News Analysis: Community Boards

Each community board in New York City exerts a different amount of control and power over its jurisdiction, so the board, in the right hands, could prove to be a powerful device.  But this power equation hinges on a few factors.

“It depends a little bit on which board it is and who their allies are,” said Michael Krasner, an associate professor of political science at Queens College.

For example, the community boards of the West Side and Lower Manhattan recently wielded their influence and stopped development — or at least slowed it down.  The termination of the West Side highway project can be attributed to the protest of the community through its board. The board of Greenwich Village also saw a small victory in the recent NYU planning proposals, which outlined a promise to cooperate with the community for the school’s expansion.

But community boards have also failed when it came time to step up to developers.  The boards of West Harlem failed to stop Columbia’s expansion into the neighborhood.  And when a Bronx board rejected plans for the new Yankee stadium, the council went ahead and approved it anyway.  Construction has already begun.

In all these cases, the community boards stared into the eyes of developers and their large projects, and told them ‘no.’ But when the smoke cleared, different parties claimed victories in different areas.  There is still more to the equation.

Queens community board 9 oversees Richmond Hill, Kew Gardens, Woodhaven and a sliver of Ozone Park, all relatively quiet neighborhoods.  At a recent board meeting, members were denying or accepting liquor license and taxi base station requests and discussing building permits to an audience of residents, business owners and politicians’ aides.  But even members had to be reminded that the board has a limited role.

“In everything we do, we’re advisory,” Andrea Crawford, chairwoman of the board, said to an older board member.  “Whether they take it or not.”

Ivan Mrakovcic, 1st Vice Chair of the board, expressed a similar notion.  “In a nutshell, our input is advisory,” he said during a phone interview. “But it’s not binding, with some exceptions.”

These exceptions lie in the board’s main function, advising the State Liquor Association and Taxi Limousine Commission on whether to grant permits in the community.  If these departments don’t comply with the board, there could be backlash from angry board members and residents.  After all, no one knows a community better than its residents.

Other items on the agenda dealt with the moving of a group home and the installation of a speed hump.  For the group home, approval from the city was needed, and a letter of support from the board would certainly help their case.  This is another example of the board’s small power possibly yielding large results.

Letter writing can prove instrumental in the approval or disapproval of a project. The board pulled together late last year and wrote a letter arguing their case against rezoning proposals.  “Be it resolved that Queens Community Board No. 9 opposes in totality the Citywide Text Amendments Proposed by the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects,” the letter read.  Other boards soon followed.

At the meeting, Crawford declared victory over what the board saw as the defeat of these proposals by the AIA.  If approved, these proposals would have rezoned certain parts of the city, which would have been a disaster to community board 9, where historical districts are especially important.

That’s not how the Department of City Planning saw it, however.  “The Department of City Planning did not reject the application, nor did the City Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the application,” said Jennifer Torres, a communications director of the DCP, in an email message.  “In light of concerns raised during the review process, we advised the AIA that it might withdraw its application and that some of the measures needed further examination and consultation with affected communities.”

Much like NYU’s step back, the floodgates are now opened for the AIA to discuss their plans with the boards.  Not so much a defeat, but an obvious middle ground.

Basically, a board is only as strong as its members and its residents, who may start grassroots campaigns and lobbying efforts.  A boards’ true power rests in its ability to start the cycle, which allows the board to transcend into something more powerful.

“If the board could become a vessel or a public forum, then it would work as a rallying point,” Krasner said.  “Whoever serves on it, they become a resource and an arena.  So that works.”

But that function is limited because it requires people to be involved.  “The system only works to the extent that you work in it,” said Crawford.

There are ways around the system however.  If an agency sidesteps the board for a project, it could render it powerless.  Recently, the city planted a new family justice center in Kew Gardens — which probably wouldn’t have been denied anyway — without even mentioning it to the community board.

“A lot of city agencies, they’ll come to us and let us know, but they won’t ask us unless they need our opinion,” Mrakovcic said.

In turn, community boards are a city financed advocacy group, a check to the balance of powers that be.  But sometimes that’s not enough.  So what do boards want?

“Bite,” said Crawford, a lawyer.  “Real teeth,” the power to go after those who go against the board’s advice.

But then the community board might be in over its head.