Submitted by Rex, Dec 14, 2006 13:46

Setting goals, whether it is ten or thousands also suggests the need for comment on the process of setting them. If these ten goals can be set firmly with the intent of producing a clear set of objectives then the goals become renewable because objectives measure progress. It will be useful if the 3rd estate will take the time to test the language and products of the Mayor's office. For a simple example, a stated goal is to make a park available to every New Yorker within a ten-minute walk. If objectives are set there would be an open well publicized plan, schedule, and remedy for the areas of NYC where a 10-minute walk does not lead to a park or accessible waterway. That is an easy one.

The affordability of housing question is more daunting. Defining NYC's maximum build out is a capacity issue assigned to the location of every square foot of real estate. It also means restricting the pace of NYC "max" build-out whatever that may be, but given the goals it is based on principles not tested in law. (zoning, and land use regulations defining roads/railways/bikeways) Between the lines, the Plan 2030 website says overdevelopment is less of an issue than the hectic pace of it and it is this "frenzy" that is staring NYC squarely in its aging service structure. If it is the pace and not the mass, then the City Council's representation of the housing needs in NYC is right on the 421a housing incentive issue and the risk is worth taking to find out. We shall see. My bet -- greed is a smackdown on sustainability. Any one person that owns billions of dollars cannot possibly think there were actually that productive and that somethin' just ain't right. We should be grateful that we seem to have a mayor that believe the latter.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.