Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Moses Gates, and I am the Vice President for Housing and Neighborhood Planning at Regional Plan Association. RPA is a non-profit civic organization that conducts research, planning and advocacy to improve economic opportunity, mobility, environmental sustainability and the quality of life for those who live and work in the New York metropolitan region. I have also spent several years working in the hospitality industry as a New York City Tour Guide.

The stated premise of this proposal is to create ​“a more uniform zoning framework for new hotels citywide that could support more predictable development.” However, what the Department is proposing to study is the opposite of a framework that would lead to more uniformity and predictability. Instead, they are proposing to study the effects of instituting an ad hoc process for permitting a specific use, one in which every action would be subject to uncertainty and unpredictability, and almost certainly result in heavily discretionary and non-uniform development. This is made plain by the draft scope of work itself, which states that ​“obtaining the special permit can add significant time, cost, and uncertainty to a project.”

This is doubly confounding as the scope of work also notes that ​“Although hotels are appropriate and desirable uses in the city’s commercial, mixed-use, and light manufacturing districts, reviewing the project’s relationship to area context of new hotels will result in better configuration of the use to minimize conflicts with adjacent uses and protect the safety of hotel guests.”

If hotels are considered ​“appropriate and desirable uses,” with the only rationales for a citywide special permit being conflict with adjacent uses and protecting the safety of hotel guests, it begs the question of how these safety and conflict concerns are particular to hotels and their occupants. What is unique about a hotel guest that engenders more safety concerns from the surrounding urban environment than an office worker, or restaurant patron, or anyone else trying to cross the street? Wouldn’t a childcare or assisted living facility, for instance, engender more concerns over protecting the safety of its users from the surrounding environment?

At minimum, as part of the scope of work, it is incumbent on DCP to point out what exactly these safety concerns are, back them up with evidence, and explain how they are different from the safety concerns of anyone else.

As far as conflict with surrounding uses, a Citywide Special Permit for hotel use would make hotels the only significant use that would need a special permit citywide. There are places in New York where one can build roller coasters, aircraft factories, garbage dumps, fertilizer manufacturers, cement plants and petting zoos as-of-right. There are seven zoning districts where one can build a football stadium, five where one can locate a temporary carnival or circus and four where one can build a blacksmith shop. There are 16 where one could currently locate an active cemetery and four where one could locate an active crematorium. Yet hotels are what must, in every case, be examined to see if they conflict with adjacent uses?

Again, DCP offers no examples of what may constitute conflict, or any evidence or rationale for why hotels in particular, need to be reviewed on an ad-hoc basis for conflict with adjacent uses. As part of the scope of work it is incumbent on DCP to explain what these potential conflicts are, how they are unique to hotels, and why they rise to a level of nuisance that other conflicts do not.

Since the stated goal is at direct odds with the proposed scope of work, it begs the question of if this study should go forward at all or be withdrawn and replaced with a more appropriate scope of work. If DCP goes ahead with this proposal, as follows are additional suggestions to those mentioned above which should be included in the scope of work, especially since, as DCP notes, ​“prior to 2007 New York City’s supply of hotel rooms had not kept up with demand, resulting in some of the highest occupancy and nightly rates in the country, and this is expected to return by 2025.”

• Given that the special permit in the Manufacturing Zone has produced no new hotels, the Reasonable Worst-Case Development Scenario should be set either at zero or a negative number in order to adjust for hotel loss during this period.

• Given this constrained hotel supply, both the likely number of visitors and the likely economic profile of visitors should also be studied, vs the likely number and economic profile of visitors in a no-action scenario.

• Given this changing number of visitors, and the changing economic profile of these visitors, the effect not only on the tourism industry itself but on all commercial businesses near areas currently zoned for hotels should be studied, as well as the effect on the overall job market.

• The possible increase in hotel alternatives, such as Air BnBs, as an effect of this constrained hotel supply should be studied, as should the knock-on effect of housing availability and affordability in the City.

• The effect of a possible reduction in new supportive and affordable housing, given the lessened likelihood of hotels converting to these uses due to increased hotel demand in the future, should also be studied.

If the Department wants a framework for uniform and predictable hotel development, they should conduct a study of the city and determine the best framework for uniform and predictable hotel development, preferably in the context of a comprehensive citywide planning effort. Just like there are areas and zones of the city where hotels are inappropriate, there are areas and zones of the city where hotels are appropriate.

New York City has been one of the leading tourist destinations of the world for decades, and currently sees an estimated 28 million visitors a year. Instituting a drastic shift in which all hotel development would require approval from both the City Planning Commission and the City Council is not a small matter, and would not have a small effect on our city. It would affect countless industries and businesses. It would affect our job market and our housing market. It would affect the ability of people to visit loved ones and have their loved ones visit them. It would affect New York’s ability to be a true international hub, able to welcome visitors from different places and walks of life. If the Department wishes to move forward, all of these effects should be studied and fully understood so that the city can make an informed decision on this proposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.