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

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 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. The current ten day window is a substantial contributor to this disconcerting phenomenon. 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

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 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, deliberate, draft and execute meaningful public participation (in the form of comments, testimony and proposed alternative considerations) in situations that have direct consequences for their lives is a step forward in terms of transparency, accountability and good governance.

Legislative history

05/14/14 REFERRED TO CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES AND COMMISSIONS

05/28/14 1ST REPORT CAL.983 05/29/14 2ND REPORT CAL. 06/02/14 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 06/19/14 SUBSTITUTED BY A9798 A09798 Brennan 05/22/14 referred to corporations, authorities and commissions 06/03/14 reported referred to ways and means 06/10/14 reported referred to rules 06/11/14 reported 06/11/14 rules report cal.223 06/11/14 ordered to third reading rules cal.223 06/16/14 passed assembly 06/16/14 delivered to senate 06/16/14 REFERRED TO RULES 06/19/14 SUBSTITUTED FOR S7384 06/19/14 3RD READING CAL.983 06/19/14 PASSED SENATE 06/19/14 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY 11/10/14 delivered to governor 11/21/14 vetoed memo.507 11/21/14 tabled

Fiscal implications

None.

Local fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Immediately.