A group of companies have filed swimsuit against the town in order to block a change to zoning that might require builders to bounce via allowing hoops earlier than they might begin constructing new lodges.
New Yorkers for Tourism, Inc. — made up of companies and staff in the tourism, lodge and hospitality industries — claims that if builders are compelled to undergo this “arduous, time consuming, expensive and uncertain” evaluation course of to get hold of permits to construct lodges, the lodge and tourism industries in the Big Apple can be stifled, in accordance to a swimsuit filed Monday in Manhattan Supreme Court.
And the town is just backing the change due to stress from the Hotel Trades Council — a union politically aligned with Mayor Bill de Blasio — which might profit from the proposed Special Permit Requirement that might permit them to “strong-arm” collective bargaining agreements with any new lodge tasks, the swimsuit alleges.
“There is no zoning or land use justification for the proposed action at all,” the swimsuit prices. “Instead, it is a naked taking without just compensation that benefits only currently hotel owners and the powerful HTC.”
The Special Permit Requirement — which hasn’t handed but — could be codified as a textual content modification in the zoning code. It would require builders to undergo the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) in the end want to be accepted by the City Council.
The swimsuit, which was filed against the town and the Planning Commission, is looking for to overturn the Special Permit Requirement.
“The city did not consider any alternatives to address the purported problem the amendment is meant to solve,” plaintiff lawyer Jennifer Recine stated in an announcement. “It also rejected, out of hand, mitigation measures that might have cushioned the economic blow to the tourism industry — economic impacts the city’s own analysis concedes will be the result of the amendment.”
“All of this underscores that the city’s analysis supporting this amendment is a pretext, there is no proper zoning purpose for it, and the regulation is patently unconstitutional,” Recine stated.
A spokesman with the town Law Department stated they have been “reviewing the case.”