> The standard penalty for a violation is $5,000, which is a fraction of the value of the bonus space developers receive from the agreements. For example, the owners of 325 Fifth Avenue have been assessed a total of $54,000 in penalties since 2015. By contrast, the bonus floor area that the developers gained could be worth approximately $80 million if used for residential space, based on 2022 sales prices provided by Jonathan J. Miller, a New York City real estate appraiser.<p>When the penalty is this much lower than the benefit, it's just the cost of doing business. I wonder if this same problem would happen if the fine was scaled to better reflect the increase in value.
SF landlords will try to limit access to their POPOS as well. For example, the Hampton Inn on Mission St has a rooftop deck that is supposed to be open to the public. I tried to go in on my lunch break but, surprise, it's "for guests only". Then they allowed me to go up but not before making me sign some BS liability waiver. Reported them to the city government and got an immediate reply. If you see something, say something!
There are two major gaps in this analysis:<p>- Extra tall buildings generate significant extra tax revenue to the city that could easily be used for acquisition and maintenance of public spaces.<p>- Zoning laws that limit square footage result in artificially inflated property values. How much lower would housing cost if developers could build as tall as safety and market demand supports?
>“Developers received something that was disproportionately valuable,”<p>[Edit: This is what happened.] It was not an equal exchange. Developers gained from extra floor space amounting to millions, while fines levied amounted to just thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Up the fines to millions for starters.<p>[Edit: On another note, the private real estate market is bonkers. There needs to be tighter regulations, and more supply in the form of public market housing, etc. Many in New York getting priced out in the last 20 years.]
NYC is really missing out on extra revenue by not enforcing this. $5000 per violation (per day?) Could easily pay one person's annual salary across all the areas affected by this. Could even make this enforceable through a citizen app like NYC already does with idling vehicles. One month of regular enforcement would probably stop violations for good. Could also post signs right at the plaza stating that public access is a right and to report if inaccessible.
I know many of those locations highlighted, I feel like these are crucial but subtle changes in NYC post-pandemic that change the experience for the worse.<p>Really sad about the periodic closures of the plaza at 835 Sixth Avenue.<p>In any case, I think these are bad deals to begin with. Its a good idea to convince developers to create the public spaces if the city cannot, but it needs more thought put into it.
This is the standard issue with fines. When they are less than the reward for non-compliance it is not worth complying. My town has many fines that are issued per day with increases at certain milestones.
Seriously: if the deal developers reneged on was to allow them to create extra housing, who cares?<p>I get why everyone is pissed about private park space, and I'm not saying they're wrong to be pissed, but this is an article about a deal that only provided half its expected benefits, not one that cost anybody anything.
Related HN Thread "If You Double-Park and You’re Rich, Should You Pay a Higher Fine?": <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813265">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813265</a>