• http://theqatparkside.blogspot.com/2014/06/cb9-votes-in-almost-entirely-new.html

    Any opinions about the massive changes at the Community Planning Board?
    FWIW I was a board member several years ago, became disenchanted with its operation, and was greatly relieved when I discovered I had been appointed to a short-term interim position, and chose not to re-apply. Perhaps the changes will help?

    I guess most commenters here live north of Eastern Parkway and are in CB8, but there must be some, besides me, who live in Crown Heights South or Prospect Lefferts Gardens.
  • I am in Crown Heights South and I think this change is GREAT!  CB9 seemed to be way off focus and although this is not a silver bullet it is a BIG step in the right direction - of course that is my opinion.  I was at the meeting on Tuesday and what I saw on many levels really underscored how much a change was needed. 
  • I'm very curious about this.
    And, mostly I want to know...

    Is the new guy in favor of development or against it?
  • @bobmarvin, I am a poster who lives south of Eastern Parkway. I admit however I don't know much about how any of the CBs work, especially CB9. The amount of turnover is interesting in itself. 
  • I live south of EP.  I've been to one CB9 meeting and found it amusing, to say the least.  I was left wondering how anything gets done; less so as a result of the board itself, and more so as a result of the attendees who seem to use the opportunity to simply rant about everything and anything that bothers them, whether on the agenda/topic or not.

    I hope the new leadership is for re-zoning, particularly where existing homes, as originally built in the early 1900s, are overbuilt under current zoning rules.
  • In my view, Community Boards are rarely powerful (or organized...) enough to effectively influence zoning or development.

    They are merely advisory bodies, and their influence largely stems from the relationships they have established with the borough president.

    But sometimes they are hugely entertaining.

    Witnessing the entertainment provides a strong arguement AGAINST giving them actual power.
  • whynot_31 said:

    Witnessing the entertainment provides a strong arguement AGAINST giving them actual power.



    @whynot_31  Well said.
  • That's what's still confusing to me whynot. Because in my removed understanding, these board DO figure out ways to puppeteer what businesses come to a neighborhood.  It seems to me the SLA listens to community boards when deciding whether to offer a bar or restaurant a liquor license.   And the nightlife that opens up shop has a direct effect on the kinds of people that move to a neighborhood.  Denying a few liquor licenses (or imposing unreasonable conditions on bars to win board approval) has a domino effect that can stymy new development.   
  • Point: The boards are not powerless, and can inflict a degree of discomfort on prospective businesses they don't like. In some instances, this is enough to get prospective businesses to go elsewhere.

    Counterpoint: In many cases, developers are merely required to present their buildings to the boards, but are under no obligation to abide by their concerns ...or even pretend as if they are listening.
  • It seems that CB9 is moving their board meetings to Medgar Evers College, Edison O Jackson Auditorium at 1638 Bedford Avenue.  This is where it is scheduled to be on September 23rd, 2014.  In the past, and for as long as I can remember, it was at Middle School 61 at 400 Empire Blvd.
  • That is a good way to send the message "under new management".
  • I'm also hoping it's a good way to change the mix of attendees.
  • @Southeast, it may change the faces, but not the types. No matter what these meetings seem to be frequented by the conspiracy theorists, those who believe that the boards have some sort of power they are choosing not to exercise, folks that hear voices and talk back to them, and a bunch of elderly residents who view it as free theater.
  • southeast said:

    It seems that CB9 is moving their board meetings to Medgar Evers College, Edison O Jackson Auditorium at 1638 Bedford Avenue.  This is where it is scheduled to be on September 23rd, 2014.  In the past, and for as long as I can remember, it was at Middle School 61 at 400 Empire Blvd.



    I might be more willing to go. It's right up the street from me and closer than MS 61. 

    Maybe some of us should sit together as the Brooklynian contingent. :) 
  • Homeowner-
    Don't forget the people who got a $90 Sanitation ticket back in 2007, and are still angry that the Board did not help them fight it.

    "I was not guilty the wind blew that trash in front of my house".

    They find a way to mention it at most meetings. It was a very traumatic event.
  • homeowner said:@Southeast, it may change the faces, but not the types. No matter what these meetings seem to be frequented by the conspiracy theorists, those who believe that the boards have some sort of power they are choosing not to exercise, folks that hear voices and talk back to them, and a bunch of elderly residents who view it as free theater.

    Hmmm...this experience sounds like the tenant meetings in my building, which makes it difficult for me to bear them. However, I
    do get something from the kernels of information that I gleam from such gatherings. There is something to be said about being part of the process as opposed to complaining when things don't go as planned but you never made the effort to participate or show up. 
  • The trick is to not complain about things AND not show up.
  • homeowner said:

    @Southeast, it may change the faces, but not the types. No matter what these meetings seem to be frequented by the conspiracy theorists, those who believe that the boards have some sort of power they are choosing not to exercise, folks that hear voices and talk back to them, and a bunch of elderly residents who view it as free theater.



    I'm hoping that the new venue will be far enough from those that have attended in the past looking for a soapbox or free theater that they will find the trek not worth their while.  While we may get new attendees of the same caliber, it will at least be different "stories."


    Maybe some of us should sit together as the Brooklynian contingent. :) 



    ...but we all have different opinions ;)
  • If Homeowner is correct, some of the prior attendees may not be able to FIND the new location.
  • whynot_31 said:

    If Homeowner is correct, some of the prior attendees may not be able to FIND the new location.



    lol... hoping...
  • @Homeowner

    You may also be missing another group: Seemingly sane folks who attend the meetings, and/or actually are a voting member of the CB.

    I believe that these individuals are there for one of the following reasons:

    1. They committed some horrible crime a long time ago, and they believe that by attending the CB mtgs, whatever deity they believe in will forgive them. By enduring lots of pain, they are atoning.

    2. They are forced to come before the board and act like it has power, even though it has very little.

    3. They enjoyed watching the Jerry Springer Show until it went off the air.
  • Well, the meetings do provide some insightful information from time to time.  For instance, when they present zoning issues or variance requests...  I, for one, don't attend unless I note something interesting in the agenda, and by interesting, I don't mean something relating to a taxi/car service company, etc.
  • I enjoyed the Jerry Springer Show.
  • Are cb9 meetings generally more entertaining than cb8?
  • I hope to hear someone elaborate on the proposal to move the NB B41 bus stop from Flatbush and Empire to Lincoln Road (where the gas station is). The Q mentions it in this post.  I don't think it's a good idea. 
  • FWIW that's the more heavily used end of the Prospect Park subway station (and the side with handicapped access) but, since I almost never use busses I have no horse in that race..
  • Are cb9 meetings generally more entertaining than cb8?



    Different people find different things entertaining.   Personally, the type of entertainment I enjoy is very dependent upon my mood on a given day.

    I look forward to CB9 offering a different kind of entertainment than it has in the past.  

    ...so to answer your question:   Time will tell.
  • I never found CB9 to be any more entertaining than it was productive. The absence of both attributes is why my tenure there was so brief.
  • We need a definition of "productive".

    Is the purpose of a CB merely to given people something to do?

    Or, is it capable of proving once and for all that consensus is only possible when lots of people are missing from a room?
  • bobmarvin said:

    FWIW that's the more heavily used end of the Prospect Park subway station (and the side with handicapped access) but, since I almost never use busses I have no horse in that race..



    I do have a horse in the race as I have no car. Moving the local stop, yes. Limited stop? No. Now if there were a B41 SBS, I can see why that may work.

    I doubt such a move is going to curb the jaywalking on Flatbush (which seems to be driving the proposal).

    I just put the CB9 meeting in my calendar, but no time is listed, @southeast. I'm assuming a 6 pm start time?
  • If you go, I request that you assign each attendee one of the motivations we have discussed and report back.

    Thanks

  • The first meeting of the circus with its new participants and ring master is tomorrow!

    Date: September 23rd, 2014
    Time: 7:00pm
    Venue: Medgar Evers College, Edison O Jackson Auditorium
    Address: 1638 Bedford Avenue, corner of Crown Street
    Phone: 1-718-778-9279
    Email: bk09@cb.nyc.gov

  • It should be a better show than usual, but, with the new leadership and more community interest something just might eventually be accomplished.

    Tim's blog today has a lot about tomorrow's meeting:

  • Don't discount entertainment as being an accomplishment.
  • Is Brooklynian going to have a section?
  • I may distribute cards throughout the place, and then leave with a false sense of superiority.

    image
  • An over capacity room:
  • Results in a larger venue:

    image
  • And by 7:45 the meeting descended into chanting about how it is "our community" and the community board's alleged complicity in trying to shut the "real members" out of the process.

    Some board members tried to distance themselves from it, while others pointed out that the forces are beyond the control.

    My personal favorites are the board members who called for unity without defining what unity would be, or how it would be achieved. 

    There are also those who believed that Eric Adams replaced the community board because it asked for a rezoning, and is now angry the "new board" continues to support request that zoning be studied.  This subset is interesting because:

    1.   The board was reconfigured for reasons other than those believed.

    2.   They seemed to initially believe the new one would be in favor of their interests, yet now feel they are the "same bullshit".  They fail to understand how the interests present in homeowners (ie community board members) differ from theirs. 

    Like a train wreck, it is hard to look away. 

    -Lots of accusations that the CB wanted the rezoning, without involving the "community" in the process. 

    The returning and new board members, in response, tried to explain the process that they undertook and the input they solicited.   

    Vocal members of the crowd opine that because they were not involved in the process, it is inherently invalid and that they don't like some board having power over them.   They want the CB's request to rezone the area (sent to the Dept of Planning back in March) to be rescinded. 

    They don't seem to understand that isn't going to happen.

    ...no matter how loudly those opposed to request chant "We are not for sale".    
  • The writer of the Q at Parkside is a CB9 member and tried to inform the crowd that he supported the request because he believes it is the only way to get any additional affordable housing into area. 

    Meanwhile, members of those opposed to the study/request seem to believe that the request will speed up change (ie gentrification), and want downzoning.   

    In my view, this demonstrates very little to no understanding of existing property rights, and how "under built" the area is in terms of existing zoning.   Basically, some members of the crowd want zoning that stops owners (and future owners) from using the rights that were inherent in their land (i.e. purchases).

    I left around 8:20.
  • I just got back from the meeting!

    I saw the Q there. I saw the Brooklynian cards on my way out.

    When I came up Bedford around 7:20 pm, I met the crowd that was being moved to the new venue. I sat myself down front and had a front row seat to all the shenaningans. I stayed to the bitter end which included...

    • a motion to rescind the resolution
    • a vote to rescind the resolution.

    Final vote tally: 

    • 16 yes
    • 9 no
    • 8 abstentions 
    Some of the new CB9 members sought clarification as to whether the resolution would go back to the land use committee, but someone pointed out that the resolution did not originate from the land use committee. 

    So now what?
  • whynot_31 said:

    The writer of the Q at Parkside is a CB9 member and tried to inform the crowd that making the request is the only way to get any additional affordable housing into area. 


    While members of those opposed to the study/request seem to believe that the request will speed up the change, and want downzoning.   

    In my view, this demonstrates very little to no understanding of existing property rights, and how "under built" the area is in terms of existing zoning.   Basically, some members of the crowd want zoning that stops owners (and future owners) from using the rights were inherent in their land (i.e. purchases).


    I think Diana Richardson was trying to explain this. No matter what the resolution says, the board does not have the right to tell certain developers what land parcels they may not buy. However, a difference can be made in respect to the heights of what is constructed.

    It seemed that whoever made the motion (and seconded the motion) to rescind the resolution did it on principle - the resolution was passed without adhering to all proper procedure.
  • I surprised they managed to vote, and suspect the validity of the procedure will be closely scrutinized by lawyers at Borough Hall and elsewhere.

    I'm defining the resolution as "withdrawing the request to the Department of Planning for rezoning study of the area".

    Given CB9's vote, it is now up to the Department of Planning to decide whether to proceed with a study and then bring the results to CB9 and the City Council for its support.

    If I were the DoP and decided to go that route, I'd take my sweet time doing it.   I'd wait for the natural process of neighborhood change (i.e. gentrification) to occur, so by the time I up zoned the area most of the vocal (ie poor and scared) would already be gone.

    However, under this administration, I am not sure that is an option.   If DeBlasio is going to meet his goal of "affordable housing", he is going to get this kind of resistance in every neighborhood that is not already expensive (ie Was not upzoned by Bloomberg because it was "less than prime").   
  • They voted, BUT even though that resolution got more "yea" votes than "nays" I don't think it passed. The yeas received 16 votes, a majority, but CBs have complex procedures and IIRC the large number of abstentions was enough to keep the resolution from being carried. I might be wrong though–it's been a good number of years since I served on CB9 and the sh*t show tonight made me really glad to no longer be a member.

    9/23: I found out last night that the resolution to rescind THE resolution did indeed pass; the abstentions count towards the majority.

    9/23, 15 minutes later: Scratch that; I was right the first time.
  • It was a complete shit show.     

    Part of me is amazed that members of the crowd honestly seem to believe that their local CB has the power to stop OR cause market forces.

    They have convinced themselves that CB9 (even though its members have largely changed) is all powerful enemy.

    I wish I had an enemy I could blame things on.   I blame college for making my perspective broader.            
  • @whynot_31 - You didn't just have college. You went to grad school, correct? ;) 

    The brother of James Davis was also doing his version of civil disobedience (I think).

    I kind of wished CB9 had followed through on threats to have the members of the 71st throw out the rabblerousers. 
  • My myopia was ruined before then.

    Throwing them out would have made it way worse.   
    Likewise, canceling the mtg b/c they would not behave would have rewarded them.

    It is a painful process, but they have to realize themselves that shouting and chanting makes them look like idiots to everyone with power and in the press.   

    Boro Hall, DOT, and all of the other agencies that traditionally work with CBs have to say, "we tried to meet with you, but you didn't speak coherently as a CB, so we are going to do what we think is best without you.   You are only advisory.   We don't need your permission.   We don't even have to be here for more than the 20 min period we were scheduled to present"

       
  • whynot_31 said:

      
    Boro Hall, DOT, and all of the other agencies that traditionally work with CBs have to say, "we tried to meet with you, but you didn't speak coherently as a CB, so we are going to do what we think is best without you.   You are only advisory.   We don't need your permission.   We don't even have to be here for more than the 20 min period we were scheduled to present"

       


    Diana Richardson spoke to that as well. 

    I was seriously considering walking out. I didn't come there for that kind of theater. 

    I wouldn't have minded if throwing Alicia from MTOPP out meant that she was somehow a martyr for the "cause". Tim from the Q at Parkside doesn't think MTOPP is going to get their way anyway, and they don't seem to be up for an open dialogue (that is, that doesn't include MTOPP shouting any opposing viewpoint down).
  • A pretty cheap, but effective campaign to make MTOPP (edited from PPEN) more of a laughing stock would be flyers with their logos along with words "Fight The Intelligencia."

    It looks like 5000 full color flyers stating same would run me $133.     


    One could also send infiltrators to their meetings to complain about how MTOPP is not inclusive enough and/or are replicating the racist capitalist hegemonic power structure.   (Such accusations from people believed to be members brings on hours of navel gazing and subcommittees, which effectively and quickly destroys such groups) 

    ...but I am patient enough to watch them self destruct or fade away.    They are only a threat in the sense that people may define the thoughtful members of CB9 using the same brush as they do MTOPP.

    MTOPP probably won't remain this excited for long, and the intelligent members of the group may soon defect or be pushed out for disagreeing on what methods are effective, and accused of being infiltrators, apologists, etc.    
  • photos from Rachel of DNA.info:

    imageimage
  • @whynot_31 - The Q posted this morning that all that theater was for naught. The motion actually didn't pass due to the number of abstentions. 
  • I suspect this means we will get another show next month.

    If CB members show up and abstain, they might be called either Uncle Toms or white devils.

    If was a CB9 member, I'd stay home next month. I'd invite the other CB members for the evening. We'd talk about what we want to accomplish once the people in the green tshirts were gone.

  • If everyone I invited from CB9 came, my gathering would look something like this group:

    image

    photo credit: http://www.cbf.org/how-we-save-the-bay/programs-initiatives/pennsylvania/clean-water-captains

  • W-N,

    Try not to confuse PPEN with MTOPP. The former is far more thoughtful. Sometimes I wonder if MTOPP was dreamt up by developers as a provocateur to discredit PPEN, although its more likely the result of some sort of psychopathology.
  • I agree, MTOPP is the less eloquent of the two groups. However, last night, a lot of PPEN members seemed to be wearing green MTOPP tshirts.

    While I suspect the PPEN members will quickly distance themselves from MTOPP, many didn't seem to bring alternate attire. The night seemed to take them by surprise.

    ...They just sat in their seats, looked at the ground, and probably wondered what they were going to do with the shirts afterward.

    In college, I used to write for the campus newspaper and there was a group of anarchists (Spartacus) that would always interupt the student government meetings. When coherent, they would insist that the efforts to get recycling containers merely perpetuated the global hegemony of Coke a Cola. Lots of yelling and screaming was directed at the volunteer, hapless student representative re: being against all living things, etc.

    MTOPP reminds me a lot of them: http://spartacus-educational.com/USAanarchist.htm
  • Why were a number of people were yelling that Pearl (one of the CB9 members) didn't even live in the district? How would they even know that?

    The meeting ended around 9:43 pm. 
  • It doesn't matter where Pearl lives; she's a City employee rather than a board member.

  • @bobmarvin, Thanks for the clarification.

    I think I understand the implication of those statements. It's not as if Pearl were part of a conspiracy to throw the community under the bus. 
  • IMO comparing MTOPP to anarchists is grossly unfair to the latter.
  • Mug -
    When people view gentrification as a homogeneous group of invaders (as opposed to newcomers and long term residents pursuing their self interests), conspiracy is the only paradigm that works.

    Bob -
    You have a point, anarchists can at least understand the motivations of their opponents. They also seem to understand that inaction is not a realistic option in the face of a threat.

    Because MTOPP members seem to believe that a conspiracy is behind gentrification, they have the luxury of looking for an enemy.

    I envy them.
  • For those of you who have cable, you can see News 12's report.
  • Thanks W-N. I have a fairly high regard for anarchists, even if their greatest success was Spain in 1936 [and we know how that turned out–come to think of it, MTOPP sort of reminds me of the Spanish Stalinists, who turned on the anarchists, rather than concentrating on the real enemy].
  • Not all anarchists have similar skills. A few of the ones at my college were found guilty of manufacturing LSD in their apartment, which I do not believe the Spanish ones you refer to managed to master.

    mug -
    The Ch12 report was pretty tame.

    I expect Rachel at DNA.info to publish her account soon. She is often under fewer editorial constraints.

  • Most of the article sits well with me, but I don't agree with this part:

    "The original room reserved at Medgar Evers College to hold the meeting proved too small, demonstrating poor planning and necessitating a move to an auditorium across the street."

    I don't think its reasonable for the board to have expected as many people as showed up.

    I am glad the larger space was available and MEC and the Board were able to move the meeting to it by 7:20, when it became apparent the smaller room wasn't going to accomodate everyone.

    With the exception of the cop who stated "you all live in affordable housing and should be thankful", I also think the NYPD did a pretty good job. They accurately ascertained that arresting or removing disruptive people would have escalated the situation and made the NYPD the enemy.

    It was far smarter to have the MTOPP people make incremental progress toward the conclusion some will eventually reach: "The enemy is not in this room. It is society at large, and we can not keep it at bay".

    Note: Many will not successfully reach this conclusion.

  • whynot_31 said:

    Note: Many will not successfully reach this conclusion.



    Not sure if I care; as long as they end up leaving as a result of this "natural process of neighborhood change."
  • Caring is completely optional.

    Many people don't think the change is a "natural process" when it involves zoning, but they are using a more restrictive defintion of natural process than me.

    My definition involves individuals using EVERY TOOL at their disposal to advance their self interests.

    This includes the supporting and/or adapting how city agencies do their jobs (police, sanitation, DOE), as well changing regulations like the zoning code.

    If enough people have means and preferences that involve bike racks, craft beer, sit down restaurants, and apartments with glass facades on Empire Blvd such things will arrive.
  • southeast said:


    whynot_31 said:

    Note: Many will not successfully reach this conclusion.



    Not sure if I care; as long as they end up leaving as a result of this "natural process of neighborhood change."


    I'd like to say the same thing, but if they were to get forced out, I'd probably be right behind them (except for Alicia Boyd, who reportedly owns her house). 

    One of the speakers last night mentioned that Upper West Side residents were able to somehow get some proposed changes altered. How was their approach different from MTOPP's? (I mean substantively. It wouldn't surprise me if someone from the MTOPP camp were to say that color or economic background would have something to do with it.)
  • whynot_31 said:

    With the exception of the cop who stated "you all live in affordable housing and should be thankful", I also think the NYPD did a pretty good job. They accurately ascertained that arresting or removing disruptive people would have escalated the situation and made the NYPD the enemy.  



    It wouldn't have surprised me if those officer's comments didn't incite a near riot at that point. A significant population of the crowd were already riled up. I was expecting them to go over the edge.

    I think those officers in question are from the community outreach unit (I don't remember the exact title/name)! 

    It doesn't take much for some people to regard the NYPD as "the enemy". I don't know how one can reasonably argue that the officers didn't do the right thing if the officers had removed the rabble rousers without incident 
  • Ms. Boyd owns a home on Sterling I and is president of the block association.
  • Okay, for those of us keeping score what do PPEN and MTOPP stand for?

  • Bob-
    I also suspect that many of the past and present members of the board are renters.

    Above, I use the broad bush of MTOPP to characterize each as homeowner and renters.

    Um, oppressor and oppressed?

    I hope that most people are aware the world is much more complex.
  • @homeowner -
    PPEN is the Prospect Park East Network. They were recently defeated in their attempt to stop an "as of right building" (626 Flatbush), and wish to change the zoning code before future building are built as of right. They are concerned about displacement, but seem to be very interested in contexual zoning. Some are preservationists. I bet a few enjoy watching birds in the park. http://www.ppen.org/

    MTOPP is the Movement to Protect the People. http://www.mtopp.org/
    They chant things like "What about the revolution?!" and "This Black community is not for sale!", and many seem convinced the rzoning is 99% about wanting to rid the community of black people.

    ---> Note as mentioned above, the groups had more in common than then they do today. And, I suspect, more overlapping memberships.
  • So help me understand this because I am confused.  As far as Community Board 9 goes - all of the Board members are from the CB9 coverage because that is requirement.  But when it comes to Pearl Miles - the District Manager for Community Board 9 it is OK she lives in Long Island but runs CB9 because she is a city employee?  Help me understand. 
  • I believe you are correct.
    Note, CB8 has a city employee as well. I'm not sure where she lives.

    I don't think they can cast tie breaking votes.

    ...but I also don't really care.
  • Even if Pearl Miles were living on Long Island, does anyone have anything to support the assertion that somehow she is selling this community down the river? 
  • This makes it sound as if living outside the district is permissible if you meet other criteria:

    "No person shall be appointed to or remain as a member of the board who does not have a residence, business, professional or other significant interest in the district. The borough president shall assure adequate representation from the different geographic sections and neighborhoods within the community district. In making such appointments, the borough president shall consider whether the aggregate of appointments fairly represents all segments of the community."

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/NYC/70/2800

    ...so, one could conceivably live outside the community and be disliked by large numbers of the community, as long as the borough president isn't bothered by it.

    Board members are not appointed via general elections of community board residents. With the exception of the city employees, I do not believe any of them are paid.
  • @Lilern, there used to be a residency requirement for city employment (you had to live in the five boroughs). The city got rid of that requirement back in the late 60's- early 70's when whites started to move to LI, Westchester, NJ, etc. In the late 80's the rule was changed to once again require NYC residency for city employees except uniformed services and chaplains. There was an exception for employees that were hired before the date the law went into effect. There is however an exception for non-mayoral agencies, which I believe the CB's are. So either Ms. Miles was hired before the change in residency law in the 80's or she doesn't have to be a resident because she doesn't work for a mayoral agency.
  • Ahhhhh - OK - thanks for giving me some clarification on this!

    @whynot_31 you are correct in that the criteria was written just loosely enough that you could live outside the area and still serve on the Board representing it  
  • Why Not,

    I'm sure the reference to limiting the number of City employees on CBs refers to unpaid board members, who happen to be City employees. Each board has a paid District Manager who is a City employee but NOT an appointed board member. IIRC they are employees of the Borough President's office [an independent elected official–not a Mayoral agency.

    Homeowner,

    Excellent explanation of residency rules. I'm a retired NYC HR manager and know how confusing these matters can be.
  • @bobmarvin - so the District Manager of any CB is a City employee - they have to apply for the job - and the 'best' person will get that job but said employee does not have to be a resident like all the others who are do NOT apply but are in fact appointed?  Now I think I get it - this is why the 'head' of CB9 - in this case Pearl Miles - can live in Long Island  
  • Bob-
    Thanks. Can the District Manager vote? If they can't vote and are just a person paid to answer the phones and file forms, it seems as if they may be a pretty marginal player in oppression and hegemony.

    ...one not worthy of attention.
  • "District Manager" is a Non-competitive title. Anyone hired must meet the published qualification requirements even though there's no civil service exam, or other competitive process as there would be for a Competitive class title.

    Here's a link to a Vacancy Notice for a Bronx CB which I found on line. The actual requirements would be the same City-wide:

  • They cannot vote why not. OTOH their role is far from marginal and much more than answering phones and filing forms. After all, District Managers are often the only people at CBs who actually know how anything works. Pearl is the only District Manager I know and I can assure you that she's very knowledgeable.


  • Ahhhhh - thank you.  From the job description I can certainly see why residents would question having a District Manager from outside the respective CB zone - they do far more than answer phones and file forms......
  • @bobmarvin, that's high praise. I'm a NYC public policy wonk so unfortunately my brain is full of minutia around residency requirements, the history of the city council (and the Board of Estimate), and the impacts of ethnic politics on NYC.

    Distric Managers know where the bodies are buried and who's put 'em there. The position, like many other small overlooked governmental positions, has more power than what appears from the outside looking in.
  • lilern said:

    Ahhhhh - thank you.  From the job description I can certainly see why residents would question having a District Manager from outside the respective CB zone - they do far more than answer phones and file forms......



    Indeed they do.

    But their powers seem to stop short of oppression and hegemony.

    Damn it, who it responsible for that! How do we get rid of them!
  • @whynot, if you believe that there is a conspiracy, and you listen to the voices in your head, you know that opression and hegemony STARTS at the CB and goes up through the ranks to the White House, the NSA and the shadow government.
  • homeowner said:

    @bobmarvin, that's high praise. I'm a NYC public policy wonk so unfortunately my brain is full of minutia around residency requirements, the history of the city council (and the Board of Estimate), and the impacts of ethnic politics on NYC.

    Distric Managers know where the bodies are buried and who's put 'em there. The position, like many other small overlooked governmental positions, has more power than what appears from the outside looking in.



    Ah, I see now why those people were shouting about the residency of Pearl Miles. That can be a valid point. Yet, in the context of last night, who would have taken those people seriously?
  • "Oppression and hegemony" don't automatically come with the job, but are within the realm of possibility. Homeowner is spot on when he write that "Distric[t] Managers know where the bodies are buried and who's put 'em there. The position, like many other small overlooked governmental positions, has more power than what appears from the outside looking in". During my brief tenure on CB 9 I often observed Pearl seeming to boss Jake Goldstein [the former chairperson] around.


  • I do not know enough about Ms. Miles to take a position on her removal.

    However, I am certain that even if people are successful in removing Ms. Miles, oppression will remain.

    ...and I fear that their focus on removing Ms. Miles will cause them to be distracted from very real things they could be doing in their lives to better their situations.

    See you in October?

    homeowner said:

    @whynot, if you believe that there is a conspiracy, and you listen to the voices in your head, you know that opression and hegemony STARTS at the CB and goes up through the ranks to the White House, the NSA and the shadow government.



    Finally, someone gets it.

    See, it doesn't have anything to do with whether I wait my turn to speak or use complete sentences!

  • I am not saying to get rid of anybody.  That being said I will say last night when Pearl Miles repeatedly yelled "SHUT UP SHUT UP" to a constituent - no matter how heated the response - I was appalled.  So were other people around me.  The District Manager should be above such an outburst.  And for the record I SUPPORT the study resolution - I am on Pearl's side in that regard, as were the other people around me, but she makes it hard when given the way she behaved last night.  All of us resolution supporters were disgusted.  All I am saying is if you look at the job description for CB District Manager you will see this is a VERY powerful position within the CB. I think to question someone who holds this position yet lives outside of the Community zone is completely reasonable.       
  • Yes, the District Manager shouldn't yell at a member of the public, but, FWIW, there was plenty of provocation. I might well have done the same if I were in her place.
  • As stated above, I left around 8:20.

    While I didn't know it at the time, this was the approximate mid point to the mtg; Mug reports it ended at 9:45.

    Did she yell at people during the first half, or the second? I either wasn't there for that part, or didn't hear it in light of some in my section yelling all the time.
  • There was a loud demand that someone read the infamous resolution that the board had sent to City Planning . Pearl got (justifiably IMO) exasperated when those who supposedly wanted this reading tried to shout her down. This was in the last half of the looong meeting.
  • Yes. Pearl was reading the comments from the community that had informed the formation of the resolution. However, some people in the audience didn't want to hear that. They apparently wanted her to skip over all of that. Maybe some want her to just get to the actual resolution (the Cliff Notes version). Maybe some want to get to the point where they could call BS on the actual tenets of the resolution. 

    While Pearl's outburst wasn't ideal, it was understandable. Many in the audience was hung up on the resolution. Then when it actually came time to read through the actual text of the resolution, people were shouting her down? That made no sense.

    Then entire meeting was chaotic...including what happened when there was a motion to have the resolution rescinded. 
  • Rachel's piece:


    From it, I continue to conclude that the vote did not successfully rescind the request for the study.
  • whynot_31 said:

    Rachel's piece:



    From it, I continue to conclude that the vote did not successfully rescind the request for the study.


    It'd be funny if that were the plan all along...vote to rescind the resolution in order to appease the rabble rousers, only later to say, "Psych!" I don't think that was the intention.

    Quote from the article: "Untermyer is currently suing CB9 over aFreedom of Information Law request he submitted to the board in August to obtain CB9’s bylaws after he found out the resolution specified Empire Boulevard as a site for possible rezoning."

    The explanation that was given (when I could actually hear it) was that the initial request was to study the entire district, but TPTB didn't have the funds to do that, so the scope of the study had to be narrowed. That was where Empire Boulevard came in. 

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook