PETITION OF THE CITIZENS OF LOWER MANHATTAN ASKING THE CHAIR OF COMMUNITY BOARD #1 TO CREATE A FORUM TO DISCUSS REAL BOARD REFORM.

PARKS & TRANSPORTATION- We need a pro-active comprehensive district-wide approach at improving and expanding our Parks throughout the entire board district (with follow up provisions) and a coordinated approach to improving the safety and effectiveness of all traffic issues (bicycles, automobiles, pedestrians) within the entire district.

LAND USE COMMITTEE TO REPLACE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE - We need a pro-active comprehensive manner with follow up from interested Board members to handle land use matters in a district-wide approach so that board members won't have to go to 4 Geo Comm meetings each month, and develop a real sense of history and expertise. Planning should treated as important as Landmarks, Waterfront, Youth and Education etc. and be treated on a district-wide basis.

LICENSES FOR LIQUOR, SIDEWALK CAFES etc. - Expertise is needed to understand and create various approaches to curb the abuses from noisy and inappropriate establishments and a better process and policy then just a geographical nexus.

SOCIAL SERVICES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING- The Board should be focusing on issues in addition to lack of schools. We need to focus on the needs of elders, single people, etc. This may be a good place to have interested people focus district-wide on the problems of our losing affordable housing everywhere in CB#1. It is not just a problem of Independence Plaza, or Southbridge or Gateway.

INSTITUTIONS- It may make sense to have one Committee focus on the major players such as the Port Authority, the Battery Park City Authority, and Government Agencies...

Instead of people gaining expertise in these areas, or viewing the issues from a board-wide perspective, you would have to go to 4 Geographical Committees (who mostly discuss liquor licenses). Other topics, such as Landmarks, Youth and Education, and Waterfront issues follow the system used by the other 58 community boards and they have their own board-wide subject matter committees. The residents of Community Board #1 deserve the same process for all other items as well. No comprehensive or board-wide planning can occur under this current NIMBY ("Not In My BackYard" or "keep your nose out if I live within a block of a project, I want to decide...") approach to manipulating how community board committee resolutions are drafted. We must demand that the Board explore making changes to this flawed system. Then they should look at having real term limits, so that issues like these can actually be debated in contested elections.

50 WEST STREET VOTE The Geographical Committees, the Youth Committee and the Quality of Life Committee prepared and voted on the Joint Committee resolution. Julie Menin intentionally did not include the new Planning Committee (197-A) in the preparation of the resolution. So the outcome was a resolution favoring the sale of 183,000 square feet of surplus development rights from the Battery Tunnel Approach in favor of a promise for some laptop computers and some affordable housing. No one wanted to even look at the zoning analysis done by the new Planning Committee (which the Chair gave NO jurisdiction on any ULURP planning issues). It this building is 27 times its footprint, where in Tribeca residents are fighting over an FAR of 5.5 or 6.0.	C6-2A outside of the TMU Zoning Change Even though the Tribeca Geographical Committee was told that the area was outside of the TMU Special District and there was no leeway in changing the 6.02 FAR for the C6-2A district, the Geographical Committee pandered and gave false hope by asking for a C6-2A district with an FAR of 5.5. The full board once again backed the Geographical Committee, even though it is unconstitutional to not treat all similar situated people in a C6-2A district the same. Julie Menin, once again, intentionally did not include the new The Planning Committee in the preparation of the Resolution and we couldn't vote on the committee resolution.FOLLOW-UP: The City Planning Commission wrote "In response to the condition of the Community Board that FAR be limited to 5.5 and suggestions made at the Commission’s public hearing that the height of the building be limited, the Commission notes that such restrictions are outside the scope of this application." As I said at the meeting, you have to treat all properties in a C6-2A the same with the 6.02 FAR. This was an example of pandering or misguiding our neighbors.
CITY HALL BIKE LANE If CB#1 had a Parks or Transportation Committee, then there would be an interested and energized group of Board Members with a comprehensive view and expertise to fight this proposal. To read more about this controversy click here	BIKE PATH CONTINUED Once again the Geographical Committee was no help. The Seaport Commmittee naively voted in favor of the Bike Path with some conditions, that were ignored by the DOT. The Community at large had to come to protest and get the full Board to change its vote and disapprove of the bike path. There is no room for a bike path in these narrow twisting sitting areas. Accidents with pedestrians are foreseeable. We must find a better solution before CB#1 approves the proposal. Having a Parks/Transportation Committee (like other community boards) would help in this fight and to follow up with previous City Agreements that have not yet been fulfilled.
SEAPORT'S GENERAL GROWTH PROJECT As of July 8, 2008, I believe that Julie will now permit the Planning & Community Infrastructure to be a "joint committee" and assist and vote in the preparation of planning and zoning issues throughout the district. It is no longer just "invited to attend" with the rest of the world. If true, this is a tremendous step forwards towards real pro-active comprehensive planning. But the Planning Committee (maybe with the Waterfront Committee) should be the lead committee. It is unfair to expect the Planning Committee members to have to go to a Seaport Committee meeting in addition to their own monthly meeting.	BOULEY'S LIQUOR LICENSE FIASCO The Tribeca Geographical Committee voted to deny the liquor license for the new Bouley restaurant, but once again the Community-at-large had to come in and protest to get the full board to reverse the Committee's resolution.
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE'S ESTABLISHMENT at 6 Murray Street The Community Board didn't post the item on the Agenda, and then the Financial District didn't have a quorum to vote on the resolution, but voted 6-1 to permit the liquor license up to 4 am. Hopefully, there will be no problem. But look at the process... The establishment is on the south side of Murray Street in the Financial District Geographical Committee (and wasn't considered to be too residential), but the noise would go across the street to the northern side of Murray Street which is in the Tribeca District Geographical Committee (which is residential). This application shows not only due process flaws, but how arbitrary the use of geography is to handle Liquor Licensing issues. I hope that a liaison is created between the neighbors and the establishment so that if any future problems arise, they can be settled quickly.	The new establishment is where the red awning exists on the left and the residents are above and across the street in "Tribeca".
416-24 WASHINGTON STREET - Sidewalk and Marquee Problems Due to the lack of coordination between City agencies (DOT, Parks, DOB, etc.) and the inability of 311 to record such a problem and no actions from the LMCCC for over a year, the neighbors of 416-424 Washington Street are faced with a sidewalk that is non-code complying (way too narrow) and a Marquee that pours water on to the center of the sidewalk on Vestry Street since it has no drainage and does not go to the curb.	On Washington Street the trees are growing under the Marquee, but here it does go to the curb, so there are no drainage issues. This did not go to the Tribeca Geographic Committee, or the Planning Committee, but went to the Quality of Life Committee for follow up. As of July 21, 2008 no violations have been given for the failure to have tree pit permits, or the too narrow sidewalk or the lack of drainage. DOT has granted a permit for the raised loading dock, which permitted a higher ceiling height in the basement.
THE FOLLOWING ARE ITEMS REQUIRE SOME FOLLOW UP ATTENTION. WHEN THE TRIBECA REZONING PROPOSAL FINALLY GETS CERTIFIED BY CITY PLANNING THE COWS WILL BE OUT OF THE BARN AND THE BARN WILL BE A CONDO. Push to get the Tribeca Rezoning certified and approved with input from more than just the Chairs of the Board and Tribeca Committee. The Planning Committee should be involved in the discussions with City Planning too. Focus on ground floor uses in the Tribeca Special District to not allow residential uses. Secondary retail uses (with lower rents) tend to serve the community instead of high rent Avenue uses. Remove the 2,000 square foot minimum apartment size, to promote smaller units including units for smaller families or less expensive units too.	Have a discussion of where should noisy NIGHTLIFE go within the entire district. Which areas of the Special Districts (Lower Manhattan and Tribeca) should encourage NIGHTLIFE and which areas should discourage or prohibit NIGHTLIFE. Can NIGHTLIFE in general be made quieter? Where are the 16 Affordable Housing sites that were mentioned in the CB#1 Tribeca North Rezoning Resolution. No one ever got back and mapped these so-called sites. We requested a list of all RENT REGULATED units throughout the District so that we know what he are tring to preserve. This list has still not been made public. The moratorium on Signage Regulations has ended, but no enforcement of the signage regulations are in effect. We chose the Dunkin Donuts on Chambers Street as the test case. 50 West Street should be followed to make sure that the Affordable Housing component is finalized and that the lap top computers are delivered. We requested that the surplus funds for Affordable Housing from Battery Park City be discussed. Study the details of the Seaport Sub-district in the LM Special District to better understand the discretionary actions in the General Growth project.

• A Land Use Committee- to vote on all ULURP and Planning Issues.
• A Parks Committee - to work on protecting what we have, and make sure that all upgrades are completed (such as the proposed park at Canal and Varick) and find new places for open space.
• A Transportation Committee- to deal with all of the street closings and traffic and safety problems.
• A Social Service Committee- to expand the concerns of the Youth and Education Committee from K-12 students to include the needs of all ages; including the elderly and single people and couples without children.
• A Major Institutions Committee- to deal with Authorities such as the Battery Park City Authority and Port Authority and MTA, Pace University, and Municipal Government.
• A Licensing Committee- to give a comprehensive look at street fairs, liquor licenses and sidewalk cafe permits.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE OLD WEBPAGE FROM 2005. I STARTED THE CAMPAIGN TO CLEAN UP ELECTION AND OTHER BOARD ABUSES IN 1995 BEFORE WE HAD THE INTERNET. AFTER YEARS OF WAITING FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULING, WE LEARNED THAT THE BOARD'S PROCEDURES OF HAVING THE DISTRICT MANAGER SOLICIT, NEGOTIATE, APPROVE AND RECEIVE ABOUT $10,000-$15,000 ANNUALLY WAS IMPROPER. THE BOARD'S RULES WERE ALSO CHANGED TO BETTER MEET THE OPEN MEETING LAWS. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY AND REMOVED MANY OF THE ILLEGAL PROCEDURES, BUT WE STILL NEED TO LOOK AT OUR BOARD'S UNIQUE STRUCTURE, AND RETURN TO ANNUAL ELECTIONS WITH A 2 YEAR TERM LIMIT.

---

WRITTEN IN 2005----
NOT the official website for Community Board #1.
Their official site is located at: www.cb1.org


Next year I hope that our Community Board has an more entensive Election Procedure written into our By-Laws. Although this website started in February and was meant to bring up issues dealing with our internal Board operations, I offered it as a stop-gap forum to let each Candidate have more than a 250 word statement and publicly state where they stand on certain issues.

Three of the candidates sent in their responses to the issues stated below. Click on their names to see what they sent in. Two sent them in the first week and the third sent it in as I was going to Germany, but didn't give me enough time to reformat and upload. The fourth decided not to utilize this forum to state where he stands on the issues. If he does by Tuesday, I will gladly upload his response. I think that this will help members make a more informed decision on how we want our Board to be chaired.

Marc Ameruso
Richard Kennedy
Julie Menin
Anthony Notaro

---

QUESTIONS

SHOULD WE RESTORE ANNUAL ELECTIONS WITH TWO YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR THE OFFICERS OF THE BOARD STARTING IN 2006?

SHOULD ALL COMMUNITY BOARD AND COMMITTEE (SUB) MEETINGS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?

PLEASE GIVE A DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF "FRIENDS OF CB#1" AND THE ACTUAL BOARD AND THE PAID STAFF

SHOULD WE ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION FROM OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND REDUCE THE IMPACT FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE?

SHOULD WE INSTITUTE MORE "SUBJECT MATTER" COMMITTEES THAT ARE CB-WIDE (SUCH AS A "QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE" AND A LAND-USE COMMITTEE")?

SHOULD WE REMOVE THE CLAUSE FROM OUR BY-LAWS THAT PERMITS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (INSTEAD OF THE FULL BOARD AS THE CHARTER STATES) TO REMOVE A MEMBER FOR CAUSE?

NOW THAT THE FULL BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE STREET FAIRS TO RAISE OUR BOARD'S BUDGET, SHOULD WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON WHETHER THE FUNDS RAISED SHOULD GO TO A COMMUNITY GROUP OR TO INCREASE STAFF SALARIES?

---

CLICK ON THE RED TITLES FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON PAST CB#1 ABUSES AND HOW LONG THIS STRUGGLE HAS BEEN GOING ON...

RESTORATION OF ANNUAL ELECTIONS & 2 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR OFFICERS
1. We should amend the By-Laws to restore annual elections of Board Officers. To the best of my knowledge, ours is the only Board that voted to have two year terms. Elections are one of the few powers that the Charter gives us and two year terms are not co-terminus with the reappointment of half of the Board each year. New members coming aboard in April will have no opportunity to vote on their leadership. This is contrary to the former Board goal of increasing leaders in our community.

CREATE A STREET FAIR PROCESS THAT CONFORMS WITH THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ADVISORY OPINION AND DEBATE IF THE MONEY RAISED SHOULD GO TO INCREASE STAFF SALARIES OR GO TO COMMUNITY PROJECTS.
For years the District Manager has been selecting and negotiating the contract with the street fair promoter and then the promoter would increase the Community Board's budget, thus increasing the district manager's salary. Only in 2005 did the full Board even vote on the approval. In the past the District Manager or sometimes a committee approved the transaction. Other community boards use fund raising moneys to help community projects instead of using the funds for staff increases.

DELETE FROM THE BY-LAWS THE POWER OF THE CHAIR AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER FOR CAUSE WITHOUT THE VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD. Contrary to the Charter, upon a request from the Chair, the Executive Committee can vote to remove a Board member for cause. The Charter states that it is only the full Board who can remove a Board member.

FOLLOWING THE NYS OPEN MEETING LAW
1. We should enforce that All Committees and Sub-Committees should follow the Open Meeting Law and not have secret strategy sessions or private meetings. Merely calling it a "Friends of CB#1" meeting or saying that one forgot to announce the meeting does not get around the law.

If you want to read the entire text from the Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government stating that these meeting should have followed the Open Meeting Law - click here

In response to the letter from the Executive Director of the Committe on Open Government our District Manager responded with, "we feel that the marked section of the City Charter governing Community Boards allows us to conduct private hearings/meetings provided the Board takes no action at such meetings". I am expecting a second letter from the Committee on Open Government responding to our District Manager's claim. Whe it arrives, I will post it here.

CLARIFYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY BOARD AND "FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY BOARD #1"
1. Since both entities have the same leadership, address, phone, fax etc.on both CB#1 and "Friends of CB#1" we should clarify the difference between the two entities, especially when it comes to which community issues are funded by "Friends" now and in the future (if the membership changes). What if the President of "Friends of CB#1" is no longer a member of the Community Board? What controls do the Board have that the funds are spent in accordance with the Board's best interests?


WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A LAND-USE COMMITTEE?

1. Most other community boards work with a limited number of "Subject Matter Committees" with a smaller Executive Committee. Our Board has so many Committees with so many Executive Committee members and a "Balkanized" approach to our Board. We should harness the expertise of all of our Board members and have a community wide policy on many issues. We used to have a "Quality of Life" Committee to handle all permits etc. and most Community Boards have a Land-Use Committee to handle zoning issues, etc. Maybe our Board Members could have handled the Land-Use issues in Tribeca without having the "Friends of CB#1" hiring an outside planning consultant before having one public of the Tribeca Rezoning Subcommittee?

---

Email me if you want to leave me any comments