Gotham Gazette

Gotham Gazette Sustainability Watch

3 June 2008, 2:00 PM EDT

Read more about Tom Angotti

Current Answers to Your Questions

Gotham Gazette:
We've been talking today with Tom Angotti, professor in the Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning and Gotham Gazette’s land use columnist. Thank you so much, Tom, and those of you who "listened" in and submitted questions. An edited transcript of this conversation will be on our site next week. And for continued coverage of these issues check out 'Sustainability Watch' at http://gothamgazette.com/sustainability/, a collaboration between Gotham Gazette and the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development.

Thanks again!
Tom Angotti:
Thanks to everyone for your excellent questions!
Courtney:
For years, advocates have pointed to the city's overflow sewage system as a source of pollution in our waterways. What can the city do to solve this? Is a total overhaul even feasible given the cost and how does PlaNYC 2030 address this issue?
Tom Angotti:
PlaNYC acknowledges the problem but its solutions are fairly sketchy and could well be countered by other developments. For example, population growth combined with rainfall increases could yield a more dire scenario. The effect of sea level rise wasn't taken into account. And even if 90% of surface waters are cleaned up -- the quantitative goal -- the other 10% could be deadly. Where will that 10% be?
Courtney:
Some say the administration has been particularly aggressive in pushing for rezoning neighborhoods to keep them sustainable and to ensure their character remains for generations. Is this true? Has the administration equitably examined all five boroughs, and does serial downzoning address the needs of a growing population?


Tom Angotti:
Zoning isn't the answer to all of the complex questions about the quality of the environments we live and work in. Zoning only creates a regulatory framework, and the huge roll of rezonings has created as many development opportunities as it has preservation opportunities.
It seems to me that some of the rezonings are protecting very low density enclaves in the city, areas where there is potential for much more development. Some of these areas, because of their low density, are bigger energy consumers, auto-dependent, and contribute less to long-term sustainability if they are protected.
Gotham Gazette:
While much of the plan focuses on emissions from vehicles, as you know buildings are responsible for the lion's share of greenhouse gas emissions in the city. Beyond city-owned buildings the plan does not have much to say about that? Should New York be doing more in this area? What would you like to see?
Tom Angotti:
True, this is a big gap in the plan. A new building code may help but will not address the vast majority of existing buildings. A few things that can be done (by no means an exhaustive list):
- Promote solar. Reduce the red tape, increase incentives, provide capital, for solar in buildings of all sizes and shapes.
- Help homeowners and building owners create green interiors, healthier and less carbon-intensive.
- Work at the neighborhood level, with owners and tenants, to install energy-saving equipment, reduce heating needs, reduce air conditioning use (which also entails improving public spaces).
Gotham Gazette:
Here's another question from the Municipal Art Society.

Given the lack of an up-to-date comprehensive planning framework for New York City, how can community-based planners take advantage of the creation of the Long Term Planning and Sustainability Office and/or PlaNYC? In other words, are there any tangible opportunities for community-based planners derived from the existence of this new organism/initiative?
Tom Angotti:
By all means, PlaNYC should make sustainability planning legitimate, and communities can find support for many of their sustainability initiatives that began long ago -- for example the effort to deconstruct the Sheridan Expressway and create open space and affordable housing (see Melissa Checker's recent article on Sustainability Watch).
What remains to be done is to create a more open and transparent process whereby community-based and city-hall-based planners can talk to each other. That is sorely missing because the process is really still top-down.
Gotham Gazette:
You have faulted the administration for not involving community groups and others in the drafting of PlaNYC. But some people have countered that devising such an ambitious plan requires a top-down approach because individual communities tend to focus on their own narrow interests rather than those of the city as a whole. They cite NIMBYism, opposition by car-driving commuters to congestion pricing and so on. So how can you involve local interests and still come up with a big vision?
Tom Angotti:
Alas, if I could be assured that everyone in city government charged with planning for the city was more committed to the public interest than the city's own residents I would have to agree. But where is that evidence? In fact, there are many examples where city officials have enacted policies that dump on low-income neighborhoods, many of them communities of color, because they were fearful of confronting NIMBYites in wealthier neighborhoods. In my book that makes them NIMBYs.

There is also a big difference between NIMBYism and just caring about a better quality of life in your neighborhood. It really is insulting for people in government to paint everyone who cares about their communities as NIMBYish.

If the city had started with a better plan to address real concerns throughout the city (and not just Manhattan) about traffic congestion, it might have had a better chance on congestion pricing.
yh:
To follow up on the congestion pricing comment -- I'm wondering how much of PlaNYC incorporates building support statewide, not just within the city. In the congestion pricing example, it seems that the plan lacked consideration and cooperation from entities outside of the mayor's coalition. How important do you think it is that PlaNYC reaches beyond NYC to secure its many goals?
Tom Angotti:
Clearly an ability to work with Albany is key. But the other missing element is the region, including three states, hundreds of municipalities and thousands of independent authorities. It may be mind-boggling, but after all how to reduce the city's carbon footprint when the city is a fraction of the region's population and land? For example, how to reduce traffic when Jersey and Connecticut are widening freeways? What about the city's waste being burned in the incinerator on the Jersey side? The task of even starting a regional discussion is a daunting one but NYC is the most important player and the one most likely to kick it off. Missing in PlaNYC is even a modest start.
Gotham Gazette:
Is it too late for the mayor to reach out and invovle community boards to ensure the survival of the plan? What could he do to improve its chances of survival in the 18 months hae has left?
Tom Angotti:
Excellent question. I can't think of a better way to use the next 18 months than to launch 59 discussions, one in each community board, about long-term sustainability. They could and should go far beyond existing community board membership. Community boards can be the hosts of a wide-open, inclusive dialogue that will certainly lead to many new ideas. The mayor's office could challenge each community to come up with its own priorities for long-term sustainability, affordable housing creation, open space, and transportation. Let the communities speak!
Gotham Gazette:
Congestion pricing aside, what do you think the successes and failures were in the first year of PlaNYC?
Tom Angotti:
It is really tempting to list presumed successes and failures, but to do that we would have to suspend an belief that this is a long-term plan that deals with fundamentally critical problems like air and water quality, transportation, energy, and housing. There have certainly been some steps forward in every area, but then the question arises whether they have anything to do with the 2030 plan or would have been made in any case. The real test is whether the ambitious goals of creating a greener and healthier NY will be achieved, and that just defies quick fixes and short-term solutions. Voila the real benefit of a long-term plan: it's can't be just a platform for the next election or two.
Gotham Gazette:
While you've written that the mayor's plan might have had better chances of surviving the end of his administration if he had involved local residents more, that's now a done deal. What do you think the plan's likelihood of survival is? And how can New Yorkers who support the plan, or at least parts of it, increase those odds?
Tom Angotti:
The next mayor could well disown the whole plan. Projects and programs already funded would obviously continue, but those are only beginnings in what is supposed to be a 23-year effort.
I think the mayor's office needs some "tough love." It does no good to continue praising the plan for its obvious virtues, but some serious critical challenges need to be made that will force the question: if you're not around, who is going to do all the things that are supposed to be done? You can't cut community boards and at the same time expect them to carry forward the banners of NYC2030. With all new agency heads in a new administration, where will the plan's supporters be in government?
Gotham Gazette:
This question came from the Municipal Art Society Planning Center: Rumors have been flying about the possible agenda for the next Charter Revision Commission. Should PlaNYC be made part of the city’s charter? If so, which parts would be most relevant, in your mind, for achieving sustainability? If PlaNYC isn’t on the agenda for the Charter Revision Commission, what reforms do you think should be?
Tom Angotti:
It would be more important for the mayor and future mayors to observe more diligently the existing mandates for long-term planning already in the charter. PlaNYC could have been presented as a city-wide plan and put through the review process outlined in Section 197-a of the charter. It wasn't. That deprived community boards, the city council and the borough presidents of an opportunity to engage in the process. I am skeptical that putting more enabling language in the charter by itself will make the executive office care about having a sustainable planning process. More useful would be a series of changes to local law that require the executive to plan in cooperation with other levels of city government. That could be combined with a charter change, but again, by itself there's no guarantee it will mean anything.
Gotham Gazette:
How damaging was the demise -- at least for now -- of congestion pricing to the mayor's overall plan?
Tom Angotti:
The loss of congestion pricing was serious both because of the real value it would have had towards reducing traffic in the city but also because of the political momentum it could have started towards significant traffic reduction. Congestion pricing's benefits to Manhattan were real but compared to the huge task of reducing traffic in the city, it was a very small step. Now it will be harder to get back on track. But missing from the start was a serious comprehensive plan to reduce traffic, so maybe now there will be more political space to put forth such a plan.
Gotham Gazette:
Welcome to Gotham Gazettes's Live Chat. We're talking electronically today with Tom Angotti, professor in the Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning and Gotham Gazette’s land use columnist, about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's PlaNYC for a bigger and greener New York. What do you want to know about creating a sustainable city? What do you think? If you have questions now, please send add them.
Tom Angotti:
I'm happy to have this conversation. This is the city's first long-term sustainability plan, and a rare adventure into the future.