This transcript is provided by The Chinatown Core Block Association.

Speaker 1: Margaret Chin: Welcome to our city and the rest of the community. And I want to
thank you, Mayor Deblasio, for coming to Chinatown, to hear from our community leader. And
we will joined by our -- [Inaudible: 00:15] Congresswoman [Inaudible], welcome. I know you
will see her a little bit later. I thought you weren’t going to be able to join us, welcome! We
know that criminal justice reform is an undertaking that requires all of our communities to be
active participants. As someone who has known first hand the unique role that Chinatown has
played since the 1980s, when the neighborhood fought to be part of a process regarding the
expansion of the detention center. One thing is clear: we must not downplay the importance of
community engagement. And that is why I’m so thankful that the mayor is here today, so that we
can begin a productive dialogue about concerns, needs, and mostly importantly, solutions. And
thank you to city hall, for all of the staff, for organizing this meeting. Oh, our borough president
is here. Gail, welcome.

And I want to especially thank the American Legion lieutenant, Kim [Inaudible: 01:25] post
1291 for hosting this event. In some ways, our condolences goes to out to the family and the
friends of Chairman Peter Woo, who passed away unexpectedly on Saturday. We just spoke to
him on Friday, he was supposed to join us here today.

He was a World War II veteran, one of the very few that’s left. And the most senior leader of this
post 1291. And I remember him fondly, that he’s always smiling, cheerful. He was over 100
years old. So there’s something about serving this country. He was such a delight, and I will
truly, truly miss him. And last week, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a
Chinese American World War II veteran Congressional gold medal act. And the bill right now is
waiting for the president to sign. Chairman Woo will be deeply missed by all of us.

And I think when this legislation is signed by the president, it will be a great way to honor
Chairman Peter Woo. We’ve also been joined by our state senator, Brian Kavanaugh. So now, I
will turn it over to our mayor for some remarks.

Speaker 2: Mayor Deblasio: Thank you. Thank you so much, council member. Thank you
everyone for being here. I’m looking forward to this opportunity to hear from you. I want to say
from the outset a profound thanks for everything that you do for this city. For this broader
community, for this neighborhood. We are blessed to be in a city where people get involved, and
make a difference. And create organizations, at unprecedented numbers and levels, to make
people’s lives better. So I want to start by saying thank you. And I value the fact that you’re
taking your time here today to offer thoughts on what we’re trying to achieve, and how to do it
best, and I appreciate that. I want to join Margaret in commemorating the extraordinary service
of Peter Woo, and again, a World War II vet. And what he did in service to this country, what

1
he’s done in service to this neighborhood. I’d just like us to, on the outset, just have a quick
moment of silence for Mr. Woo. Thank you very much. And I want to of course thank the good
leadership of this post for welcoming us, and for all you do for the community. Thank you very,
very much.

As we start this dialogue, I just want to let you know some of the colleagues from the
administration who are here. Right next to me, Liz Glazer, my director from the mayor’s office
of criminal justice. I’m not going to do them in order because I’m looking at the list.
Commissioner Mark Cavionne. Community parish commissioner for corrections, Cynthia
Brandt. Chief of staff and deputy mayor for operations, [Inaudible: 04:55]. And the deputy
director for the mayor’s office, Dana Kaplan. All of them deeply involved on the issue of how
we remove mass incarceration and get off Rikers, once and for all, and work with communities
on the plans going forward.

Also want to of course thank the congress member, borough president, state senator, for all they
are doing to serve the community. And we’re in dialogue on numerous issues all the time. Saw
both of you yesterday, talked to you just a few days ago. We’re always talking, and I appreciate
what they do, and there’s always an open line of communication.

So I will be very quick, but I want to put this in context. We all, together, have done a lot to
make this city more just, and more safe. The last five years with the neighborhood policing
philosophy has required deep engagement with communities. Communities have stepped up and
engaged with the police, and that has made us the safest big city in America. We obviously,
together, have made a series of reforms. And the people of this city wanted reform. They wanted
to see, for example, the end to the broken and unconstitutional use of stop and frisk. The people
of this city . unquestionably want the era of mass incarceration to end.

I have said over the last couple of years, mass incarceration did not begin in New York City, but
it will end in New York City. We will be an example to this whole country.

So that’s what brings us here. The recognition that we have to leave that reality behind. It was
poisonous to our society, to see so many people, and primarily, of course, young people, put in
jail, in a way that only held them back. When, what we have to do, is consistently work to avoid
anyone going to jail who doesn’t need to.

I want to note, and this is powerful to the equation, that in 2017, the NYPD arrested 100,000
fewer people than four years earlier.

2
So there’s a number of things we’re doing, and all of my colleagues are working on, to reduce
the number of people going into jail. Reduce the time people spend there. But we cannot make
the reforms we need if we keep a broken place at the center of the system.

Rikers Island was not build for rehabilitation; Rikers Island goes back 80 years, and it was built
to penalize, not to rehabilitate and [Inaudible: 07:15]. It will not work for the future. And we
know the only way forward is to have modern jail facilities focused on rehabilitation and
redemption. We know they have to be in the boroughs closer to the families, and if people could
be part of that rehabilitation process. We know they need to be close to the courthouses.

This is the way forward, and we created a schema that, I believe, is one of fairness. It’s based on
the recommendations in Judge Lippman’s report, who I think is an outstanding reformer, and
really led the way. And said here is a vision for the future, that could work for this city.

And then, I want to say that both council speaker [Inaudible: 08:05] and council speaker Johnson
believe strongly in this vision, and encouraged the administration to move forward. And we
found a lot of unity on this.

So that’s what brings us here today. This is part of a vision of getting off Rikers. Having four
community-based jails of similar size. We know they must be safe for the surrounding
communities, and we have a track record that shows us that that can be done very well. We know
there must be a lot of other positive changes in the process, to support the community. As any
number of issues, any number of community concerns, that we want to address simultaneously as
we take this action. That is a matter of fairness too.

Every community in New York City does things that help all of New York City. Every
community, geographically, takes on elements that we need for everyone. But we also recognize
that it’s important to get back in that process, and to help the community in a variety of ways. To
help community organizations, to address long standing community needs. To have real,
tangible, verifiable community benefits. And we certainly want to speak about that today,
because that’s crucial to the equation.

Stating the obvious, and then looking forward to the dialogue. The locations where we have
existing jails, since the Lippman report, have always been the logic place to focus the discussion.
But that does not mean, again, that we see it statically; we have to see the overall needs of the
community, and we have to address them positively, and creatively. I think any and all issues
should be put on the table, both concerns about things that have to be addressed, but also needs
of the community; that have to be met in the process.

3
And that’s what we intend to do today, and in meetings ahead. And, certainly, through
[Inaudible: 10:10] process that will involve very extensive community involvement.

So I want to thank you, council member. We’ve worked together on many things, and I know
you will tenaciously stand up for the community. And we will continue this dialogue, but I want
to thank you for this opportunity to speak directly to the leaders of the community, and to hear
from them.

Margaret: Well we’re going to start the discussion, and I know that a lot of the community
leaders here have questions. So Mayor, when people ask a question, they will identify
themselves, so that we save a little time. Because I know you don’t have a lot of time.

Mayor: Yeah I have, for everyone’s knowledge, about an hour, and the meeting I have with
Secretary Carson was scheduled based on his schedule. And that’s going to be a meeting at
[Inaudible: 11:15] Federal Plaza. So as long as I can get there on time, and the congress member
too. So take it away.

Margaret: Okay. So we’re going to start, people, if they have comments or questions, please raise
your hand. And then I’ll call on you, and then you can identify yourself. [Inaudible: 11:42]
wanted to say something? Gail?

Gail: No. Thank you. I think that one of the concerns that we’ll hear from the community -- but
when you say address other concerns too, I think that’s what we want to hear from. I must admit,
there’s a lot of building issues that we can talk about, and I understand NYPD has to be secure.
But that issue of the blocking going towards one police plaza, to the individuals who are trying to
do business, getting over -- etc. It’s a longstanding issue. Marvin has brought it up, I have
brought it up. I’m not saying it can be solved, but that would be helpful. And again, how do you
secure one police plaza, at the same time, addressing concerns of Chinatown. That would be a
huge step in the right direction, to address [Inaudible: 12:25]. It’s a broken record, but it would
be nice to un-break it.

Mayor: It still makes sense. Really, I’ve heard from a lot of people how urgent an issue it is. I
think the borough president said it exactly right. There are very, very serious security concerns,
but we are working -- looking for ways to address it, and have a better situation.

Gail: And this is the time to do it.

Mayor: And I appreciate that.

4
Margaret: Nancy, you raised your hand? Don’t be shy now, the mayor is here, you’ve been
asking, and he’s right here.

Speaker 3, Nancy: I have a statement, and I apologize in advance, it’s a little long. But I waited a
long time to speak with you. So first good morning, and my name is Nancy [Inaudible: 13:15]. I
want to thank you for coming to meet with us, and council member Chin, thank you for
organizing. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you to the concerns, the hope, as well as the
anger. The anger that has [Inaudible: 13:35] from the residents that live here. Who are directly
affected by your plan. By people who live and work here every day. I believe you’re here for the
right reasons, and that there’s a possibility for change, and that you will do the right thing.

I am president of Chatham Towers, a 240 unit residential building, with over 500 residents and
commercial tenants. I, along with members, organized and created Neighbors United [Inaudible:
14:15] Canal, and have a citywide coalition called Burroughs United. With community leaders
from the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We all face the same issues. We obtained thousands of
local petitions, held the leader summit. As well as a community organized town hall, where
council member Chin used the opportunity to announce her intention to request from you, Mr.
Mayor, to reset the scoping process. And to consider fully all possible sites. That technically has
not happened.

We currently live and conduct our business within the city’s largest penal system, consisting of
city and federal courts; consisting of city and federal jails. And let’s not forget, after 9/11,
consisting of extraordinarily enhanced federal security. We live with armed guards, with bomb
sniffing dogs. With cameras and with checkpoints at every corner. We are intimately familiar
with having major thoroughfares blocked off, with delays and emergency services, with traffic
blocked off at every block. With overcrowded subway stations, with helicopters flying each
morning [Inaudible: 15:10]. With parking abuses by government staff. I can go on.

Given all of that, we are invaluable to your planning process; yet we were never approached by
your office, or any of the other offices. I sat in on Gail’s task force for the first time last year, and
I understood that the meetings have been going on for over a year, with criminal justice experts.
Incorporating best practices, lessons learned, and design and programming of this new jail.
However, what was glaringly absent were representatives from people who live and work here.
What was glaringly absent from the city’s presentation was any mention, or consideration, for
the people who live and work here. It was clear that our value, and our input, was not included.

We are here today, but you technically have already decided on the sites, the number of
detainees, the programming. We got to input on the color, the entryway? That’s not good
enough. A 50 story structure, in the heart of an already densely populated, unique, diverse, and
historic neighborhood; with a failing transit, water, and sewage system, is not the best answer.

5
We have more than borne our fair share, and shouldered the burden for the city. You can surely
identify a fifth or sixth site, and build courts near that fifth or sixth site. It is unacceptable to have
a jail in every county in New York except for one, Richland County, Staten Island. We want a
solution that works and is fair. A process that will actually engage the community, as part of
developing the solution, and not as an afterthought. And not after you’ve already decided.

Our fundamental ask, Mr. Mayor, was for you to adhere to the processes and laws designed for
community input; especially for a project of this size, scope, scale and cost. If jails can be good
neighbors, why are we not building properly sized jails, that fit into the neighborhoods that house
them? We ask you, Mr. Mayor, today, for a full analysis of viable options, including adding
additional sites. And the cost analysis, and a funding plan from controller [Inaudible: 17:34], for
this estimated 10 billion dollar project.

We ask you today for a scoping meeting, especially for 125 White Street. We ask you today for
an opportunity to submit new questions regarding 125 White Street, and the [Inaudible: 17:44] as
part of a new EIS process. If you go through with your current plans, Mr. Mayor, you will build
several 50 story men monuments to incarceration. That will be your legacy; not closing Rikers.
In 1982, there were huge protests in Chinatown related to the North Tower. Mayor [Inaudible:
18:05 - Kotch] said at the time, “you don’t vote, you don’t count.” My grandparents aren’t here
today, but I am, and the next generation is here, and we vote. Thank you very much for your
time.

Mayor: Thank you. I want to respond briefly by -- and you were very straightforward in the
beginning in saying that you had a written statement, and a longer statement, and I appreciate
that straightforwardness. I want to say to the councilmember, you will decide how many people
we try to get in in the course of this, in the time we have.

But let me speak to it. I was a council member. I’m quite intimately aware of how the [Inaudible:
18:42] Process works and how it engages the community. The time it takes, etc. We just
fundamentally disagree on some of the interpretation. I know you’re speaking honestly, and from
your own values, and from your own experience, but I am too. I think there’s immense
opportunities for real and meaningful input, and not just on what the architecture looks like, or
the color of things.

But on the more tangible issues of, how would this facility be part of the community; what does
the community need to make it work. What does the community need in general. And any
[Inaudible: 19:22] Process I’ve ever seen in my life comes with a larger discussion of bigger
community needs. What are the infrastructure needs of the community? What are the needs in
terms of services? What are the needs of the nonprofit community? A whole host of things are
put into the discussion.

6
And I have said from the very beginning -- again, I want to say, council speaker [Inaudible:
19:40], and council speaker Johnson indicated from day one, following the Lippman report, that
this was something that was, in their view, necessary for the whole of the city. That these four
sites be acted on. I have said from the beginning that we must make sure there are very, very
substantial community benefits as part of that. And the [Inaudible: 20:00] process both allows
for very substantial discussion of what needs to be addressed, and of bigger community benefits.

The only other point I want to make, you raised a lot of things. Two jump to me more, that I need
to speak to. One is a very human one. I’ve spent decades in public service, working with all
communities of this city. Valuing and respecting all communities. Trying to find a way to create
more equality. This is based on a preexisting, geographical reality. And not just here, but other
places. That there is a corrections complex, and that is a logical place to act. So I appreciated the
-- I have many, many disagreements with Mayor [Inaudible: 20:45 - Kotch], though I do respect
him. He’s part of the group, including Gail Brewer that helped, through the democratic process,
to usher in change in the Kotch years. And we, in 1989, felt that, too often, people were not
being heard, and that the government was not representative. I’ve tried to do something very,
very different.

But when it comes to how we go about it, I disagree with the notion -- respectfully -- that
multiple sites makes the situation better. I disagree for any number of reasons, including the fact
that you know, and I know, on the island of Manhattan, in proximity to the courts, how
challenging the dynamic is; in terms of geography and land. I don’t think multiple sites makes
sense in terms of a coherent system, in terms of cost, in terms of logistics. A thousand reasons.

I understand that this is going to come with real challenges, I’m not going to promise you a rose
garden and say they’re just going to have a helicopter come in to bring in the new building and
take out the old one. I’m not saying that. But I am saying a whole lot of thought went into if
there was any viable alternative, outside of the immediate area, and I don’t believe there is. And I
don’t believe delay, in terms of getting off Rikers, and changing how we address mass
incarceration, isn’t in anyone’s interest. So I just wanted you to hear a very respectful response to
the many issues you raised.

Margaret: Alex? Oh, we’ve also been joined by assembly member Yuh Lien Niou

Alex: Good morning everyone. My name is Alex Chu. I’m a community banker. I’ve been in the
community for more than 50 years, since graduating from grad school. I just gave away my age.
I’m a second generation. My son, daughter, will be the third graduation. And have grown up in
this community, and have chosen to come back and work in the community. I agree and support
your statement, and your notion. I think from a big picture, they’re both very important, and

7
explains what we need to do to bridge the gap. Now, I dare say today that if this 50 story
building, that’s being proposed, were made up of housing, daycare, senior citizen, [Inaudible:
23:25 - coaches’ center], open space, senior citizen -- 90% of the objections that’s being heard
and voiced today would have gone away.

So I study urban design, and I know there is a need for integration; meaning if it were the jail, the
same density that’s been advised, the next big question is, how is it going to be integrated into
the community? So that touches on scale, that touches on use. It touches on traffic, parking, noise
pollution; all of the nuisances that we associate with quality living in the community.

So to support a massive project of that nature -- I may have mischaracterized it as massive,

because I do believe, in urban design and architecture, you can’t downplay the scale. Having a
lower scale, and find those programs within this retention [Inaudible: 24:50] system complex.
Take out those elements that could easily be fully integrated into the community.

For example, the district attorney’s office. They are an office user. They don’t have to be in a
castle locked up, with all of the people that are either being investigated, or being incarcerated,
or whatever imperfection of the system. What I’m suggesting is, at a very basic level. That single
notion of office use can be fully integrated, so that there will be traffic on the street, you control
where they’re coming from. So that when they service the court system with their charge, it will
be much better coordinated. Much less confusion. Much easier to monitor. Safer on the street. So
I’m a community banker. I have worked for many years for truly the stakeholders; people that
have worked, owned small properties, tried [Inaudible: 26:00] tried to survive. And it’s not been
easy, because we’ve seen taxes going up, utilities going up. The central services that [Inaudible:
26:10] community, a weakened community, isn’t there.

And it’s really retrieving, in a much quicker scale, of plan administrations. I am in full support of
being progressive. And I think that we should not have a tale of two cities! Looking at my
community, we struggle. I want all of you to know hard it is to struggle. I look at people that
come to my bank for finance. I look at their earnings, I look at their challenges. I look at their
sons and daughters who are guaranteeing this loan; putting their entire future. They say, well you
rolled the dice. But this country affords more than just rolling the dice.

So I don’t want to hog up all the time, Mr. Mayor. Integration is the key. You need to get the
community to support your vision. And the one thing you need to do is make the scale so that it’s
easier to understand. To say it a selfish way, giving the best environment for the people that have
been under the cloud, giving the best for your[Inaudible: 27:18], central services and so on, does
not address those that are on the ground level.

8
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ve got it, thank you. I appreciate the passion of what you said, and I want to
affirm. I think most New Yorkers, all throughout the five boroughs, are struggling to get by right
now. And I felt that five years ago, and I think since then, larger economic forces have made it
only tougher. I know the cost of housing keeps going up, the cost of living keeps going up.

And look, I’ve been very honest with people, that it’s a free enterprise system, and we try to use
the tools of government very aggressively, and I honestly wish I had more tools. And I will say
as an advertisement, that the senator and the assembly member I think will agree with, that in
terms of those people struggling to make ends meet. We have an opportunity in Albany, to
strengthen our rent regulations; that might be one of the single most profound things we could do
for every day New Yorkers.

In terms of addressing the really, really big challenges they face economically. But we’re trying
to do a whole lot of other things too. I think to your point, in the beginning, I agree with you;
there’s things that people would love, there’s things that people almost never love. And we could
all make a list of social services, and criminal justice services; that nobody holds a parade and
says, please bring to my neighborhood. But the broad realism among New Yorkers is that these
things all have to exist for the greater good. But I want to combine the points and say, I think we
have an opportunity to address a lot of the other things you said. You talk about daycare, you talk
about senior affordable housing, or senior services. This is a moment where we prepared to bring
[Inaudible: 29:20] New York City government to address long standing community concerns.
This is not a new idea, in many big land use actions, there’s been a good history.

And we’ve been tried to add to that history, of putting very tangible things on the table to help
the community, and making them legally binding. And we have a lot of evidence over our five
years, of that last piece, as legally binding and verifiable. The other thing I want to say is on the
parking issue specifically, and we talked about this in some detail yesterday.

One of the things that I think we have to do here is try and address the new parking issues, but
also see if we can address the existing parking issues in a meaningful way. And I am not an
expert on every element of the design. But what I’m going to push for is that there be the parking
capacity, to make this a net positive for the neighborhood. And that is something new that we
can bring to the equation. So I just want to say, if anyone says the glass is half empty, I
understand it. I am saying that there is also an interpretation of the glass being half full, of, what
are all of the things that we want to get done simultaneously.

Speaker 4, female: [Inaudible: 30:45] And I’ve got to tell you that no other place, or no other
community has faced the issue of density, plus parking, transportation, access into and out of
Chinatown. With Park Row, that has been an issue that we’ve been working on since 9/11. And
then in the year 2000, I secured transportation money for New York City, to do a story; as to

9
how can we mitigate transportation issues here in Chinatown. It continues to be an issue. It really
hinders the ability of small businesses here to survive. And the fact that we’re going to add all of
these stories -- so we’re going to bring more cars into the neighborhood. More people trying to
park into the neighborhood. And many of those who will try to find a parking spot are going to
be those who are working in the jail system, or those who are working at the federal courthouse.
So what is there for the people in Chinatown. And the time is now to really, in a holistic way,
address those issues.

Mr. Mayor: I appreciate that, and agree.

Chung: Good moring, Mr. Mayor. Chung Cito, long time Chinatown resident. I just want to
follow up on what Alex has said, and Nancy has said, and congress member, and the council
member. One issue that I think sits right at the belly of what’s going on and hitting Chinatown, in
addition to transportation, in addition to housing, is property tax. And it’s killing this
neighborhood. You have long time tenement owners, that just can barely cover what the
assessment is, because they have rent control, rent stabilized units. So the only way they can
make money, and have a balance sheet, is to charge extra rent for the commercial space. So our
mom and pop stores are dying out, and we see that all the time, when you walk through
Chinatown; with the empty, vacant spaces.

So I just want to put out there that you can’t really help and solve some of the major issues,
without putting property taxes on the top of the list. And how to really help the property owners
in Chinatown come up with sustainable living for the future. And then, feeling good about the
neighborhood, and being good neighbors to everyone else who wants to come in. And really help
tackle gentrification in this neighborhood. It’s not going to survive without something that must
be done about property taxes in Chinatown.

Mr. Mayor: Thank you, and a couple of quick points. Unquestionably, I hear this -- at almost 60
town hall meetings around the city, this is one of the number one issues; both for homeowners,
and for property owners for who have commercial space. One, we have formulated a commission
with the city council to try and come up with some fundamental concerns, which would require,
in some cases, the city council to pass legislation. In other cases, [Inaudible: 34:25].

But I’ve also been honest with people as we make these reforms. If we are net negative on
revenue, then we’re all going to have to talk about, do we want fewer police, fewer parks, less
sanitation service, whatever. And I think what I hear from New Yorkers consistently is, they
want property tax reform, but they want all current services to be held constant. In fact,
obviously at those same town hall meetings, people demand a whole host of new services.

10
So we have a balance we have to strike. What I’ve said, and what I think is fair, is we have to
make property tax reforms that are revenue neutral. There still can be a lot more equity. And
ways to address some of the unintended dynamics like you’re pointing out. And certainly lord
knows that we don’t want to see negative effects of gentrification. We don’t want to see mom
and pop stores losing their grip. Now, we’ve tried, in that vein, to address some other things.
Like reducing commercial rent tax in Manhattan, and a variety of things. Reducing fines on
small business. Some of those things are having a real effect.

But I think you’re raising an important point, that are there pinpointed ways, taking the formula
you laid out. Land organized residential, with rent stabilized, rent controlled, and has store space.
But pinpointed ways to provide relief around the fact that we want to make sure they can make
ends meet, and key it in on the small businesses. That’s an interesting question, and I think that
might be something we can get at by being very specific, very targeted, in some relief.

Margaret: I think also that is -- because a lot of these landlords are the ones that are providing
affordable housing. So I think that’s something that we really need to look at. Nancy? I’ll put a
list out.

Nancy: Thank you, mayor for visiting Chinatown. The next time you’ll have to leave more time
for dimsum. Your priorities are obviously all wrong. I’m Nancy [Inaudible: 36:25], I’m the
president of the Museum of Chinese in America. I am deeply indebted to council member Chin
for hosting this community discussion, I appreciate it. And also, Manhattan borough president,
[Inaudible: 36:36], has been such a wonderful support, as well as congressman [Inaudible -
Velasquez]. I just want to think about Chinatown for a moment; really look at it from a historic
perspective. There are implicit biases when we think about Chinatown. Those biases need to end.

As you suggest, and I applaud, mass incarceration will end in New York City. Let’s add another
goal to that, because if we are moving forward on that, hopefully, with a lot of changes and
community input, let’s add something else, which is mass ignorance about the Chinese heritage
history. And, perpetual [Inaudible: 37:15 - foreignness] that exists, especially towards Asian
Americans and Chinese Americans, in particular, in New York City. Let’s have that end too.
Because forever, we are for foreign. Two, three, four generations, two generations. But yet,
we’re always considered foreign. That’s because there are these biases against Chinatown; that’s
fundamentally a critical issue.

The museum now, for example. We look around and we only have 15,000 square feet, but I
challenge this. We are actually the nationally recognized, largest institution telling this history;
ten times larger than San Francisco, and we are headquartered in Chinatown. And as you know,
tourism is such a major revenue source for this city. 60 million visitors come to New York City

11
every year. I think everyone probably heads down because Chinatown is a destination; three
billion dollars in revenue.

This is substantial. And yet, we don’t have a place. Maybe if we help infuse more education in
the historical institutions like ours, and many ours here, like the American Legion. We could
actually equip people to understand resolving those implicit biases. So I guess my big ask here is
why don’t we consider a museum, like MOCA, as a CIG; a cultural institution group. 80% of the
funding that comes from the Department of Cultural Affairs, as you know. And Commissioner
[Inaudible: 38:32] has been very helpful. Goes to the CIGs. Studio Museum [Inaudible: 38:35] is
a CIG. Museum [Inaudible] is a CIG. Queens Museum is a CIG. MOCA is not. And every day,
we knock on the door to raise three million pennies. It is impossible.

Other speaker: Don’t you need money to buy your building too?

We do, and speaking of the building, we would like to buy our building, which we currently have
15,000 square feet, and we’re looking for 50,000 square feet. Hardly 50 stories, but 50,000
square feet would allow for a community center, that we would provide free of charge to
community organizations. It would create -- we would like from the city 32 million dollars,
thank you very much. It would not only be a contribution to New York City, but it would be a
contribution to the nation. This is something that is headquartered in New York City. Let’s own
it.

Mr. Mayor: Thank you, just to put in a very quick response. I won’t go into the nuances, but your
points you’re raising are very, very important, and worth addressing in a very straightforward
manner. Because I think you’ve watched as we’ve tried to change the orientation of the
Department of Cultural Affairs, from what I believe was a too narrow understanding of the
whole world. And you disagree on this, but I’ll tell you my own view. Look, my family happens
to have origins in Europe, but does not mean that I believe in a Euro centered world. And most
of this city, in fact, almost ⅔ of people living in this city are people not of European descent.

And yet, our cultural affairs are overwhelmingly focused on Euro centric organizations. So we
have tried to systematically change funding patterns, to reflect all communities. To reflect all
boroughs, all neighborhoods. To encourage very aggressively, diverse staff, diverse audiences,
and we need to keep doing that. We still have more to do, and the composition of the CIG group
is a good question for sure. It’s something we can act on. I’m not making [Inaudible: 40:45], I’m
making a broad point and we’ll follow up on your specific item.

Now, that said, the question of what could be part of a community benefits package. That is for
everyone to assess and put forward. And obviously for the council member to play a leading role
in being the arbiter. I have been in community processes around major land use actions, where

12
the number one thing people wanted was schools. I’ve been in others where the number one
thing they wanted was affordable housing. The number one thing they wanted was senior
affordable housing. The number one thing they wanted was open space. Just like that, you can
say -- and the number two, three, four all matter too.

But people might say, one of those foundational things for us is culture, and we want our cultural
spaces invested and upgraded. It’s all on the table. And then we determine what we can reach,
and we are going to try and be as creative and generous as possible. But I’m just saying on -- I’m
dwelling on, I only make that point, like parking, like daycare, like senior services, like senior
affordable housing. Equally, cultural organizations and the support of them, both expense and
capital, are very fair topics in this larger community benefits discussion. Please.

Margaret: Jerry?

Jerry: My name is Jerry Chan. I’m a retired principal city planner, from the Department of City
Planning.

Mayor: Excellent, thank you for your service to the city.

Jerry: 37 years. So I have two major concerns, because when I worked for the city as a city
planner, I did a few transportation, traffic related studies for Chinatown. I know the area for the
[Inaudible: 42:34] is really a very serious traffic congestion area. That’s why I think that EIS, the
environmental impact statement, is going to be very critical for this project. So I just hope this --
[Inaudible: 42:52], so everything should start from the beginning. That review process, please
follow the proper procedures. I mean from the community board review, to borough presidents
review. Everything accounting to the schedule. And please, make sure to get the community
people involved.

Mayor: I hear it, I respect it, especially from someone who is an expert in the field. And I want to
affirm my view. I’ve already said -- well first of all, many people are involved because we’re
sitting here, and there’s been a discussion before, and there will be a whole lot more discussion
before anything is finalized, because that’s the nature of the [Inaudible: 43:35] process.

Second, we believe that the EIS process is appropriate, because obviously we’re talking about --
originally there was, as you said, another site that we looked at very, very close, with a lot of the
same exact issues, and we’re going to follow through on the issues. The EIS, to me. I’ve always
felt this, including when I was a council member, is not magical. The EIS is a piece of
information; what really matters is what you do with it. I’ve seen EIS’es completed and then
entirely ignored. And then I’ve seen EIS’es, that the only interest people had in the EIS process
was delay. And I’ve seen EIS’es where they’re taken very seriously, and then there’s adjustments

13
made to address the issues. We take seriously the underlying issues. We all could probably write
them down right now, and we’ll be shockingly consistent with what any EIS would find.

We agree, congestion, obviously; parking, obviously. Park Row. A host of things, of the broader
communities. What I’m saying to you is, and I’ve said it very squarely from day one. We’re
going to address a whole host of needs because we believe it’s the right thing to do. At this
moment, we happen to have some resources, knock on wood, and pray that the economy holds
on a little longer. But we want to make a binding agreement on a set of community benefits, to
address the very issues that are apparent already, and will become already in [Inaudible: 45:00].
We do not want delay, and I want to be very clear why we don’t want delay.

First of all, we believe what we’re doing is legally appropriate. Second of all, we cannot -- I
don’t want to ask anyone else to carry the other burdens of society. We all didn’t create mass
incarceration; no one around this table is responsible for it. But we have a situation now that is
untenable, and not ethically humane, and not appropriate. And we all know it, and it’s on our
watch, and it’s with our dollars.

And it has to end. And it can end, it can end. I want to really command Commissioner Brandt,
because she was telling me the latest numbers. She and her team, working with everyone here at
the table, has consistently driven down the number of people who are incarcerated. Which has
opened the door to the day where we no longer need Rikers Island.

But I don’t think I have to convince anyone here, you’ve probably all been exposed to the
information. But if anyone wants to hear more about what’s wrong with Rikers Island, or why
it’s not an acceptable state of affairs, I think it jumps off the page. And I’ve spent time there.

So once you know we have to change things, further delay is something I just fundamentally
disagree with, because I don’t want to perpetuate an inhumane situation. And I believe we can
answer the very real concerns being addressed here, honestly and meaningfully. And that is what
I believe is the best course of action. Please.

Margaret: Our state senator wanted to say something, and we’re hopeful, that with the majority
in the state senate, that we can get criminal justice reform out.

Speaker 5: And obviously that’s a very critical part of this, and we intend to work very hard
[Inaudible: 46:35]. I want to try to be brief here, and all of your staff, and commissioner, have
heard much of my thoughts on this in the past. But since we’re here. I just want to revisit part of
the dialogue between Nancy and you, about what the community is asking for here. In response,
you said treatment of each of these sites makes sense, it’s warranted, and we need to move

14
forward. And I don’t think there’s anybody -- there’s very few people, in any of the communities
you’re dealing with, who are objecting to the notion that there ought to be jails.

Particularly, that there ought to be jails in the communities where they currently live. I don’t
think anybody thought this process, closing Rikers Island, was going to eliminate the need for a
jail in Chinatown. The problem -- and I will also say that the city’s position on this has evolved,
in a way that I think is very productive. Initially, the idea was that this was a done deal. That the
goal was simply to build 1.4-1.5 million square feet of space. Now, it’s under the community
[Inaudible: 47:42 - needs of discussions], reducing the scale and finding a way to do that. And I
also will just say, the team especially, the criminal justice have done -- I don’t think anybody
who is paying real attention doubts the sincerity or the desire to do what is humane and what is
right.

The problem that we face is that the city made what appears, to a lot of us, to be a capricious
decision. And that decision is that closing Rikers requires four, and only four facilities. And if
you need 6,000 beds, there is no particular reason why that requires 1,500 beds in only four
facilities. You’re ending up building jails in here -- I’ve also had some experience with your
Brooklyn site, which isn’t subject to today’s discussion -- but you’re building jails where a
substantial fraction of all of the people in that jail, when it’s built, will not be prosecuted at the
courthouse next door.

About 20% of the entire population are going to be post conviction, and they’re going to be only
in New York City, because their sentence is short enough to house them here in New York City;
as opposed to sending them upstate. You’re also planning on housing people by their borough of
residence, rather than the borough with which they’re being adjudicated. Which means, you are
going to be transporting people who live in Washington Heights, that are going to be
incarcerated on White Street. And you’re going to be transporting them to the Bronx, or to the
Brooklyn, or Queens.

So this plan lacks a rationale that would overcome the obvious implications, of insisting that you
need 1,500 beds each. To the extent that the city is looking for ways to reduce the scale of this,
you’re highly unlikely to reduce the scale without either making the system far less humane.
Going to large scale dormitory sites or something else, which I know the city doesn’t want to do,
and I don’t think any of us want you to do. Or, finding other capacities somewhere in the system.

And again, there’s no compelling reason that’s been stated not to do it that way. There’s been no
cost analysis, that that would be more expensive. It does seem that the city is reluctant to
consider the difficulty of citing additional facilities. But that seems to be the only route that gets
us to a solution, where this is a building that is reasonable in the scale that anybody in this
community is going to accept.

15
Mayor: And let me speak to that. And council members, I want to let you know, we’ve got 20
minutes. You decide how many people you want to call upon in that time. Very quick. I don’t
agree with the characterization of capricious; I think a huge amount of thought went into trying
to figure out a whole host of factors. And a sense of equity throughout.

And it’s a classic question of statistics. I could show you any number of ways to look at this, that
could justify an asymmetrical approach, or a symmetrical approach. I think in the dealings that
I’ve had with people all over the four boroughs we’re talking about, there is some appreciation of
the fact that we’re trying to create some fairness and consistency. So we think that this is the
right approach.

But on the question of the scale, I agree with the point that we are looking to reduce the scale;
that is a true statement. We hear how much that’s a concern to people. We’re trying to find a way
to do that. That will be part of the give and take in this process. The notion, of course, we
considered at various points, more than four facilities. All, again, once you look at cost. Once
you look at concerns about how do you make that work logistically with the court system, look at
real space issues, logistic issues. It became clearer and clearer that there were very limited places
that work; particularly when you’re trying to get proximity to mass transit, proximity to
courthouses, etc. etc. And I think we can safely say that if we can create something that is viable,
with the fewest building sites, that is inherently good goverment.

That said, we need to get the scale to be as small as it can be; that still achieves the goal and the
equity of the plant. And, we have to address the community needs in a very aggressive fashion.
But we obviously considered [Inaudible: 52:02] a number of sites, and really strongly came to
the view that one per borough is the way to go.

Margaret: So Jennifer, Charlie had raised a hand.

Mayor: And I’ll give quick answers, if you raise quick concerns and questions. We can do a little
lightening around.

Margaret: So Jennifer, Charlie, Wayne, Jan. Assembly member [Inaudible: 52:30]. Jonathan. So
let’s do it quick.

Mayor: Let’s do it a minute or so per. Let’s see how what we can do it.

Jennifer: Jennifer Sun, co-executive director of the Asian Americans for Equality, a 45 year old
aged organization here in Chinatown, a nonprofit, formal housing developer, and comprehensive
community organization. Born in the civil rights movement, and firmly committed to your vision

16
of criminal justice reform. We understand the urgency of this process of closing Rikers, and we
support that.

That said, I think it’s hard for us to participate in a process and conversation about community
benefits, when there has not been a transparent process about how site selection happened. And I
think what you’re hearing from us still, is that if there’s full confidence in the city, which we
believe in. That site is the best site, that both achieves the city’s goal of closing Rikers, while
minimizing the impact on Chinatown. Then hopefully, the community understands which sites
you evaluated, and why this site is the best site, for this proposal.

And that if we were to move forward with this particular site, that we also consider the
construction impacts in the community. Not only the launch impacts, but also the potentially dis-
stabling impacts of constructing a large scale project like this in Chinatown, on residents and
businesses.

Mayor: We will, in this process, account for how we’re addressing construction, and that’s a very
powerful point. On the previous point, I’m comfortable with us laying out the thinking that went
into this. We’ll find an appropriate way to do that soon, including how we looked at the
[Inaudible: 54:12] of different sites.

But I want to be clear. The ultimate democratic process is the [Inaudible] Process. So you could
say, well we’re not sure we want to participate because there’s been a lack of transparency, but I
would argue the other way around. Whatever you felt about what was, now, game on. We’re
going into an open field democratic process, where, if people don’t participate, I think they’re
losing an opportunity to have an impact. Go ahead.

Margaret: Charlie? Followed by Wayne, and then followed by Jan.

Charlie: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you council member, and our dear elected officials.
Thank you so much.

Mayor: Everyone, I’m sorry to interrupt. I would say don’t worry about pleasantries from this
point on. Just tell me who you are, and get to your concern because we want to get all the people
done. Go ahead.

Charlie: Charlie [Inaudible: 55:00], I am the director of [Inaudible] Development Corporation. I

cannot emphasize enough that that many years ago, 30+ years ago, the entire community came
forward to advocate against the building of a jailhouse. And 10,000 of us marched in the streets,
and we ended up having the [Inaudible: 55:20] of somebody here, in Chinatown. And our

17
community worked really, really hard to get to the concessions from the city; to mitigate some of
the impacts to your community.

So [Inaudible] came out of that, in which we have 88 senior housing units. At least 15
commercial units, and some of these are non profits. And it’s really encouraging to hear that
you’re moving forward to having a much more open process.

And that I wanted to second all of the comments that were made. Construction is going to be a
huge impact to us, because it’s right next to us. And to the 88 seniors, or actually, talking about
120 seniors that live in 80 units, it would be huge and dramatic impacts to those residents, that
range up to 100+ years old. And the commercial spaces, for which our local economy is
supposed to depend on that. So we have a huge concern about having an organization that, over
30+ years, really trying to bring about this synergy...

Mayor: I got it. And just in the interest of time, I hear you loud and clear, and we need to find a
way to accomodate the needs of those senior residents, and those stores. And I think there’s a
variety of things we can do, depending on how the construction is anticipated. To make sure that
either things work onsite, or we need to move people off site, and keep them whole. We’ll be
ready to do that. But that’s something we’ll fully take into account.

Charie: But in addition to the fact that we just opened the new waiting list, there are over
5,000…

Mayor: And again, I’m going to just be quick, in everyone’s interest, I know a lot of people want
to speak. If one of the priorities in the community benefits process is more senior affordable
housing, that is a very powerful priority that I would embrace. As my colleague will say, even
though we don’t agree on everything, we did agree on the Elizabeth Street gardens, and went
through a lot of hell over it. To create senior affordable housing.

Thank you, we did the right thing in my personal belief. And we will keep creating senior
affordable housing. So that becomes a central piece of this [Inaudible: 57:30] process. That’s
some place that I think we can get a lot done, and we can work with your organization and
others.

Wayne: Hi, Wayne Howard, Chinese American Planning Council. We run a daycare center in
the [Inaudible: 57:42] area, so whatever happens down there is, of course, of concern to us. What
I’d like to raise, in addition to everything that you’ve heard about the process, engagement,
construction, etc. Is that we support criminal justice reform. And given what the senator just said,
some of the plans that we’re hearing for, not just Manhattan, but the other boroughs, seem to not
align with what the recommendations were that came forward in the Lippman commission

18
report. As well as a lot of work that you’re doing. If I recall properly, the commission talks about
strategies to lower the population to 5,000, besides bail reform.

There’s also recommendations in there about having five sites, not four sites. There’s also
recommendations about bringing in community services. And I don’t just mean community
benefits, I mean community services, that can meet the needs of the incarcerated population. So a
part of it for us at CPC is not just the impacts on the neighborhood, but it just seems that there’s a
disconnect between what the criminal justice reform plans are. Versus the sites that are being
looked at.

Mayor: I got it. I would challenge that, respectfully. I know you care deeply about this issue, and
I would welcome our folks at [Inaudible: 58:50]. And I think you’re going to find if you look at
the original Lippman report, what the city council speakers looked to do, what we’ve been
looking to do. [Inaudible: 58:55 - very high level of…] Certainly those direct services are the
kinds of things that we believe in, and we’re willing to work on to get done here. But the central
-- I’ve been very public about this. Lippman said, do five boroughs. We looked at the reality of
doing a fifth borough, and it was such a minimal impact, in terms of real inmate population. It
did not make sense, cost, logistics, everything; to go through a whole, long, drawn out process,
for almost no impact. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of the inmates are from the four
boroughs. And that’s where we got to that decision, looking at practical reality.

But in terms of all of the other things that we want to get done in the name of criminal justice
reform, I agree with you. A number of them [Inaudible: 59:39] we’ve been working on hard, and
I’m very hopeful about. A lot of them that we’ve had power over, we’ve been doing. But
[Inaudible: 59:45 - we owe you] to show you that level of alignment, and I think you’ll be
pleasantly surprised.

Jan Lee: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to Gail Brewer and Margaret Chin for arranging
this. I want to let you know, Mr. Mayor, that our elected officials have been virtually at every
meeting, and they have given us the opportunities to speak. But your presence here is very
important to us, and we hope to look forward to you being here on happy occasions as well. So
we don’t see enough of you, and I think that that should change. So we hope to see you again.

Mayor: I accept. Invite me to a happy occasion, I’ll be there.

Jan Lee: Absolutely, point well taken. I’m a third generation Chinatown resident and a business
owner, a small property owner and an organizer. And I completely agree with everything that my
colleagues have said, and I’m very honored to be in the presence of so many intelligent minds in
my neighborhood. One of the things that I share the concern with Mr. Charlie Lai .We haven’t
addressed any of the concerns of how this construction is going to impact the most vulnerable

19
people in our community. The most vulnerable people in our community, as you know, Mr.
Mayor….

So many people who live under the poverty line here in Chinatown. We have seniors who can
barely get around. And ten years of construction is going to have an impact on these seniors. And
I know this intimately, because I sit on the board of one of the oldest social service providers.
My executive director is with me. We want very definite answers about how this construction is
going to affect people who are living among this ten year construction site.

What’s going to happen to them psychologically? How are we going to provide services for
them? You can’t take 50,000 seniors off of this area and put them in another place while this is
being built. However, we do know that $1.5 billion dollars is being spent on Rikers Island to
remove the detainees from Brooklyn and Manhattan and put them there, while this is being built.
But there’s no mention of any money and there’s no mention of any facility that’s going to take
care of our seniors, who are going to be very, very seriously impacted.

Mayor: I got the point and again, I want to try to get to as many people as possible. I want to
speak to this. This is exactly why we have the ULURP Process. We absolutely value the fact that
people are going to be impacted, and we have to address their needs. There’s no question about
it. And a good ULURP Process, front loads all of those questions. It is about the impact of the
change, all of the things to do to mitigate the change, and the larger needs of the community. I
have seen very productive [Inaudible] processes, where issues that have been fought over and
struggled over for 30 and 40 years got addressed, once and for all.

But I don’t want to see seniors put in a horrible situation. We have to make them whole. And if
you say, and the community says, our vision of making them whole is that we have to move
them somewhere else in the meantime, so they have an absolutely stable environment. And then
bring them back and guarantee they get to come back, we can discuss that, and many other
options.

Aixia: Good morning everyone. My name is Aixia Torres and I’m the president of [Inaudible:
01:03:04] Residence Association, and I represent 1,926 families. Justice reform needs to be
done, and I think that putting together a [Inaudible] Process is the most important thing. And that
public housing residents not be forgotten in this process that we’re a part of. Because we live in
the community, for some reason, everybody seems to forget that we live in the community. We
share issues beyond. We live by -- senior houses are right in front of police headquarters.

And so our biggest issue right now, and my concerns are -- because all of this is on ground zero,
one of the biggest issues we’ve been having is people’s health when you have construction. And
that needs to be addressed. I can’t begin to tell you how many of my residents, regardless of race,

20
color, decree, or age, are now coming up with cancer in [Inaudible: 01:04:07]. And so my
concern now is about when we do this process, that there be a health component. So that people
are aware of the dangers of their health; especially respiratory.

Mayor: Yes, and I’m an asthma sufferer, so I want to say very personally -- and as are members
of my family -- I view the respiratory impact as, there’s a lot we can do to address it. There’s a
lot that we did not know how to do, or didn’t do, as a city, and a society; that we now can do.
That can be baked into [Inaudible: 01:04:35]. Also needs of public housing in other [Inaudible]
processes, there have been specific dollar commitments to public housing as part of them. That’s
something we can talk about here as well.

And I want to say, again, just trying to be very communicative, we have five minutes. Madam
council member, if I didn’t have a cabinet secretary waiting for me, I would happily do more. So
you’re going to see how many questions you can do in that.

Anthony: More of a comment than a question. [Inaudible: 01:05:05] and your whole team for
being here, we appreciate your work. I am both excited and disappointed that we have had
essentially a summit meeting. People have spoken more eloquently about the needs of this
community. I don’t need to repeat that. What I’m about, as [Inaudible: 01:05:22], I am more
concerned about the proces. We’ve had, for a year -- burough presidents have had a task force
[Inaudible] with a task force. In July, we learned about 125 White and then 80 Center Street.

We have this kind of one way issue. Your team has done a wonderful job, but we hear from them
decisions that they have made without real engagement. And even though you say it will start, it
has not. [Inaudible: 01:05:58] about this neighborhood advisory council. We need to have better
connection with the borough presidents’ task force, community boards, and our neighbors here.
So that there is a real give and take. We understand that there are issues that you will face, but
we need to have an open dialogue. I know there’s an urgency to get it done, but sometimes you
have to hold slowly to hold fast. [Inaudible: 01:06:20].

Mayor: I’m going to respect your comments but disagree on one point. I think sometimes you
have to go fast to go fast. I think sometimes there is already a lot of dialogue, there’s going to be
a whole lot more; both informally and through the formal rigors of [Inaudible: 01:06:40], and
that is a lot of rigors. And the issues that are being surfaced right here are exactly the ones that
we can all be working on right now. Looking for what is an equitable way to address the issue.
So my friendly amendment is, lots of engagement, lots of dialogue, but not time only. Quality,
not quantity of times. Stick to the schedule that we’re talking about now, but do a lot with that
schedule.

21
Speaker 6: Yuh Lien Niou - I’m sorry guys, I’m going to go because this is a [Inaudible:
01:07:18], and she didn’t want to call on me and I just wanted to let you guys know that I’m
here, and that I care about the issue. And everybody knows that I care about the issue. And I
wanted to make sure that I’m here for you guys. We all know that this is not a transparent
meeting. And I want to make sure that you guys are heard.

[Inaudible: 01:07:30] Jonathan and Amy, and that’s it.

Speaker 7: I’m just going to segue what Aixia was saying and many of my colleagues here. Yes,
we do provide programs at [Inaudible: 01:07:50] [Inaudible]. One of the closest [Inaudible]
that’s going to be close to this jail here.

Mayor: I’m sorry, I just want to say that I literally have two minutes. So just say what you care
about, and then I’ll move on.

Speaker 7: Most importantly is the continued -- as a nonprofit, as [Inaudible: 01:08:05]

executive director, our biggest issue is the RFP process. How do you integrate the programs and
nonprofits in this process in a very fair way. And I think currently, the system maybe you
indirectly don’t know. But there are current RFPs at this time, that do not -- or exclude particular
minorities in this community. I want you to look into it, because if we continue to do this, this is
a trust factor. And we can’t trust the mayor’s office.

Mayor: The reason I’m interrupting is I agree already. And we have been trying to undo what I
think was really, in the previous administration, I would say an elitist and narrow approach to
RFP processes, that favored big, established, often Manhattan based organizations. At the
expense of communities of color, at the expense of outer boroughs, at the expense of smaller.
[Inaudible: 01:09:02], who is my [Inaudible] commissioner has been leading that process. I’d
like her to meet with you, so that you can raise your concerns directly. But that piece is
underway. The other piece I want to say is, as we are developing initiatives that can help
nonprofits in the community, as part of community benefits. Of course there’s RFPs, but there’s
also specific things that we will do, that are so targeted to the community. That self evidently
community based nonprofits will end up winning them. But we can all do that very legally and
appropriately.

Margaret: Jonathan and Amy.

Jonathan: Mr. Mayor, thank you for being. I’m third generation, you heard from my father
earlier. I grew up…

Mayor: I need you to just go to your point because I have to be out the door, I apologize.

22
Jonathan: The complete neighborhood that is sustainable has to include the youth. The future is
young. I’ve heard all of this about senior and affordable housing; if we don’t get young
professionals, and young professionals to come back, who are second and third generation, and
they leave for Williamsburg, Jersey City. They have to come back. They have to remember --
Chin spoke about the tax situation earlier. The complete neighborhood has to include the youth,
and I look forward to working with you in a more transparent process going forward. There are
economic…

Mayor: I’m not there, respectfully. We absolutely want to work with you. And the process going
forward is as transparent as you can possibly imagine. As your community board, the public
hearings, everything we’re going to be doing with the city council. I want to really say,
sometimes it’s good for people just to have a meeting to talk to each other very openly. But
there’s going to be a lot of transparent and public meetings coming up, by definition. Go ahead.
This is the last one, my apologies.

Amy: Amy Chin, I’m going to cut to the chase, I agree with everybody. Cultural nonprofits have
been dying in Chinatown, affordable space for nonprofit organizations. And council member
Chin and I have this [Inaudible: 01:10:52] have been wanting a cultural and performing arts
center in Chinatown for a long time. I also feel that it’s important for the administration to
understand that Chinatown has been marginalized for centuries. Yesterday was the 75th
anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. And even beyond that, it’s a community
that, across the country, Chinatowns have been...

Mayor: In the interest of time, I’ve got you, and I want to say, as we develop a vision together of
community benefits. The one challenge, it’s going to be a certain pool of resources. It’s going to
be a very substantial pool of resources. If the process, the collective process, ultimately leading
up to the council member is, one of the most important things is to build a theater. We can build
a theater. Just hear me out. If one of the most important things is to build as much senior
affordable housing as possible, we can do that. It’s amazing what we can do. We can’t do
everything.

But I think one of the important things, in addition to the transparency towards the government,
is for community leaders to truly try to get as unified as possible, on what your list of crucial
needs is, in some kind of priority order. Because I guarantee a substantial number of things are
going to get done, that are physical and tangible. And if a theater is one of the most important
things, we can build a theater.

Amy: I think it’s not just the list, but we have to get it built first, before other things. We don’t
[Inaudible: 01:12:22].

23
Mayor: Hold on, respectfully. You’re comparing another time, another place. This is here with a
very established -- look at five years of evidence. My last statement, forgive me. The federal
government calls. Look at five years of evidence of how we have done land use, how we have
done binding agreements, and the kinds of the benefits we have done. We can provide you our
version, and I’ll ask our team to put together a briefing so that you can see our understanding of
all of the things that we promised communities, and how they are proceeding. You can then go
and talk to the council members and community activists there to see how it went.

But we do binding guarantees. Our predecessors did not always; we do binding guarantees,
because we think it’s fair to the communities. It’s about coming up with a list of priorities, and
then following through on it. I just want to thank everyone, this is one point along what will be a
long road. But I do want to thank you for raising your concerns. I think I’ve heard a lot of stuff
here that is very actionable; that we can really do something about. That makes a lot of sense to
me. And the will is here, and the resources are here. So I want to keep moving forward, and see
what we can do. Thank you very much.

Margaret: We’re going to invite you back.

Mayor: Thank you, I look forward to it.

24