Relates to extending the amount of time between notice of a project and a public hearing

6 Co-sponsors

• Tony Avella
• Brad Hoylman-Sigal
• Liz Krueger
• Velmanette Montgomery
• Kevin S. Parker
• John L. Sampson

BILL NUMBER:S7384

Title of bill

An act to amend the New York state urban development corporation act, in relation to extending the amount of time between notice of a project and a public hearing

Purpose

To ensure that the general public and the community-as well as parties specifically affected by proposed UDC projects and associated actions-are given adequate public notice of public hearings so they can attend and participate therein.

Summary of provisions

In relation to the following four Sections of the UDC Act-6(c); 8(z); 4(2); and 16(2)(b)(iii)-the current ten day window between public notice and public hearing is expanded to thirty days.

Existing law

The current provisions of the UDC Act require a minimum of ten days between public notice and public hearing.

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 and other associated actions. 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 actual- ly 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 whatsoe- ver-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. The current ten day window is a substantial contributor to this disconcerting phenome- non. 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 consideration to local needs and desires" while foster- ing "local initiative and participation in connection with the planning and development of its projects." The time is right to give this statu- tory dicta meaning in the real word application of projects that have generational consequences in our communities. Ensuring that the general public, communities and specifically affected parties have thirty days

to actually learn of public hearings-and subsequently mobilize, deliber- ate, draft and execute meaningful public participation (in the form of comments, testimony and proposed alternative considerations) in situ- ations that have direct consequences for their lives- is a step forward in terms of transparency, accountability and good governance.

Legislative history

New bill; similar in concept to portions Senate Bills 6454 and 7260 of 2014.

Fiscal implications

None.

Local fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Immediately.