Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge seasonal removal of concrete blocks on North George Street and press council on property-inspection policy
Summary
Two residents used the non-agenda public-comment period to raise neighborhood safety and public-health concerns: a proposal to remove seasonal concrete blocks on North George Street during winter and a request for the council to clarify the status of the city's mandatory property-inspection program in light of a 1967 Supreme Court ruling.
At the Dec. 2 New York City Council meeting, two residents used the non-agenda public-comment period to press officials on street safety and city enforcement policies.
Lester Abbott, who identified himself as a resident of the 900 block of East Market Street, said concrete blocks placed on North George Street to benefit restaurants during the summer create a winter driving hazard when snow and ice accumulate. "I was driving down North George street ... and with the snow and the ice there and all that, it was a little treacherous driving past those concrete blocks," Abbott said, and proposed a seasonal compromise to remove the blocks from November through March and reinstall them April through October.
Dawn Hake, who identified herself as a city resident and taxpayer, raised two concerns. First, she urged the city to instruct garbage collectors to close tote lids after mechanical dumping to prevent standing water that can attract mosquitoes. Second, Hake asked the council for an update on a previous complaint about the city's mandatory property-inspection program, saying she had previously provided materials and that "the mandatory property inspection is in violation of the Supreme Court ruling." She asked whether the issue had been referred to committee or otherwise addressed.
Council staff did not provide a briefing or reply resolving Hake's legal claim during the meeting; the transcript shows her asking whether the matter had moved to committee and whether litigation was pending, but no council action or committee referral on that specific claim was recorded on Dec. 2.
The public-comment items were raised early in the meeting and were not part of later agenda votes.
What happens next: The council did not announce immediate follow-up at the meeting. Residents who raised concerns may seek formal responses from staff or request that the item be placed on a future agenda for staff briefing or committee review.
