development-1

The following is a press release from the offices of Assemblyman Steven Cymbrowitz:

Assemblyman Steven Cymbrowitz (D-Brooklyn) is urging the Board of Standards and Appeals to reject a special permit application by a Sheepshead Bay ambulatory health care facility that would severely impact residential parking.

The applicant, Eric Palatnik, P.C., for 2464 Coney Island Avenue, wants BSA to reduce the facility’s required number of parking spaces in the building’s indoor garage. Thirty-four spaces are currently reserved but BSA can reduce that number to 17. BSA is conducting a hearing on the matter tomorrow at 10 a.m. [Ed. — The meeting has now passed.]

Community Board 15 has already voted against the proposal.

Assemblyman Cymbrowitz says eliminating indoor parking spaces will cause parking woes for people on East 9th Street, located around the corner from the facility, in addition to other nearby streets. “East 9th Street consists of attached homes with no garages. Residents here must rely solely on street parking, which is already in short supply,” he said in a letter to BSA.

Curb cuts have been installed on East 9th Street for the health care center’s underground parking garage, limiting parking for residents even further, he said.

Exacerbating the situation is a car rental business on the first floor of the same building, Assemblyman Cymbrowitz said. The car rental business will use the underground garage spaces when necessary, meaning that patients at the health care facility will need to look for available street parking when the indoor spots are occupied.

“In order to minimize the impact on residents’ quality of life, it is essential that BSA vote against the application to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the ambulatory health facility,” he said.

Related posts

  • BrooklynBus

    Then the city wonders why there is traffic congestion. They then blame the motorists for it, when they are the ones creating this congestion through overdevelopment or by not providing enough parking causing people to drive in circles.

    And the MTA is also guilty for the congestion because they will not increase bus service until after the riders appear, not when demand exists and people are driving to their destination because of inadequate or unreliable bus service.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

    Coney Island Avenue is up for grabs by the highest bidder.

  • Street Equity

    Assemblyman Cymbrowitz has it backwards.

    • BrooklynBus

      He certainly does not. You do. People don’t run out and buy a car everytime a new parking space is created.

      New development without providing for adequate parking and improving mass transit causes traffic congestion or as you call it traffic calming.

      • fdtutf

        “People don’t run out and buy a car everytime a new parking space is created.”

        I call strawman. Nobody said they did. However, the more free parking there is at a destination, the more people are likely to use the automobiles they already have for a trip to that destination, instead of using transit.

        • BrooklynBus

          I have read that argument many times on Streetsblog where they are against creating any new parking spaces. The fact is that there is never enough free parking anywhere near commercial areas. Providing a few more will not encourage people to drive their cars. Besides, the parking guidelines are there for a reason, to provide the minimum number of spaces required. By not providing the minimum you are creating a parking shortage and increasing traffic congestion which also slows down buses.

          It is in everyone’s interest to follow the parking guidelines. If transit were more reliable and more seats were available, people woudn’t prefer to drive. You increase the use of transit by improving it, not by providing more disincentives to driving. There are enough in place already.

          • fdtutf

            “The fact is that there is never enough free parking anywhere near commercial areas. Providing a few more will not encourage people to drive their cars.”

            Do you not see a contradiction there?

            “Besides, the parking guidelines are there for a reason, to provide the minimum number of spaces required.”

            Who determines what’s “required,” and on what basis?

            “It is in everyone’s interest to follow the parking guidelines. If transit were more reliable and more seats were available, people woudn’t prefer to drive. You increase the use of transit by improving it, not by providing more disincentives to driving. There are enough in place already.”

            Let’s be real: For most people, especially those who already have a car, transit cannot compete for any trip that can be made by car in a reasonable amount of time. Only impediments to automobile travel will induce car owners to choose transit.

            Let’s be even more real: In a crowded city like New York that has good-quality transit like New York’s, there is no good reason to devote large quantities to the storage of cars, especially to their temporary storage.

          • fdtutf

            *there is no good reason to devote large quantities OF SPACE to the storage of cars

          • BrooklynBus

            So in other words, every parking space should be a pay parking space? I think we have been through this before.

          • BrooklynBus

            Let’s really be real. You don’t encourage transit by making every other alternative impossibly difficult. All that does is to drive out the middle class to the suburbs when they feel they have had enough.

            You encourage transit by improving it, yet the MTA uses every possible excuse not to really improve transit. They make token improvements just to give the misleading impression they are doing something positive. When a new land use opens, new transit should appear the same day, not years or months later or never.

            When the Gateway shopping strip was opened around 2001, the MTA took months to make a short extension of the B13 and operated it only at 30 minute intervals instead of providing new routes from all directions to a regional shopping center. Of course those with cars chose to drive to it. Even with the miserable bus headways, the buses were so crowded, the MTA was forced to double or triple service six months or a year later. The MTA is to reactive instead of being proactive to encourage the use of transit.

            Other businesses do market studies believing if you build it they will come. The MTA does it’s operating analyses assuming is a route is extended or service is improved, there will be no additional riders and they will lose more money. With that attitude no wonder people are forced to drive.

          • fdtutf

            “You encourage transit by improving it, yet the MTA uses every possible excuse not to really improve transit.”

            I’m all for improving transit, but exactly how do you think transit can be improved to the point where it can compete with the private automobile *with people who already have cars*? Keep in mind that for those people, the bulk of the cost of car ownership is a sunk cost and the (perceived, at least) marginal cost per trip is zero or very close to it, while each transit trip involves an outlay. The transit trip is also likely to be slower and less comfortable. Granted that transit speeds can be improved, but how can a transit trip ever compete with a car trip in terms of sheer physical comfort?

          • Andrew
  • Supporter of One Party Rule

    As good as our transit system is, it cannot replace all privately owned cars all the time. I support balanced transportation and private owned vehicles should be part of the mix. Punitive fees, fines and regulations are not in our best interests.

    • Andrew

      Space has value – in this city, quite a lot of value. Payment for the space occupied by one’s private vehicle is not a “punitive fee” by any stretch of the imagination.

      I agree that regulations, such as parking requirements, are not in our best interest. Developers should be neither required to provide parking nor forbidden from providing parking for their customers.