Senate Bill S3844

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S3844

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN-SIGAL
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to require that any disposition of land or buildings by the New
York City Housing Authority be subject to and comply with the provisions
of New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section One of the bill creates the short title the "NYCHA real property
public review act."

Section Two states that notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to
the contrary, any disposition of land or buildings by the New York City
Housing Authority shall be subject to and shall comply with the
provisions of New York City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure in addi-
tion to the provisions of section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

              

The "NYCHA Real Property Public Review Act" requires that any disposi-
tion of land or buildings by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
be subject to New York City's Uniform Land Use Review.Procedure (ULURP),
the same review process that all city agencies must adhere to when rede-
veloping public land. This legislation will help to ensure that public
housing residents and the broader communities of which they are a part
can help shape the future of their neighborhoods through a fair and
transparent process.

It will also enable public housing residents to avail themselves of the
same community planning infrastructure resources that residents of
private housing use to evaluate and weigh in on Major land use actions.

Currently, disposition of New York City-owned land--whether through
sale, lease or exchange--is subject to ULURP; however, NYCHA is exempt
from this rule Instead, the public review process for disposition of
this Authority's land--including infill development--is governed by
Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, which was generically
designed to apply to public housing communities throughout the nation
and does not take into account additional considerations that are desir-
able in New York City's dense urban environment. ULURP is a far more
rigorous process, as befits a city with such high density.  Crucially,
it requires applicants to prepare environmental impact studies and
authorizes Community Boards and Borough Presidents to hold public hear-
ings and make non-binding recommendations. Finally, applications are
subject to binding approval by the City Planning Commission and the City
Council, both of which hold their own public hearings before issuing
determinations.

There is a clear need for legislative action. According to an August
2008 report by former Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer enti-
tled "Land Rich, Pocket Poor," there are 30.5 million square feet of
unused development rights in NYCHA developments throughout Manhattan
alone. In early 2013, NYCHA announced it was targeting fourteen sites in
eight Manhattan public housing developments with such air rights for
infill development to raise revenue and help close gaps in its capital
budget.
Despite calls by residents, elected officials and other community stake-
holders for full transparency and accountability, NYCHA's initial plans
for engaging public input on infill development were woefully inade-
quate. Indeed, the only engagement slated to be complete before NYCHA's
issuance of Requests for Proposals was through so-called resident
engagement meetings conducted in cramped community rooms and without the
benefit of a formal process for input. Moreover, the public engagement
process suffered from poor public outreach about the meetings and incom-
plete information about NYCHA's proposals.

Privatizing publicly-owned land in principle requires robust public
deliberation and consultation, which is why the disposition of property
by every other New York City agency is subject to ULURP. The "NYCHA Real
Property Public Review Act" would bring NYCHA in line with these other
agencies and ensure that residents and other community stakeholders have
meaningful opportunities to provide input and recommendations.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S.2480 of 2023-2024 (Hoylman-Sigal): Died in Cities 1

A.4768 of 2023-2024 (Rosenthal): Died in Housing

S.3451 of 2021-2022 (Hoylman): Died in Rules

A.3680 of 2021-2022 (Cymbrowitz): Died in Housing

S.0026 of 2019-2020(Hoylman): Advanced to Third Reading Calendar

A.4131 of 2019-2020(Cymbrowitz): Died in Housing

S.0095 of 2017-2018(Hoylman): Died in Cities

A.5556 of 2017-2018(Cymbrowitz): Died in Housing

S.0496 of 2015-2016(Hoylman): Died in Cities

A.1758 of 2015-2016(Wright): Advanced to Third Reading Calendar

S.4641 of 2013-2014(Hoylman): Died in Cities

A.6964 of 2013-2014(Wright): Passed Assembly

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Minimal

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately