Activity five - Zachary

I attended a Manhattan Community Board 5. CB 5 represents midtown from 3rd to 8th avenues and from 14th to 59th street. The CB 5 website says that it "encompasses the midtown central business district as well as world-class cultural institutions and tourist destinations, retail flagships, major industries, famed districts, and a growing residential population." The website lists three major interests in midtown: "business and retail, residential and tourism." Midtown contains or borders the three largest regional transit hubs: Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station, and the Port Authority.
In the 2010 district needs statement the issues addressed by CB 5 include: the economic downturn, growth and development, traffic and congestion, noise pollution, homelessness, security/terrorism, police enforcement of city codes, road maintenance, park maintenance, school construction (CB 5 has a growing population and not a single school within its geographic boundaries), and library funding. CB 5, along with the other CBs, plays an advisory role to local government. From my observations at the meeting, I understand this to mean that a community board is an institution that collects and synthesizes information about its district and then, on the basis of that information, passes on recommendations to relevant government institutions. In actual practice it is unclear to me where CB 5 might fall on the ladder of citizen participation, but based on the fact that it lacks any real authority or veto power I would certainly argue that it is characteristic of some kind of tokenism.
The meeting itself was held at 127 West 27th street at the First Alliance Church. Why this location was chosen is entirely unclear to me, but I can speculate. First, the First Alliance Church is able to provide adequate space. Second, it is located in midtown in a relatively central location. Third, it is clean, modern, well-lit, and sleek in its interior design and generally has an atmosphere that appears to me more adequate to the business-style atmosphere that one might expect from one of the largest commercial districts on earth than a church.
The vast majority of the people who attended the meeting were white and, based on their style of dress and speech, affluent and well-educated. The meeting was perhaps disproportionately male, though only slightly. According to NYC.gov, in 2000 CB 5 was 72.3 percent white, 4.4 percent black, 14 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 6.7 percent Hispanic. Based on my highly unscientific estimation, I believe that the composition of people at the CB meeting were perhaps slightly skewed white based on these statistics. However, the skew appeared very slight and could easily be the result of the small number of people in the room.
The meeting began with members of the public taking 2 minutes each to weigh in on the resolutions under consideration. People were made to sign up to speak. Most of the resolutions in question were not contentious and were primarily related to liquor licenses. Two issues are noteworthy.
First, a representative from the NYPD was present to give details and, it seemed to me, offer an apology of sorts for the Easter Sunday shootings in Times Square. The facts of the case are these: For the last ten years there have been fights in Time Square on Easter Sunday. This year, however, was particularly violent relative to the minor skirmishes of past years. In two separate incidents, four people were shot and received non-life threatening wounds. Thus far, the investigation of these shootings have yielded one arrest and the execution of several search warrants. Additionally, 50 adults and 10 juveniles were arrested on Easter in connection to street fights.
The officer said that, based on information gathered during arrests on Easter, it appeared as though a great many of the people in Time Square that night were from outer boroughs. While admitting that there was no conclusive evidence, the officer did insinuate that the crimes were likely gang-related.
Contrary to what was apparently reported by a number of papers, the officer stated that the NYPD was aware of the likelihood of street fights on Easter and consequently deployed 250 officers to the area. Both shootings were committed while an officer was on the same block as the shooter.
This was the only part of the meeting where everyone in the room was totally silent and attentive. Throughout the rest of the meeting people had side conversations, walked in and out of the room, studied their phones, and stared off into space. Aside from this brief portion of the meeting, the entire thing was very informal and filled with bad jokes. However, the topic of violence added a serious tone to the meeting that didn't dissipate until the officer left the room.
The second item of interest, which absolutely dominated the meeting, was the proposed construction by Vornado Realty Trust of a massive (1,200 feet high, 2.83 million square feet) office building at 15 Penn Plaza. The construction of this tower would require special permits allowing Vornado to circumvent various zoning laws. If constructed, the tower would be the second tallest in New York City after the Empire State building.
A slew of speakers argued in favor of the construction project. They represented interests as diverse as Vornado and associated firms, business associations, construction workers, academics from Columbia and CUNY, local business owners, and non-profits. The main argument in favor of the project was related to transit. Located near Penn Station the construction of the tower would be fully in line with what, according to everyone who spoke at the meeting, a fundamental principle of urban planning: that high density development should be located near transit hubs (Penn station, as the largest transit hub in the western hemisphere, would of course be ideal). Additionally, as compensation to the community for permission to circumvent zoning laws, Vornado plans to reopen the Gimbel's Passageway in Penn Station to relieve pedestrian traffic headed north and east. This 16 foot wide corridor would include shops and art to (attempt to) make the Penn Station experience more pleasant for commuters. Other arguments in favor of the project were: that it would bring business to surrounding retail stores and restaurants, that it would provide jobs for construction workers, that it would create high-income office jobs in midtown, and that the building would make a beautiful addition to the skyline (it wouldn't).
The Land Use and Zoning Committee, which had previously met to discuss the project, retorted with a unanimous rejection of the project. They argued, in essence, that reopening Gimbel's Passageway was insufficient either to compensate the community or to relieve crowding at Penn Station. Though they rejected the idea of being "extortionist" with the developer by placing explicit demands on it, the committee, by my estimation, was simply waiting for more concessions for the developer before giving the project a go-ahead. There were no substantive arguments made against the project, just arguments made condemning the inadequacy of public-use improvements to be made by the developer. The board ultimately voted in favor of the resolution rejecting the proposal to allow the developer to circumvent zoning laws and go ahead with the project. The boards report will now be sent to relevant local agencies.
CB 5 is weird. I have no better way of describing it. Everyone except everyone seemed to be represented there, by which I mean that a multitude of business interests were able to weigh in on the issues up for discussion but literally no mention was made of the interests of residents of CB5, of homeless folks in CB5, or any other common form of humanity. This was precisely what I expected. Midtown is a commercial district first and foremost and it would be strange to see it adopting an agenda concerned with human development. In the District Needs statement, even cultural development is justified on the grounds of profit and business. I would not say I witnessed democracy at its finest, but I certainly had an interesting evening.