[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6484103,"mediaKeyId","5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326","parentId",5455810,"title","Street Activities committee denies several permits; large block‑party seeks city accommodations","audioSeconds",181,"startMs",2777000,"endMs",2958000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326&start=2777&end=2958","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326/thumbnail_2777000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6484103/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Street-Activities-committee-denies-several-permits-large-blockparty-seeks-city-accommodations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484103-03f30ddcfb7a734040c331ba02faf9ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172787&Signature=eVP7E2TJ9XDqhnqIBORlSEjIROmLY7NvCjtPOuSjwPx0CzkLw8drhFmnqU9h1JegV0aItSmH43qmJxH4t4tpO3ggvOg0gEamhN9lJndk-IodDTQcaSOiROokfclSdV1bS6fA3mG433ktehbKt2rjp2nWnP2hqf~-id6lQspwG6M~6AQiiQUwMPLfbdIGAuEC89dY54rKuG1cIOlvc4N8mG4Qp0FL2T7lXZbaGWKWBkZ1G26mybGPag89p7gCHKjhh7PvYX1-AiXG3-Arphjxr0M7haUfoa9eU~Nr20krAG0BNcET5HO-9oHJb43zaO7nXOHChU9zvG0XSeZGBNp-JA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Manhattan, NY","date","2025-07-23T18:55:34.903Z","article","Eddie, reporting for the Street Activities and Resiliency Committee, said the committee reviewed roughly 17 permits and denied several applications for failing to meet permit requirements or for no‑shows.

One denial involved a load‑in request tied to an author event (described as a pop‑culture event) where the applicant would not pay for required line/stanchion permits. Another denial stemmed from an applicant seeking to combine two separate street permits to create a two‑block festival; the committee said that plan conflicted with existing SAPO/agency constraints.

Committee members noted that the proposed Denim Tiers / Hot 97 block party had strong mayoral support and that Safo (S A F O /site‑review staff) and the agency director were seeking ways to make the event work. The committee reported the event later secured a non‑profit partner and that the city requested removal of some temporary sidewalk dining structures to allow event layouts to proceed safely.

Members discussed compliance issues for sidewalk sheds and outdoor dining structures and cautioned against approving events that rely on removing existing restaurant structures without enforcement assurances. One member said the applicant acknowledged the structure in question was illegal and planned to remove it.

Ending: The committee denied several permit requests that did not meet requirements and continued review of a large festival application that city agencies were working to accommodate; the committee asked staff to track outstanding compliance issues at affected restaurants and festival sites.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 July 22, 2025 - Executive Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Street Activities and Resiliency Committee reviewed routine permit applications, denied some where applicants omitted required permits or proposed combining blocks, and discussed a multi‑block Denim Tiers / Hot 97 block party that city agencies were trying to accommodate.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484108,"CB2 human services members flag visible drug use around Lafayette, Canal Street and call for agency coordination",795,4105000,4900000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326&start=4105&end=4900","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326/thumbnail_4105000.jpg","/articles/6484108/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/CB2-human-services-members-flag-visible-drug-use-around-Lafayette-Canal-Street-and-call-for-agency-coordination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484108-5d77ee0e003d7f84235805958a98a608/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172787&Signature=ctJsdS65KWCxpwlgDyZIhZYhrNuhWjLCtZyn69v985pr5XXATq~hrUCVFFCEsdWHkS7JvWAzqcXb-s9IXlasp2r9i4-5ZI5vv0STImyfjNJe6d8p4H92~l2PcoREUsQ23XXQjH5KLE-hKR4VRnw7wTxgnpBbajY2PnBiOpID3v2uolwuiuuQuJbCpACXrDNz3yDZeknV~u5d34nEp-xT8STgNaQo~HghBP~G5nX5PuBZE~cM0x2dtf6xt0xpuRx9Ku8WibvFBVIeVgiADsRtA5rVWrWxd3pRLGjjZf3KfyJXO~wc73FAHmEq~AWzyXRFcNSJmrHiK0lJxYAfu54UYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the board’s human services and related committees described an increase in visible drug use and public‑safety concerns in parts of Community Board 2, including Lafayette Street, Canal Street and areas near Washington Square Park and Mercer Street.

A member summarized outreach and data from the Village Interagency Task Force, which the board described as a pilot program that has placed people into services and collects counts of discarded needles and other indicators. \"They put 14 people in the house, and they have no idea who stayed, who moved, who's back on the street,\" a member said, urging realism about outcomes even as the task force reported placements; the task force also reported needle-collection figures for Washington Square Park.

Board members discussed Greenwich House and Bellevue Hospital roles in local responses and cautioned against immediate public resolutions until the board had more information. One board member said Greenwich House and other local providers were unfairly accused in media reports: \"There was a New York Post article that was saying that Greenwich House was a safe injection site and that that they're responsible for all the drug activity on the street, which, of course, is very painful for them, and they were not happy with that.\"

Members emphasized that calls to 911 and 311 produce different responses and data streams; one member noted that repeated 311 complaints can be required to elevate cases to agency attention. The group discussed short-term measures such as bollards and camera-sharing agreements between building owners and precincts as immediate tactical responses while larger interagency solutions are pursued.

Ending: Committee chairs agreed to delay drafting a public resolution until staff can gather more information from city agencies and the Village Interagency Task Force and to coordinate a future meeting that includes law enforcement and service providers so the conversation is evidence-based and multiagency.
","Community Board 2 members discussed rising visible drug use and public‑safety concerns around Lafayette Street, Canal Street and adjacent areas, noted the Village Interagency Task Force pilot’s reported placements and data, and called for coordinated agency responses and more data sharing before drafting resolutions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484113,"Landmarks committee denies St. Luke in the Fields parish house design, cites contextual mismatch",194,2005000,2199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326&start=2005&end=2199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326/thumbnail_2005000.jpg","/articles/6484113/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Landmarks-committee-denies-St-Luke-in-the-Fields-parish-house-design-cites-contextual-mismatch","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484113-64e4be4e1d5aa6111e82b5f34d695ffd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172787&Signature=e9t6wCO19W67MynBESeqA41BiVoDtthKHjSOWFu8bVF8hHHMUIB3tIrdrRU6EvCfMllwxDt-38Ltu1fDBoUhEtJyLKDHrwdIlQu84NeyAlntmV7pGwJNIUVXMSed8YE2JRM7v890LROOHc3MN118-h9OxNJELiUvHUUR~drtSbbte8X0ZcL0mC5xAXK7wigUk3llYViW10Rc0wi5hJ50mf6s3vR6r0P9s0ruTAuDQvpeQuxqMAJ4mCkLG9LUnkJQ86DOzaMIsO0UkRu51d1Zgx0ZVjbKvHn4pO59hKtziDpAS0lEy2o-CYdZJ0gxfk-TdmRTSeM4ibNbWUmvhuDREQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Brian, speaking for the Landmarks Committee, reported that the committee held two meetings during the month and denied several applications that did not meet the standards for landmarks designation or approval. He said the committee heard extensive testimony on a proposal at 497 Hudson Street — described in committee materials as the St. Luke in the Fields parish house — and denied the application on the basis of design and contextual concerns.

\"It was strictly on the architecture,\" Brian said when asked whether safety or programmatic concerns had influenced the committee’s decision.

Committee members and speakers at the public meeting raised safety and program-use concerns. The transcript records one committee member describing public anxiety about the loss of a yard adjacent to a school and inaccurate public information circulating in the neighborhood. Brian emphasized that the committee’s denial rested on architecture: he described the proposed materials and form as \"completely out of context\" with the Greenwich Village Historic District and said the design \"lacks the rhythm\" characteristic of the surrounding architectural vocabulary.

The committee heard about outreach efforts and criticized the applicant’s public engagement as insufficient; several speakers said the applicant did not engage the broader neighborhood early enough. The committee noted that design choices (including high-gloss terracotta in a dark green color) made the project visually incompatible with the district’s character.

The committee anticipated public attention at the full board and expected people to speak during the board’s public session.

Ending: The Landmarks Committee denied the application on architectural grounds; committee members urged public review of the application materials on CB2’s website and signaled that community outreach and design revisions would be necessary before future consideration.","CB2’s Landmarks Committee denied a proposed parish house at 497 Hudson Street (St. Luke in the Fields), concluding the building’s materials and massing are out of context with the Greenwich Village Historic District; committee said its review focused on architecture, not uses.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484118,"CB2 executive committee debates quorum rules and meeting practice",155,82000,237000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326&start=82&end=237","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5455810-00a88fa476c5f52060e5b4e1ba05e326/thumbnail_82000.jpg","/articles/6484118/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/CB2-executive-committee-debates-quorum-rules-and-meeting-practice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484118-fe41fdefac80fbf9cdb366708fe22a4e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172787&Signature=HN19F6zkY1wrVxt0Qx5fnbOfZNH0dqASjWn~Ubmmr9hrhHlzQk6pE40gm8MoR09pAWbs75HLhIy4gPP6kstPTXRO49RqT8SqRpfFlBZcevgW4iezu5sukrha6FCKh7nqx0Rmh2bKqR6TVImSxqYy4h0FoDSN6DVQ~0kZgzaWDL8xIkvHQcL7KDdQDQYa2-dQBGwLk1w3c1fXXn7mY28Lx2pbowBAcE5rR8ueIBIxKSh1gYTBQralozXERJJaRfkpJwZlqn-4eUVjEGr5CfqXNtYL13KKvlYKU8Xq7Wc46HdI00FHLes7OIBjCKdpBF75tQllQIYoNglhhVEe3xOJhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Valerie Dela Rosa, chair of Manhattan Community Board 2’s executive committee, opened the July executive committee meeting and warned chairs to verify quorum before convening committee meetings, saying the board should avoid hosting agency guests when members are absent.

The discussion focused on whether committees should run informational meetings when quorum is not present and how to handle time-sensitive items. \"So I just ask, specifically for ... ensuring that you have a quorum, and that your meeting is staffed appropriately,\" Dela Rosa said, urging chairs to postpone meetings that lack quorum unless there is an agency-driven deadline.

Board members described a long-standing culture of continuing meetings without quorum and outlined practical workarounds. One member said a meeting without quorum can still be useful for information-sharing but raises problems if participants later decide to draft a resolution: \"You start out with a meeting ... you don't have quorum, but that's okay. We just wanna get a lot of information ... At the end of it, we say ... let's write a resolution on it,\" the member said, noting the awkwardness when the committee lacks the authority to adopt policy.

Other members recommended confirming attendance in advance or calling absent committee members on the day of the meeting to try to reach quorum. A member noted legal constraints: \"It has to be in presence because then you're not meeting your, the legal requirements.\" Several members suggested that time-sensitive matters without quorum should be escalated to the executive committee or full board so the board’s position can be filed on schedule.

Committee chairs also raised operational concerns tied to invitations for city agency speakers: repeatedly calling in presenters for a meeting that will not meet quorum wastes agency and public time, they said. Dela Rosa said she will reach out to committee chairs individually in the coming weeks about member reappointments and committee composition to reduce recurring attendance problems.

The committee did not adopt a binding change to bylaws; members said decisions about whether to cancel or proceed without quorum would continue to be handled case-by-case and, when necessary, time-sensitive items can be brought to executive committee or full board review.

At the start of the agenda the committee recorded a motion on the floor to approve the June executive committee minutes (mover: Janine; second: Susan); the transcript records the motion being moved and seconded but does not record a formal roll-call vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.

Ending: The exchange closed with a practical tone: chairs were asked to check quorum in advance and to be prepared to escalate urgent items. No formal bylaw change was adopted during the discussion.","Manhattan Community Board 2’s executive committee discussed repeated quorum shortfalls, whether to hold informational meetings without a quorum and options for handling time-sensitive items, asking committee chairs to verify attendance before meetings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Street Activities committee denies several permits; large block‑party seeks city accommodations

CB2 human services members flag visible drug use around Lafayette, Canal Street and call for agency coordination

Landmarks committee denies St. Luke in the Fields parish house design, cites contextual mismatch

CB2 executive committee debates quorum rules and meeting practice