BILL NUMBER: S4396
SPONSOR: COMRIE
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the New York state urban development corporation act, in
relation to consultation with affected parties on certain projects
 
PURPOSE:
To ensure that the Urban Development Corporation (UDC)-in the course of
proposing, planning, designing and executing projects-works directly
with the affected community and specifically affected parties that have
a substantive, pertinent and vested interest in the project and how it
will affect the community.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
The following changes to Section i6 of the UDC Act are proposed: UDC is
required to directly and proactively consult with "Specifically Affected
Parties," at all stages of a proposed project, including the develop-
ment, planning and proposal stages of such projects. "Specifically
Affected Parties" are defined as: (1) Current tenants or occupants of
the proposed project site, (2) All elected officials that geographically
represent the proposed project site, (3) All local government subsid-
iaries charged with land use/zoning review duties within the proposed
project site, (4) The community, minimally operationalized as residents
who live within a five mile radius of the proposed project site and (5)
Community based organizations who are principally based in the catchment
area that is concurrent with the proposed project site.
Consultation with the aforementioned parties is mandated at all stages
of contemplated projects and must include: reaching out to all "Specif-
ically Affected Parties" by first class mail, e-mail and phone; holding
community planning meetings, where affected parties can engage in true
collaboration and community planning, including the opportunity to
propose affirmative, modified or alternative plans. Enhanced UDC
outreach provisions with respect to the general public are mandated,
which include: distributing flyers concerning the proposed project,
erecting signage at the proposed project site, attending and speaking at
community meetings and taking out full page advertisements in two papers
of specific circulation to the community affected by the project.
Provides for a seventy day timeframe between General Project Plan (GPP)
approval by the UDC Board of Directors and communication of same to the
"Specifically Affected Parties," including the relevant Community
Board(s) where the project is located-before a public hearing is held
thereon. Also specifies that the seventy day timeframe commences when
the "Specifically Affected Parties," including the Community Board
receives notification and confirms such with UDC, not when it is
originally mailed. Direct and proactive consultation with "Specifically
Affected Parties" shall occur during this seventy day time period.
Provides that UDC must act on all testimony received at public hearings.
Specifically, they must respond to each substantive comment in writing,
including "substantive negative comments" and share these responses with
"Specifically Affected Parties." If UDC decides to affirm the proposed
plan without incorporating changes, they must hold a public meeting with
the "Specifically Affected Parties" and explain why they have not modi-
fied or withdrawn the plan in response to substantive negative comments.
 
EXISTING LAW:
Section 16 of the UDC Act of 1968 and amendments thereto spell out a
exceptionally limited, narrowly defined and mechanically executed public
consultation process that acts, in practice, as mere ornamentation for
speedy approval of projects, the details of which are decided in advance
and fast-tracked without substantively engaging the affected community.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
The public consultation provisions of the UDC Act are dated in time and
simply do not work in a way that empowers and taps into the knowledge
and passion of communities that are affected by massive redevelopment
projects. The law itself, while spelling out some minor procedural due
process guarantees, functions as an absolute rubber stamp in practice.
Some examples of the current failings, with respect to the City of New
York include: the fact that the projects are developed in secret and not
as part of a community planning process; the fact that the Mayor and the
City Clerk are notified about the project but current residents and
tenants who live at work at the project site are not; while Community
Boards are supposed to be notified about the project before a public
hearing occurs thereon, many receive notice after the fact that the
hearing has actually occurred; because of the fact that a hearing must
occur within ten days of Community Board "notification" most in the
community never hear about the project or have the opportunity to be
heard thereon and thus the public hearings are held in silent halls with
no attendance whatsoever. In fact, the current Chief of Staff for UDC
recently stated that it is not uncommon for no one to show up to UDC
hearings. In the rare times that people do show up to testify, the
comments are simply noted and transcribed; they are never acted upon and
the projects are never amended to reflect them. In short, the current
public consultation provisions of the UDC Act are entirely inadequate to
the statutorily mandated task of actually consulting with affected
parties at the "earliest practicable time" and giving "primary consider-
ation to local needs and desires" while fostering "local initiative and
participation in connection with the planning and development of its
projects." The time is right to give this statutory dicta meaning in the
real word application of for projects that have generational conse-
quences in our communities.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2024: 56286 Comrie no same as
2022: S6249 COMRIE No Same as
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Minor, if any at all.
 
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None noted.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.