An explosive boardroom battle for control of Community Board 5 spotlights the flaws of the city’s most grassroots tier of government, where exclusivity and single-mindedness sometimes take precedence over improving neighborhoods.
In a surprise vote last month 29-year-old former software engineer Samir Lavingia unseated the board’s longstanding leader, sparking an outcry among veteran CB5 members, who felt misled about the new chairman’s day job: He is a campaign coordinator for the pro-housing group Open New York, a tech-industry-funded nonprofit fed up with stalled housing development. There are four known members of Open New York on CB5.
“They have discovered the power of community boards, and I worry they will take over others around the city,” said board member Joseph Maffia, who, like other incumbent board members agrees with Open New York that more housing is needed, but wants more input over how and where and thinks the group should disclose its intentions.
The uproar at CB5, which represents neighborhoods in Midtown, exemplifies what’s wrong with many community boards: They often provide a haven for unchecked NIMBY-like behavior. New York is in a housing crisis, and disruptors are necessary to break a cycle where opposition to new developments at the community board level too often serves as a death knell to much-needed affordable housing projects across the city.
Such diversity of thought is especially needed in CB5. It is one of the most influential community boards and has a seat at the table when city or state policymakers tackle significant issues that impact all types of New Yorkers, such as the future of Penn Station or the rezoning of East Midtown.
Community boards aren’t supposed to be exclusive; positions are volunteer and open to anyone who feels passionate enough to dedicate their time to improving the community. For them to function at their best, they should usher in new members with new ideas often. Implementing term limits could also ensure those serving on their community boards best represent ever-changing neighborhood populations.
But openness is a two-way street. If newcomers looking to shake things up want their ideas to be welcomed, it would be wise to be forthcoming about their agenda, qualifications and backers to earn the trust of board members who have already dedicated years to their neighborhood.
Doing so will ensure that after board elections are over, the thorny debates around housing can unfold in good faith and give community boards the best chance at achieving their goal: to provide an opportunity for average New Yorkers to get directly involved in the issues they feel should be addressed in their neighborhoods.
The Editors , 2024-04-08 12:03:04
Source link
