Voices from Last Night's OneLIC Public Hearing

Community members divided on the future of LIC speak out on housing, equity, and development at a public forum hosted by Queens Community Boards 1 and 2

Queens Community Boards 1 and 2 hosted a special public hearing last night to gather community feedback on the OneLIC plan at LaGuardia Community College. You can watch a recording of the meeting here. The event drew a high level of participation, with more than 200 people registered to speak both in-person and via Zoom. The public testimony revealed a deeply engaged community with strong opinions both for and against the proposed rezoning and development strategy — marked by passion, historical awareness, and a clear desire to influence the future of Long Island City. Many attendees voiced support for the plan’s intentions, and many expressed reservations, focusing on a set of core concerns grounded in past experiences and present realities. In this post, I used an LLM to summarize the arguments we heard during the four-hour meeting yesterday.

Arguments Opposing the OneLIC Plan

Distrust Based on Historical Failures: Opponents of the plan drew extensively from LIC’s history of unfulfilled planning initiatives. Many speakers described a longstanding pattern of city-led rezoning proposals that promised substantial public benefits (like new schools, upgraded infrastructure, and affordable housing) but ultimately delivered little. Residents recalled past rezonings dating back decades, noting that residential growth surged while public infrastructure lagged, resulting in overcrowded schools, strained transportation systems, and under-maintained public facilities. This history of unmet promises fostered deep skepticism about whether the OneLIC plan would be any different, especially in the absence of binding mechanisms to ensure delivery of community benefits.

• "We're here because the city wants us to believe that the only way we can get the affordable housing, the schools, the infrastructure that we sorely need is through a massive rezoning that will benefit luxury developers. This is not true... Under Bloomberg, the city rezoned Long Island City, and what was the result?"

Fears of Displacement/Gentrification and Concerns Over Insufficient Affordable Housing: A central fear among critics was the potential for displacement and accelerated gentrification. Many participants warned that the influx of market-rate development, enabled by the proposed upzonings, would likely drive up rents, placing immense pressure on low-income households and long-term residents. Some pointed to the risk of eroding the neighborhood’s diversity and cultural fabric, as has occurred in other parts of New York City following similar rezonings. There was also concern that the proposed affordable housing — comprising only 20% to 30% of new residential units under the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program — would not be affordable enough for LIC’s most vulnerable residents. Many argued for deeper affordability thresholds, ideally targeting families earning below 30% of the Area Median Income, and urged prioritization of housing access for existing residents, especially those living in NYCHA developments.

• "I have seen the effects of gentrification firsthand, as it has displaced me, my neighbors, and my loved ones... Rezoning, such as the proposed 54-block one here in Queens, will have disastrous consequences for the borough and this community."

• "This is not a housing crisis, it's housing apartheid... Who here can afford a one-bedroom for $4,000? Please raise your hand. Nobody."

Infrastructure Capacity and Service Strain: Infrastructure limitations formed another significant line of opposition. Residents expressed alarm that LIC’s current infrastructure is already under severe stress and would be further burdened by new development. Public schools were cited as already overcrowded, and the local sewer system was frequently described as inadequate, with incidents of flooding becoming increasingly common. Public transit capacity was also considered insufficient to support the projected population growth. Critics argued that unless infrastructure improvements are implemented in advance of new development, the plan would exacerbate existing problems and compromise quality of life.

• “They promise you the same thing that they promised us in East New York, a beautiful track, a beautiful pictures. Oh, they also mentioned that they were going to bring all these sewer investments in. They should be doing that anyway. We are taxpayers. Build that first, before even thinking about building those things.”.

Lack of Transparency and Public Oversight: Several speakers also criticized the public engagement process. While acknowledging the city’s outreach efforts, they felt the process lacked transparency and accountability.

• "At best, the community engagement was at the tokenism level... There’s no legally binding contract that ensures the MTA will add more trains... or ensures capital improvements for NYCHA Queensbridge houses."

Arguments Supporting the OneLIC Neighborhood Plan

Urgent Need for More Housing: Supporters of the OneLIC Neighborhood Plan approached the hearing with a sense of urgency shaped by New York City’s worsening housing crisis. They emphasized that LIC, like much of the city, suffers from low vacancy rates and a growing unhoused population. For these individuals, the proposed development of over 14,000 new housing units (including approximately 4,300 permanently affordable homes) was a crucial step toward expanding access to safe, stable, and affordable housing. They argued that without a plan like OneLIC, LIC would continue to see unplanned growth and speculative development with even fewer benefits for existing residents.

• "I support the rezoning... That's a huge benefit, given the extent of the housing crisis... This would allow thousands of income-restricted rent-stabilized units to be built."

• "OneLIC is just the first step in a badly needed direction… We need more housing, whether market rate, affordable, all of this."

Commitment to a Connected, Public Waterfront: Another major point of support was the plan’s vision for a connected, resilient public waterfront stretching from Gantry Plaza State Park to Queensbridge Park. Attendees who favored the plan applauded the proposal to reclaim currently inaccessible stretches of the waterfront for public use. They saw this as a chance to enhance recreational opportunities, promote environmental stewardship, and improve flood resiliency in a neighborhood increasingly vulnerable to climate change. Supporters particularly highlighted the integration of green infrastructure and public space as hallmarks of thoughtful, future-oriented planning.

• "I definitely applaud completing the Western Queens Waterfront Greenway while providing vibrant public spaces and resiliency."

Support for Mixed-Use, Inclusive Development: Proponents also praised the plan’s approach to mixed-use development. By updating outdated industrial zoning, the plan would allow for a blend of residential, commercial, and community facility uses that could support a more vibrant, walkable neighborhood. Supporters argued this would create new opportunities for local businesses, attract a broader range of services and amenities, and support economic diversity. In particular, the plan’s goal of fostering over 14,000 new jobs was seen as a vital counterbalance to LIC’s concentration of high-end residential towers, offering space for cultural, creative, and light industrial enterprises.

• "This area has been zoned industrial since at least the 1961 zoning resolution... it's unacceptable that the most transit-rich and high-opportunity parts of this country are warehouses and car repair shops."

Long-Term Neighborhood Benefits: Ultimately, supporters viewed the OneLIC Neighborhood Plan as a critical and overdue investment in LIC’s future. They believed it offered a chance to correct historic imbalances, integrate climate-resilient infrastructure, and build a more inclusive and livable neighborhood. Rather than abandoning the plan due to its imperfections, they urged ongoing engagement and refinement during the public review process to ensure it delivers on its promises.

• "OneLIC provides a real opportunity to positively shape the future of our neighborhood... I strongly urge the community boards to vote in favor of the LIC Neighborhood Plan."

Next Steps

The OneLIC plan is currently in the formal stages of the public review process through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The next opportunity for public input will be at the Queens Community Board 2 meeting on Thursday, June 5, where additional testimony can be shared. (Community Board 1 will also hold its own review session.) I’m leading a CB2 working group to provide a recommendation to the board, which will be voted on by the board on Wednesday, June 18. Written comments can still be submitted to onelictestimony@gmail.com, and public engagement will continue until the final vote. After the community boards submit their recommendations, the plan will be reviewed sequentially by the Queens Borough President, the City Planning Commission, and finally the City Council.