Notably, Brooklyn Community Board 8 didn’t offer knee-jerk opposition, but successfully negotiated more affordable housing than landowner Nadine Oelsner initially proposed and some CB 8 leaders, as well as Oelsner’s nonprofit housing partner, were willing to accept.”