Showing posts with label Melissa Mark-Viverito. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Melissa Mark-Viverito. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

City Seizing Parkland On UES To Build Massive Tower Complex - Residents Furious

“Clearly there are a lot of very good public goods being planned for this site - no change in the playground size, three news schools, permanent affordable housing, but that comes at the cost of a building that is 724 feet tall.   You may call it 68 stories but in linear terms that’s 72 tall.  That’s almost as tall as the Time Warner Center,”  - City Planning Commissioner Anna Hayes Levin, May 10, 2017

"How does that kind of height make sense at this location?"  

Marx Brothers Playground site - 96th Street and Second Avenue.  The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is finally moving out of the playground after "temporarily" occupying 0.5 acres of the 1.5  acre park since 2007. The MTA paid $11 million to the Parks Department as mitigation for allowing the public park to be used as a staging area during  Second Avenue Subway construction.  They also paid the salaries of Parks Dept. Playground Associates at several area playgrounds.  The MTA is legally required to restore the playground.    (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.  

But now the De blasio administration is claiming the Parks Department has no juristiction over the 1.5 acre park even though the city is attempting to Alienate the park land with the help of the State legislature.  The city is trying to build a one billion dollar development at the request of the City Council Speaker.  The Educational Construction Fund (ECF) has come up with a scheme to dramatical increase the size currently allowed. The massive tower would cast shadows as far as Central Park according to project documents.  

The Department of City Planning voted to appove the controversial plan on Wednesday morning. 

 Some residents say the planned 68-story residential tower, which will offer below-market-rate housing, will be too tall and unaffordable.
Proposed East 96th Street & 2nd Avenue. A rendering depicting just a few floors of the massive, 760 foot residential tower. This irresponsible development would be built on Marx Brothers Playground critics say.  The community is demanding that the playground be restored to its original location at 96th Street & 2nd Avenue, and a sensible plan be developed.


Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

Upper Eastside and East Harlem residents are fuming over a $ 1 billion dollar proposed development being pushed by City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito on the border of the two neighborhoods.

The plan would hand over Marx Brothers Playground to a developer to build a massive 760 foot tower with 1100 apartments, three schools, and retail  space on the corner of 96th Street and 2nd Avenue, a project the community refers to as The WALL.    

At 760 feet it would be the tallest building north of 60th st. and taller than any building in the other four boroughs. A height area residents say would be egregiously out of context with the community. 

Since it is illegal to build on public parkland for non-park purposes and since parks do not have zoning,  the city is attempting to get around this by having New York State legislators temporally seize (Alienate) the park to allow development by creating commercial zoning. 

This would set a very bad precedent, one that could open the floodgates and, at a minimum allow the development of not only every single one of the approximately 250 Parks Department Jointly Operated Parks properties it shares with the DOE throughout the city,  but ALL parks could be subjected to development if this proposed legislation is passed.   

Literally NO Public land would be safe.

The massive 1.1 million square foot project would encompass an entire city block.

Open Sky. The site on May 10, 2017  - without the massive development.   The alienation of a public park in order to generate development rights is a circumvention of the Zoning Resolution’s regulations that preclude public parks from having development rights. When re-build under the new proposal the playground would be in the shade for most of the day. 


The Speaker has partnered with the Educational Construction Fund. 

The original 2012 plan envisioned only one school - Co-Op Tech which is already on the block.  ECF already had a signed agreement with developer AvalonBay according to the head of the ECF who says the scope of the project changed dramatically in 2013 when City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito insisted that three schools be built there. 

“A lot of the factors changed over the last three years at the request of the Speaker’s office we were asked to move the two additional high schools into the parcel so that changed the design obviously,” said Jennifer Maldonado - Executive Director of Educational Construction Fund/Special Assistant to Deputy Chancellor testified before the City Planning Commission on May 10th. 

According to ECF the plan would also allow the Julia de Burgos Cultural Center, a long time important project of the Speaker's, to expand.  The center, located on Lexington Avenue and 105th Street, currently shares space with Heritage,  one of the two new schools the Speaker is hoping to move to 96th Street.  

"The use of the entire building by the Cultural Center is a strong priority for Speaker Mark-Viverito," ECF wrote to City Planning in a 92 page response obtained by NYC Park Advocates.  

Neighbors who live on 96th Street and south are also furious because they say they have been left out of the discussion and point out that most of the impacts will be felt there. 

The project is already making its make through ULURP. 

The 2004 parkland alienation language that allowed the MTA to use the park for building the Second Avenue Subway explicitly stated that upon completion of construction, "the lands shall continue to be used for park purposes."

However this administration has other ideas. They have gotten the State to introduce Alienation legislation to block that.

"Construction of the second avenue subway is completed and the city of New York would now like to turn over the block on which the playground is located to the New York City Educational Construction Fund to permit the construction of a combined occupancy structure."   

After a ten year absence, the community expected the city to being rebuilding the city playground later this year after the MTA vacated the property in September. The land was used as a staging area to build the Second Avenue subway during this time.

According to the new plan after all 1.5 acres of parkland are seized and developed the land between buildings would be rebuilt for use as a public park.  

The residential tower is not anticipated to be finished by 2023 which means the community’s playground and heavily used artificial turf field - much of which will now be shaded by a massive tower for a good portion of the day - would not be available at least an additional five years.

Under the terms of the 2004 parkland alienation  bill the MTA is legally required to restore the playground.  

However on May 10th, Jennifer Maldonado testified before City Planning that there was no money for Marx Brothers Playground.  

“The playground is not budgeted either," she said. "This is not on the parks budget plan…”   

According to ECF they, along with AvalonBay will contribute approximately $ 8 million for the renovation and upgrading of Marx Brothers Playground.   

A Walk In The Park asked the Parks Department what the status of the MTA funding was. Requests have not yet been returned.


The De Blasio administration is now claiming the 1.5 acre park isn't even Parks Department property.  The massive 760 foot tower being spearheaded by the Education Construction Fund through the city planning depends on a State Parkland Alienation legislation to achieve its goal.


Adding to the theatre of the absurd the City is now claiming the park is in fact not a park and does not belong to the Parks Department and development is already permitted under its current zoning.

In its 92 page, at times laughable response to City Planning, the City repeatedly asserts that Marx Brothers Playground is not parkland. But it is covering its bases.  

“Although the Marx Brothers Playground is not and has never been parkland, the City and ECF have determinted that in connection with the Proposed Project, it si prodent to obtain new legislation.

Keeping It All In The Family. The designer of the proposed new park,  Stephen Whitehouse, a former chief of planning for the Parks Department claims in his letter to City Planning that the new park location - beside the 760 feet building -  is safer because they plan on raising the park a foot higher in order to get it out of the 100-year flood zone.  For the past sixty plus years the playground has been safely dry on Second Avenue. 


Jennifer Maldonado - Executive Director of the Educational Construction Fund/Special Assistant to Deputy Chancellor testifed at City Planning on May 10, 2017. The original plan she said called for one school but according to Maldonado Speaker Viverito dramatically changed the scope of the project when she insisted three schools be build on the site.  Under the plan ECF would float a bond to pay for the school construction.   (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on images to enlarge.  


The billion-dollar project depends on State parkland Alienation legislation approval to achieve its goals.

Jennifer Maldonado - Executive Director of ECF said they met with all the Assembly members, parks committees, two days before the May 10th hearing.    

"We actually have legislative language to alienate the playground. We have both Senator Serrano and Assemblyman Rodriguez's support.  Senator Serrano will take the bill up for vote," Maldonado said.

Assemblyman Robert Rodriguez had a conflict NYC Park Advocates later learned.

Rodriguez is a Vice President at A.C. Advisory, a company that is involved in bond financing for ECF projects.  A.C. Advisory is listed as the financial advisor to New York City and related authorities in the placement of bonds.   

Is his employer, A.C. Advisory, Inc., acting as the financial advisor in the placement of the bonds financing for this project? By press time we were unable to verify that or whether  or not he would be recusing himself from voting if the bill comes to the floor.  

But Assemblyman Rodriguez did fail to disclose that conflict when a group of constituents met him at his office last month to discuss the project.   

After three days of calling his office two weeks ago A Walk In The Park got a call back saying that he was not pulling out.  

However in his place the City enlisted Bronx Assembly member Michael Benedetto - who represents the North East section of the Bronx to carry it for the Assembly.   He also heads the influential City Committee.  

The de Blasio administration has been lobbying heavily in Albany according to several State officials. State Senator José M. Serrano also quietly introduced the bill last week. 


Ms. Maldonado said she is hoping the bill makes it through this session.  State Legislators could vote on the bill as early as today. 

The city quietly passed the bill's Home Rule message last week during its stated meeting. 

During the May 10th hearing Planning Commissioner Anna Hayes Levin pushed back on the numerous goals for the playground.

 “Clearly there are a lot of very good public goods being planned for this site - no change in the playground size, three news schools, permanent affordable housing, but that comes at the cost of a building that is 724 feet tall,"  she said.  

"You may call it 68 stories but in linear terms that’s 72 tall.  That’s almost as tall as the Time Warner Center,” Commissioner Levin said.

"How does that kind of height make sense at this location,"  Levin asked.

"As we've talked through the assemblage and the constraints on how the site needs to be actually configured, up is the only way to go, quite honestly,"  Maldonado responded.

Commissioner Levin pushed back.


"Are we asking the applicant, the developer to carry too many public goods into this project. Are we producing a building that makes no sense in terms of its scale," she countered. 


"I would say no I think that in terms of you know what we are trying to do. I'm not sure if  there is a right answer quite honestly, to be honest with you," Maldonado replied.


The ECF head then attempted to justify the funding scheme and the reason why the city and state are pushing to give the public parkland to a private developer,  and in the process allowing AvalonBay to assume the role of government. 

"There are no capital dollars available for these schools to be frank. There are no capital dollars,  this is not on DOE's list, there's no capital budgeting allowed for these schools. This is the only way these schools will happen,"   Maldonado said.


“The only way we can keep these schools operational is to use the playground," she said. 


Shade.  The playground and heavily used field would be replaced mid-block and covered by shade from the towers for a greater part of the day.   The massive tower would cast shadows as far as Central Park according to project documents. 


“As a zoning attorney I am very concerned about the project, “ Caroline Harris of GoldmanHarris testified at the May 10th City Planning hearing.    

“It appears it achieves its huge size by using a deal structure that of temporarily  transferring the playground and the rest of the block to ECF circumventing basic zoning principles.  The definition of a zoning lot and the fact that public playgrounds do not have development rights."

“When there is a MIH (Mandatory Inclusionary Housing) component there is a real driver to go higher than the neighborhood context. This is way beyond going higher than the neighborhood context,  this is going to the Neighborhood of 57th Street context," Harris testified.

"I think its way out of scale here."


Several residents who live in the Speakers district on 96th Street also complain that when they finally found out about the plan and tried to ask questions at a Community Board 11 meeting in March they were shut down by the Speaker.

"Does anyone from the community have any questions,"  several recalled her saying.


"We are her constituents," said Silve Parviainen who attended the meeting.  


At the May 10th City Planning hearing Maldonado admitted she had not made a formal presentation to Community Board 8.  

Last week CB 8 fired off a letter to City Planning saying they had, "Serious concerns, " about the project. 


For more than 60 years children of all ages have enjoyed the unfettered access to light as result of a corner location of this playground and adjacent open field.   This proposed plan  would destroy that. 


The community is demanding that the playground be restored to its original location at 96th Street & 2nd Avenue, and a sensible plan to be developed.


The massive 1. 1 million square foot development  is making its way through ULURP. 

Read More:

Plan would bump playground for $1B real estate project
New York Post - June 21, 2017 - By Rich Calder







Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Hearing For Mayor’s Controversial Carriage Industry Relocation Plan In Central Park Scheduled For Friday





























The pedicab industry protested this afternoon outside the gates of City Hall.  The Mayor's plan would prohibit the group from working south of 85th Street. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on image to enlarge

By Geoffrey Croft

The Mayor’s controversial plan to move and pay for the relocation of the horse carriage industry to a Parks Department owned building in Central Park is scheduled for this Friday at 10:00am.

“The bill would reduce the number of licenses for horses used in the operation of horse-drawn carriages and the number of hours a horse-drawn carriage may operate during a 24-hour period, establish a stable in Central Park, limit the operation of horse-drawn carriages to Central Park, and prohibit the operation of pedicabs below the 85th Street Transverse in Central Park,” according to the language of the bill.

The Parks Department would be responsible for establishing a stable for carriage horses within Central Park by October 1, 2018. The penality for not acheiving that goal on time? 

The Parks Commissioner would be responslble for submitting "a report to the mayor and the council stating the reasons why and providing an updated timeline for the establishment of such stable," the bill reads.  

Unlike other commercial businesses which operate on public park land this one is expected to bypass the competitive bidding process normally required to secure public park land for private commercial uses including consessions. 

The city will attempt to claim it does not need to get State Alienation approval because it is already an existing “park use" according to a city source.

The De blasio administration did not consult with the Parks Commissioner or the Central Park Conservancy, the non-profit group that manages the park, before devising the plan.  

Outstanding questions include whether or not the carriage industry would be required to pay the city rent.  

The hastily drawn up plan has come under attack on all sides of the issue including animal rights activists,  the horse carriage drivers and stable owners, and park advocates.


Proposed new home for the carriage horse industry in Central Park. The Park’s Department’s 86th Street Shops building.


Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito took a swipe at critics, including Central Park Conservancy founder Betsy Barlow Rogers who questioned relocating the stables to a city-owned Parks Department building and giving it to a private business.  

“It is like building a palace for a concessionaire, ” Ms. Rogers told the New York Times. 

The plan, she said, “absolutely must be opposed.”

"At the end of the day, the city owns the park. The city owns this facility,”  Melissa Mark-Viverito shot back.

“And the city is making a decision to invest in this facility. And there are those who may think that they own the park. Right? The Central Park Conservancy, understood, has a contract with the city of New York. But the park and Central Park is city property and the mayor does make decisions as to what the priorities (are) for this city. We had conversations and we've arrived at a point of agreement," the Speaker said. 

“The well-being of horses is lost in this compromise bill—it only serves the carriage horse industry at the city’s expense,” says Edita Birnkrant, Campaign Director of Friends of Animals.    

The pedicab industry held well attended rally at City Hall this afternoon.   

The horse carriage drivers and stable owners held a rally this morning to say they would not consider the Mayor’s plan to move their business inside Central Park until the stables they are being promised in the park are complete.

Councilman Mark Levine, chairman of the Parks Committee, said the deal was probably the best compromise that could have been reached because the city was spending too much time on it. 

“This matter has occupied a disproportionate amount of the time and energy of the council for the past two years,” Mr. Levine told the Wall Street Journal. 

“Everyone is going be relieved that we can focus our attention on other issues that are facing the council,” he said.

Mr. Levine walked quickly past pedicab workers protesting outside the gates of City Hall this afternoon. 

This is the second time in a month that the City Council is supporting a plan to give away public parkland to a private business at the tax-payers expense.

Last month they voted to give away 47.5 acres of public parkland in Flushing Meadow’s Corona Park to one of the country’s most politically connected developers to build a mega mall.  

Read More:


Metro NY - January 19, 2016 - Angy Altamirano 

Newsday - January 19, 2016 -  By Emily Ngo  

A Walk In The Park - January 14, 2016 - By Geoffrey Croft

Queens Chronicle - January 14, 2016 - By  Geoffrey Croft


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Melissa Mark-Viverito - Former Parks Committee Chair - Elected First Latino City Council Speaker




Newly elected City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito receiving a standing ovation from collegues and supporters after concluding her acceptance speech in a packed City Hall chambers. Ms. Viverito, a close ally of Mayor de Blasio, was unanimously elected speaker of the City Council on Wednesday after the 51-member body voted to support her shorty after  Councilman Dan Garodnick conceded.  Ms. Viverito was formerly the Parks Committee Chair of the City Council.   Ms. Viverito succeeds Christine Quinn who ran unsuccessfully for Mayor.  

(Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) click on to enlarge 

City-Wide

Melissa Mark-Viverito, a fiery liberal who helped form the City Council’s Progressive Caucus, was elected speaker on Wednesday, giving Mayor Bill de Blasio a partner at the controls of the legislative branch who shares his ideology and much of his agenda, according to the New York Times.

Ms. Mark-Viverito, 44, a Puerto Rican-born lawmaker from East Harlem, becomes the first Hispanic to hold what is New York City’s second-most-powerful office. The vote was unanimous, 51 to 0.  After a bitter fight, in which Mr. de Blasio played an outsized role, Ms. Mark-Viverito’s lone challenger, Daniel R. Garodnick of Manhattan, formally conceded on the floor of the Council chamber shortly after 1 p.m., acknowledging the tense battle but saying, “I will do my part to resolve any rifts this process may have caused among us.”  



Melissa Mark-Viverito giving her acceptance speech. 

Until late Tuesday night, supporters of Mr. Garodnick, including the powerful Queens Democratic Party leader, Representative Joseph Crowley, were working furiously to try to sway votes to their side. By Wednesday morning, they had concluded that they did not have the votes needed to win. But it remained unclear until half an hour after the Council meeting was supposed to start whether Mr. Garodnick’s supporters would give their votes to Ms. Mark-Viverito or stage a fight.  

Ms. Mark-Viverito and her bloc of 30 supporters arrived at City Hall en masse at 11:40 a.m. They voiced confidence they had the votes to win but said quietly that they were not sure whether the vote would be unanimous. 

Council Members and other supporters greet the new speaker moments after her acceptance speech.


Mr. Garodnick and his supporters did not arrive until 12:30 p.m. When they did, Mr. Garodnick walked up to Ms. Mark-Viverito and embraced her, to applause from their colleagues. For several minutes, council members from both sides hugged one another.  

The result of the race represents a victory for Mr. de Blasio, who lobbied council members to vote for Ms. Mark-Viverito, for the Working Families Party, and for several labor unions, particularly 1199 S.E.I.U., the health care workers’ union, which put its weight behind Ms. Mark-Viverito as soon as Mr. de Blasio was elected.

Melissa Mark-Viverito's mother Elizabeth being interviewed after the vote.

After the vote the new Speaker was joined by twenty-seven Council Members and Public Advocate Letitia James in her first press conference as council leader. 

The de blasio administration inherited the expired contracts of nearly 300,000 municipal workers.

"We are going to continue negotiations," she replied when asked about retroactive pay for municipal employees.

Mark-Viverito greats well-wishers on the way out of City Hall.




Read More:




New York Times - January 8, 2014 - By Kate Taylor

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Randall's Island Redistricting Deal Alleged




The controversial Randall's Island tennis facility. Under redrawn City Council district lines Randall's and Wards Island would become part of District 22 in Queens if adopted. (Photo by Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) 

Manhattan

Randall’s Island, a tract of less than a square mile in the East River, is part of the borough of Manhattan.

The move may violate the New York City Charter, according to one good-government group.
Yet a panel that recently drew New York City Council district lines, which are set to stand for the next decade, moved the sparsely populated island from its current Manhattan council district into a district that is otherwise entirely in Queens. That’s even though Queens is geographically farther from the island than Manhattan and the Bronx are, according to Crain's New York Business.      

And East Harlem and South Bronx community activists call the move politically motivated, arguing that Randall’s Island was corralled into Queens because the island’s current council member, Melissa-Mark Viverito of Manhattan, and local activists have emerged as thorns in the side of city officials who are pushing private development on Randall’s Island.
For years, community activists in the South Bronx and East Harlem have argued that the island should be the public backyard for their communities, where quality parkland is scarce. Instead, they argue, the Bloomberg administration has attempted to turn Randall’s Island into a country club for the rich, full of golf courses and tennis courts.
The 15-member Districting Commission was appointed by the City Council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. At public hearings, South Bronx and East Harlem activists argued for the island to remain in a Manhattan-based district. There was little public support for moving it to Queens.
“I think it was an effort to get Viverito out of there,” said Harry Bubbins of Friends of Brook Park, a South Bronx community group. “People in Queens are going to feel less connected to it and pay less attention to what’s happening [than Manhattan and Bronx groups].”
Common Cause New York released a statement arguing that the new lines likely violate the charter.
“The New York City Charter is very clear that districts should not cross borough borders unless absolutely necessary,” the good-government group wrote. “There is no question that Randall’s Island has a much closer association with the community of East Harlem than with Astoria, sharing a borough, community board, and current Council District 8.”
Under the new district maps, Randall’s Island would be represented by whoever wins a 2013 race for the seat currently held by term-limited Queens Councilman Peter Vallone Jr.
A Districting Commission spokeswoman said Randall’s Island was grouped with Queens in order to make Ms. Mark-Viverito’s district more Hispanic.
“The commission decided that in order for the proposed District 8 to become more of a Latino district and to reflect the Hispanic population growth in the Bronx, they decided to include more of the borough and had to remove Randall’s Island from the proposed map,” she said.
Randall’s Island has a population of only about 1,600 (largely made up of homeless people and residents of a psychiatric ward), so it’s unlikely that its population numbers played a major role in its move from Manhattan to Queens. (However, a supporter of Ms. Mark-Viverito noted after this article was initially posted that the population shift actually could have made a difference in controversially making her seat narrowly majority-Bronx.)
Since 2003, the Bloomberg administration has given $155 million for 65 new ballfields, new bike and hiking paths, comfort stations, and shoreline reconstruction to the Randall’s Island Sports Foundation, a public-private group that manages the parkland, the Daily News has reported. A number of controversies have erupted, including over a 2006 deal between the city and Upper East Side private schools in which the schools were to pay $52.6 million for their construction and refurbishment in exchange for exclusive use. (The deal was struck down in court.) A deal for a controversial water park was also scuttled in 2007 amid opposition. More recently, a swanky tennis center with high court fees run by tennis star John McEnroe was opened amid rancor from East Harlem park advocates, who noted the project did not go through the normal city land use process. Mr. McEnroe is now seeking to add new courts.
“All of this has been pay-to-play. It’s public land being given to private developers,” charged Geoffrey Croft, of New York City Park Advocates. “If Bloomberg wants to give his own land to private developers, that’s his choice.”
Mr. Bubbins and other advocates say bringing litigation charging that the new district violates the charter is an option. But they’re hopeful that the furor over the Brooklyn Council district that could help Assemblyman Vito Lopez run for a council seat will lead to the council’s rejection of new district lines by a Dec. 7 deadline. Mr. Lopez has been embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.
If the City Council rejects the new lines,  district lines would go back to the commission for further revision.
Read More:



Randall’s Island redistricting deal is alleged
Crain's New York Business - November 27, 2012 -  By Chris Bragg   


Crain's New York Business - November 26, 2012 - By Chris Bragg 

City & State - October 23, 2012 - By Nick Powell 

Common Cause/NY Statement on NYC Proposed Redistricting Maps

NEW YORK, NY (11/20/2012)(readMedia)-- On November 15th, the Districting Commission released its revised proposed map for the 2013 redistricting of the New York City Council. Although the maps for Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island represent a reasonable proposal based on Charter criteria and population statistics, the plan for Upper Manhattan and the South Bronx continues to be problematic.There are three aspects of the maps which raise substantial questions: the ratio of representation between the Bronx and Manhattan, Council District 8, and the removal of Randall's Island from Manhattan into Queens.

"The Districting Commission's proposed map for the New York City Council appears to be influenced by political forces outside of the Charter's objective criteria. This raises serious concerns about the Commission's independence and calls into question the validity of the process," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY.

The Bronx vs. Manhattan
In the current New York City Council map Manhattan has ten city council seats that are either entirely or majority in the borough (districts 1-10) while the Bronx has eight (districts 11-18). The reason is very simple: Manhattan has roughly 200,000 more people than the Bronx. As of the 2010 census, the relationship has not changed proportionally.
2010 Total Pop.Council District Average Pop.Council Districts
Manhattan1,585,873160,7109.87
Bronx1,385,108160,7108.62

However, the Districting Commission has proposed to give the Bronx and Manhattan equal representation on the City Council with nine districts each by moving the majority of District 8's population into the Bronx. In order to do so, the Commission has systematically overpopulated the Manhattan districts in comparison to the Bronx districts. Districts 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 8 are all packed to the maximum legal limit, pushing the average deviation of Manhattan districts to +4.14%. In the Bronx, the average deviation is only +0.7%.

Council District 8
The absurd lengths to which the Commission has gone to give the Bronx equal control on the council is reflected in East Harlem's Council District 8. The other districts in Manhattan are packed just to the right extent to shift District 8 to a majority-Bronx population. The Bronx-Manhattan breakdown for District 8 is now 84,377 (Bronx) and 84,357 (Manhattan), giving the district a majority Bronx population by a mere margin of 20.

There is no question that District 8 must move farther north into the Bronx as a result of population declines registered in Washington Heights and the need to balance populations and follow the Voting Rights Act, but there is no reason it needs to move so far into the Bronx that it becomes a majority-Bronx district. At an October 4th public hearing, Common Cause New York presented testimonydemonstrating how the Commission's September draft could be adjusted to have District 8 maintain its current boundaries in East Harlem and Randall's Island. Despite testimony from East Harlem community residents to maintain the current boundaries of East Harlem in District 8, the Commission only restored a few blocks along Park Avenue.

Randall's Island
The New York City Charter is very clear that districts should not cross borough borders unless absolutely necessary. The Commission staff was specifically instructed to respect natural boundaries. Further, the City Charter provides: "district lines shall keep intact neighborhoods and communities with established ties of common interest and association, whether historical, racial, economic, ethnic, religious or other." Yet Randall's Island, part of Manhattan, has been shifted into the Astoria Queens-based District 22. There is no question that Randall's Island has a much closer association with the community of East Harlem than with Astoria, sharing a borough, community board, and current Council District 8. The Commission has provided no justification for this arrangement, which appears, on its face, to violate the Charter.

Background
New York's City Council redistricting process is intended to adjust political representation in line with changes to the city's population as measured by the decennial Census. The City Charter (Chapter 2-A § 52) stipulates that districts must be redrawn according to a strict set of criteria to assure proportional and accurate representation:
  • Districts may vary from the average population by a maximum of +/- 5%
  • Districting plan must ensures the fair and effective representation of the racial and language minority groups in New York protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965
  • District lines must keep intact neighborhoods and communities with established ties of common interest and association
  • Each district shall be compact and shall be no more than twice as long as it is wide.
  • A district shall not cross borough or county boundaries.
  • Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of separating geographic concentrations of voters enrolled in the same political party into two or more districts
http://readme.readmedia.com/Common-Cause-NY-Statement-on-NYC-Proposed-Redistricting-Maps/5108439