Councilmembers press Flushing Waterfront developers on lack of affordable housing
/
The City Council held a hearing on the rezoning for the Special Flushing Waterfront District Monday. Renderings courtesy of FWRA LLC
By Rachel Vick
City councilmembers on Monday pressed developers to include more affordable housing in the roughly 1,700-unit condo and 2,000-room hotel complex they have proposed under a plan to rezone a piece of the Flushing Creek waterfront.
A coalition of three developers — F&T Group, Young Nian Group LLC and United Construction & Development Group — applied to rezone the strip of neglected land adjacent to property they own and can build on as of right. The proposed 29-acre mixed-use development is known as the Special Flushing Waterfront District, or SFWD.
The developers, united under the name FWRA LLC, can build on three-quarters of the land as of right, but require a rezoning to also develop residential and hotel units on the parcel along the waterfront.
They plan to create the bare minimum number of affordable units on the rezoned lot based on the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing land-use rules, spurring criticism from several councilmembers, including Antonio Reynoso. He challenged the contentious project during the Council hearing on FWRA’s land use application.
“Why should we not expect a level of affordable housing?” Reynoso said. “Over 70,000 people are living in homeless shelters and you’re talking about nonsensical [regulations] and saying you don’t need to do affordable housing.
“By law, you’re absolutely right, but I, as a councilmember, am supposed to look out for the best interests for the city of New York.” he added. “This project doesn’t seem to have a purpose to get out of the hole that is affordable housing in New York.”
The developers say they will proceed with the plan to build a mixed-use complex on the land they own with or without the rezoning of the adjacent waterfront parcel. Thus, rezoning may be the only way to extract any affordable units from the site — a reality that has drawn criticism from local community groups.
The Council hearing was the latest step in the land use process for the SFWD following approval by the City Planning Commission Thursday.
Queens Community Board 7 has also recommended approval, but Acting Borough President Sharon Lee has opposed the plan in her advisory role. The project has faced intense opposition from local community groups who say it will hasten displacement in the neighborhood without addressing a desperate need for affordable housing.
The Council has 50 days to review and vote on the proposal for the Special Flushing Waterfront District.
Flushing Councilmember Peter Koo said he supports the project, despite its shortcomings. He said waterfront revitalization is vital for the community. Koo’s position may determine the rezoning because the full body typically votes in lockstep with the local member on land use issues.
“At the end of the day, whatever is ultimately built will need to enhance the Downtown Flushing community and open up the accessible waterfront as best as is possible,” Koo said. “Our community has been cut off from the waterfront for too long.”
Ross Moskowitz, representing FWRA LLC, said the developers are not legally obligated to include additional affordable units and encouraged attendees to look at the proposal and potential good for Flushing “holistically” rather than zeroing in on the one factor.
“Even if you’re not supporting us, we’re still listening,” Moskowitz said.
The developers have two proposals for the SFWD. One is contingent on the rezoning and would include public waterfront access, environmental remediation in the polluted Flushing Creek and infrastructure upgrades, as well as 90 units of affordable housing mandated by city land use rules.
The other proposal, built on the as-of-right land without the rezoning, excludes many of the public benefits.
The current proposal reflects changes to an earlier design building “as-of-right” — where the team could have developed without council approval — take into account public interest for the project largely situated on the private property of developers.
More than 100 people, including dozens of project opponents, registered to deliver testimony at Monday’s hearing.
Assemblymember Ron Kim has criticized the project and said the Council was letting private interests dictate its land use decisions. The project promises few actual benefits to the existing Flushing community, he said.
“They do not pay enough taxes and they do not create quality jobs for our communities but they do extract as much value and profit from our communities,” Kim said.
“They’re justifying this rezoning by arguing that they're adding community value by turning unused land into usable public space,” he added. “Their proposal is to create a public environment that benefits the overall ambiance of the luxury buildings and hotels, in other words, integrating a public-friendly component monetizing public sovereignty for private gains.”
