Author Topic: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets (Read 14275 times)

jh35 · « **Reply #75 on:** May 15, 2021, 07:08:32 PM »

Quote from: dssjh on May 15, 2021, 05:56:37 PM

"Maybe you missed the Target drama. When it was proposed everyone liked it. Then, AOC was elected. She came out against it."

this is gaslighting at its finest. bravo (or brava).

Activists against Target:
The developers originally sought to build a 13-story, luxury residential building with a shopping mall on the lower floors, but withdrew their plans after fierce opposition. Instead, the developers filed plans for the two-story building, to be called The Shoppes....
“I am worried that the store will bring lots more people into our already crowded neighborhood,” said Tania Mattos Jose, a resident and QNU leader in a statement today. “It is going to make it harder to park, to walk on the street and to take the train here.”
https://jacksonheightspost.com/activists-elected-officials-file-lawsuit-to-stop-target-from-coming-to-82nd-street

A representative of Congress Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez read a letter condemning the developers’ zoning argument.

“I am submitting a letter in support of community demands to stop Target and potential negative effects… this development goes against the spirit and intent of the zoning regulation,” a representative from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office said.

Queens Neighborhood United, a grass-roots group that has been leading the charge to prevent the development, argues that the Target store would contribute to the displacement of residents and small businesses in the Elmhurst and Jackson Heights area.
https://jacksonheightspost.com/final-decision-concerning-fate-of-82nd-street-target-to-be-made-june-4-bsa

The site’s developers, the Heskel Group and Sun Equity Partners, shelved their plans for a 13-story building at the location in July after much community opposition, with QNU being their most outspoken critic.

The developers instead decided to pursue their back up project for the site–a two-story building, with a Target originally set to occupy the entirety of the ground floor. The Department of Buildings signed off on the plan in July....

The site’s developers, the Heskel Group and Sun Equity Partners, shelved their plans for a 13-story building at the location in July after much community opposition, with QNU being their most outspoken critic.

The developers instead decided to pursue their back up project for the site–a two-story building, with a Target originally set to occupy the entirety of the ground floor. The Department of Buildings signed off on the plan in July.

https://jacksonheightspost.com/queens-neighborhoods-united-brings-fight-against-82nd-street-target-to-new-york-supreme-court

Katz backed the proposal, noting that the development would bring a significant amount of permanently affordable units— 42 in all— to the neighborhood. She gave it her blessing after the developer reached an agreement with Councilmember Francisco Moya to increase the number of affordable units from 36 to 42 units and to lower the income thresholds.

However, Community Board 4 voted against the proposal in March when 36 units were proposed. Several members said at the time that they were concerned that the development would exacerbate gentrification in the neighborhood.
https://jacksonheightspost.com/city-planning-commission-approves-82nd-street-rezoning-with-reservations

Community organizations Newtown Civic Association and Queens Neighborhoods United have expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the neighborhood.

The groups argue that the new building would hurt independent retailers, increase street traffic and put additional pressure on public transportation.

The organizations also say that the plans do not include enough affordable housing units and that they would be too expensive given the income levels of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst residents.
https://jacksonheightspost.com/developers-aim-build-13-story-building-former-jackson-heights-cinema-site-seek-rezoning

jh35 · « **Reply #76 on:** May 15, 2021, 07:30:40 PM »

But, of course, the more important question is whether I should try Pizza Boy.

dssjh · « **Reply #77 on:** May 15, 2021, 08:26:03 PM »

there was never overwhelming support for Target or the abandoned mass of bricks. local merchants -- largely our neighbors -- were opposed. lots of folks who prefer keeping Cincinnati-ization at bay were opposed. Target is not inherently bad, but it does contribute to the dilution of a neighborhood feel.

and Pizza Boy makes a decent slice. it's no Louie's or Sam's, but it's not bad.

34Compromise · « **Reply #78 on:** May 16, 2021, 02:09:30 AM »

Quote from: jh35 on May 15, 2021, 03:21:55 PM

Quote from: CJCasanova21 on May 15, 2021, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: 34Compromise on May 15, 2021, 02:56:01 PM
Quote from: jh35 on May 15, 2021, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: 34Compromise on May 15, 2021, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: jh35 on May 15, 2021, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: 34Compromise on May 15, 2021, 02:34:47 PM
Quote from: dssjh on May 14, 2021, 03:45:54 PM
shouldn't those opposing the open streets march on another avenue? after all, using the open street seems counter intuitive.

LOL WE DO LOVE TARGET!!!! We aren't anti-anything. You people are so narrow-minded when it comes to your neighbors.

Why would you think it is? We have been saying since the beginning that we do support Open Streets. Compromise means we want it to work better for everyone.

Who is this “We” you speak for?

The members of 34Compromise, of course.

I did not ask for the name you made up. Who gave you the right to speak for anyone? Are you like that minority (minority= few people) who were against the Target and affordable housing, but calling themselves a neighborhood spokesperson? Your compromises are vague, like your constituency.

You got us confused, we love Target.

Maybe you missed the Target drama. When it was proposed everyone liked it. Then, AOC was elected. She came out against it. The other politicians then had to be against it. It was made smaller. (“Box stores threaten immigrant owned stores.”) The affordable housing above was dropped. (“Poor immigrants can not afford ‘affordable housing.’”) (“Large stores will make the neighborhood crowded.”)

That is how we got a small Target store without a Lays potato chip aisle.

I sure don't see how we got to target. We're talking about 34th Avenue and a large group of residents who are having issues with how it currently is. They want a compromise to make it work better for our neighbors, and that is what unites us. End of story.

r · « **Reply #79 on:** May 16, 2021, 03:12:36 AM »

Quote from: abcdefghijk on May 15, 2021, 10:21:46 AM

34th Ave is closed to pedestrians and reverts to car traffic at 8pm. Your comment about not being able to sleep makes no sense. Cranky and complaining about cars on 34th Ave?

Yes, of course everyone has a voice.

But, the idea is that the majority gets its way in a democracy. That's the American experiment.

Nope.

The founders tried to ensure that everyone's rights were respected, not just the majority.

That is why changes to the constitution require a super-majority and not just a majority, for example. It's also why supreme court membership is for life.

In this case nobody seems to care about the actual residents of 34th, which is quite un-American.

ShinjukuBaby · « **Reply #80 on:** May 16, 2021, 07:44:05 AM »

I'm really struggling with the "compromise" formulation here.

I completely agree that there needs to be a code of conduct about noise, vendors, etc. That's true of any park or public space.

But right now we have 100% of the streets in Jackson Heights devoted to taxpayer funded parking and roads for the privileged population in cars to enjoy at everybody else's expense.

Now that we're suggesting that maybe cars could give up one street (just one street!) out of all the streets in our neighborhood, we're told that this is too much and we should "compromise" and only ask for part of one street (or something).

Half of the streets in JH for cars and half for pedestrians/bikes/green space seems like it would be an actual "compromise".

jh35 · « **Reply #81 on:** May 16, 2021, 09:11:30 AM »

Quote from: ShinjukuBaby on May 16, 2021, 07:44:05 AM

I'm really struggling with the "compromise" formulation here.

I completely agree that there needs to be a code of conduct about noise, vendors, etc. That's true of any park or public space.

But right now we have 100% of the streets in Jackson Heights devoted to taxpayer funded parking and roads for the privileged population in cars to enjoy at everybody else's expense.

Now that we're suggesting that maybe cars could give up one street (just one street!) out of all the streets in our neighborhood, we're told that this is too much and we should "compromise" and only ask for part of one street (or something).

Half of the streets in JH for cars and half for pedestrians/bikes/green space seems like it would be an actual "compromise".

I do not think anyone would object to giving up one STREET. But this is one AVENUE. There are only two avenues that cut through the residential area of JH. It is a shame that it was not better thought out and ( saying again) that 37th avenue was closed. no driveways, restaurants in street.

How is this for a compromise? Close 34th avenue and use half of the sidewalks in JH for parking.

lalochezia · « **Reply #82 on:** May 16, 2021, 09:43:19 AM »

Quote from: 34Compromise on May 15, 2021, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: lalochezia on May 15, 2021, 01:45:47 PM
Love the website for 34compromise...... Very professional (btw: finish off the blank wix templates....)

Also love that its registrants are shielded.

Registrant:
Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410076780
Mailing Address: ON
ISO-3166 Code: CA

Unlike city agencies, private entities have the right to remain anonymous.

But the public - who these entities are trying to influence - should know they are exercising that right.

Thank you so much! But also, why are you so obsessed? Trying to find out my address? You don't see how that is actually very creepy on your part? A lot of people buy privacy protection when buying domains, as I always do. We are very transparent with who we are and what we are doing. We just gave last night a meeting on all this information to our group members. Don't worry about that.

"We are very transparent with who we are and what we are doing."

Yet, the public facing web account of 34avecompromise says Don't worry about that. when asked
who. they. are. but they "told their members"

I'm not worried at all. Neighbors should be though.

Sounds classically similar to the response of an astroturfing organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Who funds you? Who founded you?

(And let's be clear: no-one should be doxxed as a private individual on this site - or others - but if you set up a public-facing pressure group, claiming to speak for some tranche of people, the public have a right to know about the origins behind 'grassroots' organizations...or know they are set up anonymously)

itsit · « **Reply #83 on:** May 16, 2021, 11:29:39 AM »

We have THE WRONG STREET for JH Open Streets. It should be 37th Avenue which might in some way compare to the only other closure that most people consider "successful" in NYC. This is Vanderbilt Ave in Brooklyn which is a commercial street!!! Not a residential street like 34th Ave. On 37th Ave, there are places to dine and meet up with people, amenities already exist on 37th ave and most importantly, we would be supporting our beloved restaurant and business community which is in high need right now. The lunacy of using 34th Ave for Open Streets and making it into something it doesn't want to be, is a travesty. Luckily, NYC Parks and DOT are not moving quickly so time will provide some interesting answers on use and who is doing the long term maintenance and who is patrolling the misbehavior, etc.

Let's come to our senses here and move this to 37th Ave and make it right for all of the Jackson Heights community in the long term. We need to consider all of our residents and businesses here.

earbears · « **Reply #84 on:** May 16, 2021, 02:55:37 PM »

Open Street on 37th Ave. will provide for great space for our great local resturants and a wonderful mall like the big shopping centers people run to.

The hours would need to be adjusted so the stores can recieve deliveries perhaps noon to 9pm.

Sound sensational!

jh35 · « **Reply #85 on:** May 16, 2021, 03:17:54 PM »

Quote from: earbears on May 16, 2021, 02:55:37 PM

Open Street on 37th Ave. will provide for great space for our great local resturants and a wonderful mall like the big shopping centers people run to.

The hours would need to be adjusted so the stores can recieve deliveries perhaps noon to 9pm.

Sound sensational!

I think if there are truck loading/unloading zones at every cross street off of 37th avenue deliveries will not be a problem. Several large stores have delivery doors on the side street already. (Foodtown, and Food Dynasty)

If 34th street is closed, the city may have to pay all of the building owners for the right to the street. 37th avenue has no driveways, so no one is losing access.

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/interim-design-strategies/temporary-street-closures/

https://grrhpc.com/publications/street-closings/

dssjh · « **Reply #86 on:** May 16, 2021, 04:45:55 PM »

no one is losing access to any driveways. people turn onto 34th all the time from every side street and from the buildings that have garages. people can't drive multiple blocks, but not a single person has lost access. i've seen Access a Ride, Uber, private cars and emergency vehicles use the street. this argument does not hold up.

jh35 · « **Reply #87 on:** May 16, 2021, 05:30:42 PM »

Quote from: dssjh on May 16, 2021, 04:45:55 PM

no one is losing access to any driveways. people turn onto 34th all the time from every side street and from the buildings that have garages. people can't drive multiple blocks, but not a single person has lost access. i've seen Access a Ride, Uber, private cars and emergency vehicles use the street. this argument does not hold up.

The lawyers will make a lot of money on this.

abcdefghijk · « **Reply #88 on:** May 16, 2021, 07:40:30 PM »

To forward their agendas, folks are pretending that the situation is much worse for cars than it truly is.

But that approach isn't going to be successful.

Lies never do work out.

A recent election showed us that.

jh35 · « **Reply #89 on:** May 16, 2021, 08:23:00 PM »

Quote from: abcdefghijk on May 16, 2021, 07:40:30 PM

To forward their agendas, folks are pretending that the situation is much worse for cars than it truly is.

But that approach isn't going to be successful.

Lies never do work out.

A recent election showed us that.

Abusive

Jackson Heights Life

News:

Author Topic: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets (Read 14275 times)

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

dssjh

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

34Compromise

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

r

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

ShinjukuBaby

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

lalochezia

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

itsit

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

earbears

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

dssjh

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

abcdefghijk

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets

jh35

Re: Petition started for "compromise" on 34th Ave Open Streets