The Power of Citizen Voice: Layla Law-Gisiko
July 13th, 2023
“When we get together, when we fight, we win.”
Layla Law-Gisiko serves on Manhattan’s Community Board 5 at the very center of New York City. She currently chairs the land use committee, which makes recommendations on the community’s built real estate environments. We discuss her community advocacy, the land use issues the Community Board considers, and the future of New York’s Penn Station.
The community board’s power is its voice. Community boards give people an opportunity to get involved and participate in democracy. When the community gets together, they can win. Although there are no real victory laps and it’s easy to get discouraged, it’s important to remember that it’s all about being in the fight. Talk to everyone, even if you disagree, and create opportunities for alliances.
Follow Layla on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/laylaLawGisiko
Follow Mila on Twitter:
Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/
Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!
http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard
Take the Democracy Group’s Listener Survey!
https://www.democracygroup.org/survey
Want to support the show and get it early?
https://patreon.com/futurehindsight
Credits:
Host: Mila Atmos
Guest: Layla Law-Gisiko
Executive Producer: Mila Atmos
Producers: Zack Travis
-
Layla Law-Gisiko Transcript
Mila Atmos: [00:00:04] Welcome to Future Hindsight, a podcast that takes big ideas about civic life and democracy and turns them into action items for you and me. I'm Mila Atmos.
Sometimes big ideas are best understood through the narrower lens of individual actions. And that's why another part of our beat on the show is talking to citizen changemakers of all stripes. Recently, I had the good fortune of meeting someone who has been putting one action after another, creating civic change for 18 years here in New York City. It all started for Layla Law-Gisiko back in 2005 with what maybe doesn't sound like such a big idea. She just wanted to make her neighborhood better.
Layla Law-Gisiko has served on almost every committee of Manhattan's community board five, or CB5, at the very center of Manhattan. She's advocated for housing, education, and health care issues. And she was just recognized with a Woman of Influence award by Crain's New York Business.
Layla, welcome and thank you for joining us.
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:01:18] Thank you for having me.
Mila Atmos: [00:01:20] So let's start with how you got involved in your community board. How did you get on it? Why did you join?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:01:29] Yeah, it was, you know, really very serendipitous. We had just moved into a new apartment with my husband and young children, and we realized that the neighborhood that during the day was lovely was a little bit of a Jekyll and Hyde type of neighborhood, where at night it was actually a very lively, way too lively, a neighborhood with lots of nightclubs. And the nightlife was really putting a big stress on our family because we couldn't sleep. And my husband said, "You need to do something about it." And I was like, "Yeah, gee, what could I do?" I had no clue that community boards even existed. But, you know, speaking with neighbors, someone mentioned community board and I said, "What is that?" And they said, "Well, you know, it's this body of residents and neighbors and they're representing the neighborhood." I
was like, "Good, I need to talk to them." So I attended my first community board meeting and saw like 35 people sitting around a table. Some were eating their dinner, others were checking their iPhones. And, you know, I spoke and I told them how miserable I was and I implored for their help. And they nodded. And I was like, No, no, no, no, no. I'm on the wrong side of the table here. I need to be part of this group. I need to be able to actually effectuate the change. And this seems to be a good venue because I'm not particularly interested in eating dinner or checking my messages when I'm attending a meeting. And I think I could be a valuable member of this organization. So I found out that it's actually the borough president that appoints all the community board members. And I submitted an application. At the time, Virginia Fields was borough president -- I'm dating myself -- and I was appointed to the board. I actually joined as a public member first and then 18 years later, here I am.
Mila Atmos: [00:03:23] Right, Right. Well, so when you first attended, what was your impression, now that you were a public member as opposed to just in the audience? Did you know, going in, what to expect? And did you have any real idea what it did beyond sort of your first initial impression when you first showed up?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:03:38] I had no clue. So much so that I didn't even know that I could sit with the other members. So I stayed with, you know, the members of the audience. It was actually only at my second meeting that someone said, "Hey, you know, as a public member, you get to sit with us and you can actually weigh in and comment." And my second meeting was actually the review of the Plaza Hotel. And at the time, the new owner of the Plaza Hotel wanted to actually bulldoze the Grand Ballroom and build an escalator because he wanted to convert the hotel into a mini shopping mall, which I was horrified. You know, I'm from France originally where, you know, we care a great deal about our historic landmarks. And I was like, this building is so historic and so beautiful and we can't let you know, an escalator deface the grand ballroom. So I didn't really know what to expect. I didn't even really know what to do. But I was like, you know what? Let me just raise my hand and say my two cents. So I raised my hand and I say, "You know, I really think that we should consider this issue differently." And one of my colleagues who I barely knew, you know, it was my second meeting, leans towards me and says, "you know, that you could make a motion." And I was like, "what is a motion?" He was like, "Well, you know, you can make an amendment and then we can take it to a vote. But basically your idea could make its
way into becoming our formal resolution." So I raised my hand and I said I would like to make a motion. And he seconded it. And then I made my amendment. And then next thing you know, people are like, "Oh, yeah, yeah, this makes sense. Actually. Maybe we should have this kind of approach." And then all of a sudden, from being a sort of like laissez faire, nonchalant, well, yeah, you know, it is what it is type of approach. We're like, No, we're going to stand up for what is right. And, you know, putting an escalator in the Plaza Hotel Grand Ballroom is not a good idea. Maybe we can do it differently. Six months later, the Landmarks Preservation Commission agrees to actually designate a whole bunch of rooms inside the Plaza Hotel. And we were spared the monstrosity of the escalator.
Mila Atmos: [00:05:42] Wow. So this is interesting. The Landmarks Commission designated several rooms, but not the whole hotel as a landmark?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:05:52] Yeah. So, you know, listen, it was actually a huge victory just to get those interior rooms. We certainly appreciated that. You know, some of the hotel rooms were not particularly significant, were not particularly historic. Right. And it's okay not to designate it. The exterior was already designated, but what was inside was not protected. So that was actually a big victory and empowering to realize that, you know, listen, we don't have a lot of power, but the one power we have is the power of the voice. We can actually speak up.
Mila Atmos: [00:06:28] Right. Right. And you did that with great effect. So it's a good thing that we do not have an escalator in the middle of the Ballroom of the Plaza Hotel. Thank you. So let's pan out a little bit. Tell us about the area that CB5 covers and its significance for New York City.
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:06:43] Yes, the boundaries of CB5 are Central Park South, 59th Street, to 14th Street, and roughly from Lexington Avenue to Eighth Avenue. The district tapers to the south, but roughly, you know, we're this big rectangle that basically encompasses the business district. This is where all the big skyscrapers, all the big large employers, Class A office space are located. And this is also where both train stations are located, Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station. So, you know, very, very critical. A lot of infrastructure, a lot of money, a lot of wealth, a lot of business activity in our district.
Mila Atmos: [00:07:21] Right, Right. So considering this is primarily office space, primarily commercial, what are the bread and butter issues for CB5?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:07:30] You know, because of that, we are quite atypical because our residential population is actually fairly low compared to other districts, and we really deal with land use issues and with transportation and infrastructure issues, which go way beyond just the boundaries of our district. When we're talking about Penn Station, well, it's the second largest train hub in the Western Hemisphere. 600,000 people go through Penn Station every single day. And obviously, we play a role as the local representation of the district. But we are very much of the mindset of, you know, we need to take a slightly different view of issues than strictly well, you know, it's our block and we get to say what's going to happen there. The stakes are higher. Our constituents in a way are much broader and not simply just people who live in the district.
Mila Atmos: [00:08:24] So what is the community board's mandate then? What are you able to do?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:08:28] Yeah, really, the only mandate of a community board is actually to make recommendations on land use issues. What is going to be our built environment? What do we need? Do we need office? Do we need a school? Do we need a hospital? Do we need commercial district? Do we need residential district? Those are the kinds of actions that the community board is mandated to comment on. But beyond that, we actually comment on a variety of topics, including what's going on in our parks, what is going on in our streets, what kind of transportation system is serving the district. We also comment on our historic resources, which in CB5 is a very, very important part of our district. We have some of the most prominent landmarks, including the Empire State Building, the New York Public Library, and numerous historic districts, the Flatiron Building, all of those very, very significant assets are under the purview of our recommendations. And we've been extremely busy because the district has been in constant flux, I would say, for the past 20 years.
Mila Atmos: [00:09:33] Well, so you mentioned land use is really your primary issue and it is one of the biggest issues for community boards around the country. And New
York is in some ways an extreme example of real estate shenanigans, if I may say. But the issues of how to provide enough housing while working with developers and making sure the voices of residents are heard, those issues are universal, and they have been further complicated by the pandemic. As you said, CB5 is dominated by commercial real estate and you are the chair of the Land Use Housing and Zoning Committee. How has your work there changed in the last few years?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:10:13] You know, I don't know that it has really changed. I think that the dynamic in New York City is very much the same through good times, bad times, crisis, pandemics. The dynamic doesn't change. The real estate power controls the city. It is the most influential industry in the city and it is really what is driving a lot of the policies that are going on in the city for good, sometimes for bad. Often. But that's the reality. And I think that the role of the community board is really to be a counterpoint to this very, very powerful force. That is a complicated affair because we need housing, we need construction. It is a very important part of our economy. There's no denying it. And at the same time, we need to make sure that the influence is not overpowered by their own driving interest. And their own driving interest is very clear. It is their bottom line. It is providing 7% return on their investment on what the lenders are giving them, and that's the way it should be. And what we need to do is actually provide the framework for that to happen. We cannot expect an industry to self-regulate themselves. It is up to the regulators, it is up to the legislature, it is up to the various administrations, whether at the city level or the state level, to put this regulation in place so that we have a balanced system. And this is where I think that the community boards play a very important role of basically pushing the legislators, pushing the elected officials to actually really take that into account. Because once again, you know, the idea that the developers are going to be acting for the greater good of the public is, in my opinion, a naive view.
Mila Atmos: [00:12:20] Right. Right. Well, I like the way you put that. You're not going to expect them to behave differently than looking out for the bottom line, because that's, of course, their mandate and that's their job. And that your role on the community board is to balance the outcomes at the end of the day. So that's fantastic.
We are going to take a quick break to share about a podcast that you should check out. You know how tricky it can be to sort through all the noise in the news. That's where
Slate's Political Gabfest comes in. Each week, hosts John Dickerson, Emily Bazelon, and David Plotz decipher the headlines, break down the rhetoric, and tell you what issues really matter. Think of Political Gabfest as having after hour drinks with three journalist friends who can unpack the underlying issues and broader effects of the latest breaking news. Listen and subscribe to Slate's Political Gabfest for the debates, the fireworks, and the cocktail chatter wherever you get your podcasts.
And now let's return to my conversation with Layla Law-Gisiko.
So although you really came to solve a personal issue with the noise of the nightclubs, you stayed for the public service over these 18 years. Can you tell me about some of the occasions when you've really seen what a community board can do for the people of a community?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:13:49] Yeah. So, you know, it's very true. I ended up staying way beyond just solving this tiny little nuisance that I was experiencing. What I saw over those 18 years is actually the power of the community, the power of we rather than I. When we get together, when we fight, we win. And the win is something that we need to redefine because it's never a clear cut victory, ever. The victory lap is something... it's a fraud, in my opinion. There's no such thing as a victory lap, but what we see is actually changing the framework, changing the narrative, moving the needle, getting a better deal, getting a better project. Maybe the project is still happening, but at least it's a better one. In terms of more concrete examples, we were very effective, for example, in enacting a rezoning around Grand Central Terminal that actually allowed for larger buildings, but in exchange getting tons of private investment in our public transit system. And that was a huge victory. And on top of that, a good preservation framework so that historic buildings don't get torn down, but on the contrary, get actually resources so that they can be maintained properly. We were very influential in getting a new elementary school in the district, very influential in capping the class size in our elementary schools, which was a huge problem. We had very, very large class size in the district, surprisingly, actually, given that our residential population is fairly low compared to two other districts. But our schools were totally overcrowded. We have had what I want to believe is the beginning of victory on Penn Station. Penn Station has been a huge headache for the city and the state for the last 50 years. Quite frankly, the station needs to be refurbished. It needs to be fixed. It needs to be improved. And then Governor
Cuomo, who introduced a proposal in 2020, was totally misguided in what he was trying to do. He was trying to actually force feed us a real estate plan with ten super tall office towers and 18 million ft2 of office space. We don't need that. We need to fix Penn Station, and we're not going to fix it with ten super tall towers. And where we are today is in a much better space and a much better place to actually continue to negotiate. It looks like this real estate deal is dead or almost dead. And it looks like we're finally talking about what matters. How do we move people through the region in trains? Because we also need to get people out of their cars. It's really critical.
Mila Atmos: [00:16:31] Right. Right. Well, thanks for jumping right into the issue of Penn Station. But let's backtrack a little bit because we have a nationwide audience. And as you just mentioned, it's a huge issue. So for non New Yorkers, they should know that Penn Station was a beaux-arts station like Grand Central Terminal. It was incredibly beautiful. There were protests, of course, at the time before it was torn down and replaced by Madison Square Garden on top of the station. But a rabbit warren of out-of- date train tunnels continue to exist underneath. And there have been some improvements, including the new Moynihan Train Hall. But can you help me out here? Fill in what I've missed and maybe explain why this might matter beyond the boundaries of CB5 or even New York City?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:17:18] Yeah, first of all, I think you got it really right, Mila. Not everybody understands the whole complexity, but you nailed it. Penn Station is the largest train hub in the Western Hemisphere. It sees more passengers in a day than all the airports combined in the New York metro area. JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports, you combine it, you still don't reach the level of passengers that Penn Station sees each day. It is the central point on the northeast corridor that links Washington, DC, to Boston. The Northeast corridor generates $2.3 trillion in economic growth. It is absolutely massive; not only for CB5, not only for New York City, but really for the region. And one could argue for the entire nation. This is where the largest amount of economic activity happens nationwide. So it is very critical that this totally antiquated train station be upgraded. But what what we have been advocating for, for the past few years is that we need the station to be functional. What people want, it's very simple. They want a reliable train system with trains that run fast and conveniently. That's what people want. If you get them a nice coffee shop on top of it where they can get a nice little cappuccino before they go back home, fantastic. But that's not what they crave,
what they crave, what gets them off their cars and into a public transportation network is the reliability, the connectivity and the speed. Those are the three things that need to happen. And anyone in the country understands that transportation is a mean to other things. We use transportation because we're going to the doctor, to school, to work, to our entertainment family. We don't ride the train just for the sake of riding the train. And here what we have is a system that is broken. So the train station itself is ugly as ugly can be. It's disgusting. It's old, it's dark, It's so like cringe worthy. But beyond that, and because we know that we have a shot at actually getting federal funding to improve the station, we need to improve it so that we do something really significant because this opportunity is not going to present itself for probably another 100 years. And it is not only for New Yorkers. If anything, it is actually not really for New Yorkers because the largest users of Penn Station are actually people who come from Long Island and Westchester and New Jersey. And this is like on the regional aspect. And then, of course, you have inner city lines that link Washington, D.C. to Boston. But of course, New York City is really the heart of the system.
Mila Atmos: [00:20:23] Right. Right. Well, you have just laid out exactly what we're looking for, what Penn Station should really be transformed into, a world class transportation hub, like you said, that has speed, convenience, reliability, and is truly functional for all the people that pass through. And you also mentioned Governor Cuomo and all the other stakeholders. And it seems to me that Penn Station could be a poster child for bad governance. You know, this project and the transportation infrastructure, as you mentioned, falls between New Jersey and New York. The port authorities of both New York and New Jersey, the federal government, New York City government, and of course, your local community board. So it has these big implications for very local transit and quality of life issues, of course, for us here in the city, but also the people who commute in every day on the micro level. And then these massive implications for the national economy on the macro level. So aside from the people who ride transit, who are the players and who defines in this moment what success should look like?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:21:30] Wow. Well, the one thing I will say is that there are lots of cooks in the kitchen and at all levels, as you said, it is not even just one state, but obviously two states, because New Jersey is a massive stakeholder in this equation. It is Amtrak, which is a federal corporation that owns the real estate. So they own the train
station. It is the US DOT, US Department of Transportation run by Secretary Buttigieg, who reports to President Biden, whose nickname is Amtrak Joe. And we know that they are very, very focused at the highest level of government on Penn Station. It is obviously the two senators of the two states, Senator Schumer and Senator Booker, who have been very, very involved in this big project; the two governors, Hochul and Murphy, who hold the key to what could happen; the rail operators, the MTA, New Jersey Transit, and Amtrak, as we said, who, on top of being the owner of the real estate, is also the owner of the tracks that make up the northeast corridor. So you can see that, you know, getting all these folks who have diverging interests, diverging views, diverging ways of doing business, then it becomes extremely complicated with, you know, a political cycle that is also very, very complicated. I mean, those governors need to run for re-election and there's constantly the next race and the next election. So all of that contributes to a really, really complex situation. Why is it critical now? Why are we talking about it now so much more than we have maybe in the past? I think it is mainly because President Biden, under the leadership of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have passed the bipartisan infrastructure law. And basically it's a package of $1.3 trillion earmarked for infrastructure. And a lot of this funding is available for Penn Station. But it will only be available and be put to good use in Penn Station only if there is a plan on which everybody agrees. And I think that right now we're seeing this big crunch where everybody is sort of like racing into, okay, what is the plan? But no, I want this. But you want that. We negotiate to find an acceptable position plan that everybody can sign off on. And I think this is what we are seeing and the fact that it is so much in the conversation and you know, that the negotiation is becoming more visible is giving me hope that, you know, we're putting the pressure. We're keeping this alive because we cannot miss out on this opportunity. It is literally a once in a lifetime opportunity to undo the mistake of the past, which was the demolition of the original Penn Station, as you underscored, and to getting us where really this region in this country needs to be with a decent 21st century, world class transportation system the same way London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong have already accomplished, in this country. We are lagging. We are lagging with our public transportation systems. And it's not good for our economy. And we need to make sure that our country remains competitive. It goes with putting decent amount of investment in our infrastructure.
Mila Atmos: [00:25:15] So now that there's so much visibility, is there a deadline by which you have to submit this plan or agree to this plan in order to unlock the federal
dollars? Like how does it work? Who is supposed to be paying for this transformation and what are the budget implications for the city, the state? How should we understand this?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:25:32] Yeah, listen, it is, it is super, super complicated. And it really depends who you're asking. You know, you can ask ten different people and they'll tell you ten different ways that this needs to be paid. The reality is that it is going to be expensive and there's no way around it. Infrastructure is expensive and it is kind of the way it should be. We shouldn't be wasteful about it for sure, but it is so significant we're not going to get it on the cheap. So what we know, Penn Station reconstruction, the price tag is $7 billion with a B. I know it's a big number. And then there is a project for an expansion to Penn Station that is priced at $13 billion. So it's a total of $20 billion. The... Both states and the feds need to find in order to pay for this project. So do we need the expansion? It is our position that actually we don't need the expansion, or we don't need it the way it is currently being drafted designed. We believe that there's a better way that would be cheaper. But furthermore, we feel that it would be a more effective way of actually accomplishing all these goals of moving people reliably and fast. Then who's going to pay for it? Everybody agrees that there's going to be federal money coming into those projects, and then the balance is going to be split between New York and New Jersey. And it looks like the framework that is embraced is that the feds pick up whatever their share is. And it may be 50%, it may be 80%. Hopefully it will be 80%. That's the case certainly that we're making. And then the two states are going to pick up the tab and they're going to split 50/50 on the balance. And then the question becomes, where do these states get the money to actually pay for their share? And this is where we are very, very infuriated with the way Cuomo had set up the whole project, because instead of actually focusing on transportation and figuring out later how the whole surroundings is going to get developed, he basically focused on the whole surroundings, claiming that that was going to be the source of funding. Needless to say, we proved that it was total bogus, that it was actually just a nice giveaway to his main donor, Vornado--to name them. And that actually now we know, and it's been totally exposed, that the project is not going to generate any revenue and if anything it's going to be a liability. So we wasted three years fighting that and everybody agrees it's clear it's not going to generate the money. So now we need to figure out where is New York going to find the money. What's interesting, though, is that New Jersey needs to come up with the equal amount. Their budget is one fourth of New York's state budget and
they have no problem finding the money. So that gives me great hope that New York is going to figure out where to find the money, how they're going to do their appropriations. And what we need to focus on now is really making sure that the federal partners really chip in and understand that it is not just a regional project, it is actually a project of national interest.
Mila Atmos: [00:28:51] Right, Right. So when you say we are hoping that the feds will cough up 80%. Who's we?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:28:57] You know, I would say that at that point, it's a very, very general "we" that includes both states and certainly our community. New York state and its stakeholders, including the MTA, which is a state agency, and New Jersey state and New Jersey Transit, the train operator, really want to see a lot of federal funding coming into Penn Station.
Mila Atmos: [00:29:23] Right? Right. Well, since you made a comment about the New York state budget, you know, looking at this from the outside, it feels like big real estate in New York City always wins and that the state and the city are just in cahoots with them. Right. And to point to the plan that Governor Cuomo came up with, hand in hand with Vornado. So now that the old project has been derailed and to your point, you've wasted three years... Where do real estate people find themselves now in this conversation?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:29:56] It's actually interesting because the main stakeholder for the real estate industry in this particular conversation is only Vornado. They have sort of like a quasi monopoly on all the land around Penn Station. When you talk to developers privately, they tell you that they were actually very unhappy about this plan. Vornado was getting a massive tax incentive. Corporate welfare and the other developers resent that. Everybody should be on the same footing. Why is this one getting a tax break when that other one is not getting a tax break? It's not fair. This is something that we've said abundantly. And in this we it's really, you know, Community Board Five where we've said it's not fair to the business community. I represent everybody in my district. And I find that totally objectionable that one particular developer is getting the tax breaks when the other one is not. And let me be very, very clear. I'm not advocating for a tax break for everyone. I feel that everybody should pay their fair share of taxes,
including Madison Square Garden, who is entirely tax exempt. And this is wrong. This is absolutely wrong. And I think that what you see in this particular area is basically Vornado, the main land owner, who was rejoicing at the thought of getting a massive deal padded with very generous tax incentives, and Madison Square Garden rejoicing to the thought that they're going to get a renewal on their operating permit. And they're going to keep their tax exemption. I mean, they pay $0 in real estate taxes. I mean, who else in the world pays $0 on their real estate? You know, it's crazy. Absolutely crazy. So I think that those two are probably very concerned that the Cuomo plan that was then embraced by Governor Hochul is being derailed. The rest of the real estate community, they would not say it in front of a live microphone, but they're not particularly sorry for their colleagues.
Mila Atmos: [00:32:05] Well, that's good to know. It's good to know. And I agree. Madison Square Garden should pay its fair share in taxes. This seems like a little bit of a side question, but if a new transit hub is really in the works here, is Madison Square Garden going to go away?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:32:21] That's the million dollar question. That's probably the billion dollar question at that point. It's interesting because they own the land. The venue belongs to them. They own the building. They don't have the right to operate as an arena without a special permit. And this is what is being negotiated right now. So their special permit expires in July and it is up to the city council, the New York City Council, to issue a new special permit. And the question really is, how do we look at this issue and what are we trying to accomplish? Why does it matter? Well, because --and it's really important for people who are not from New York City to understand that Madison Square Garden was built in 1963 above Penn Station. So they basically knocked down the beautiful building that the train hall for historic original Penn Station. But the station itself, the tracks continue to operate. What they did was they covered it. And then on top they built an arena and they built it in a very inefficient and haphazard way. They put the columns wherever they felt like. Some of them are around the tracks, others are directly on the platform. So you get off a train in Penn Station, the doors open and you have a column in front of you, like literally you can't get out of the train because there's a column. And it's like, Why is there a... Oh yeah, Madison Square Garden! They basically put a lid on top of Penn Station, and without removing all this hindrance, it becomes very, very difficult to really fix Penn Station. So it's not capricious because we don't like
Madison Square Garden or because, you know, we resent the performance of the Knicks or the Rangers. You know, it goes really beyond that and into the structural entrance of the building. So is Madison Square Garden going to move? I think that they have admitted actually in front of my committee that they are considering it. They want a site that would accommodate their needs and they need access to public transportation, which we feel is valid. We certainly don't want to put people in their cars when they go to the garden. And currently I think that the majority of patrons of the garden use the train or the subway, which is great, but at the same time they really need to move. So where can they move? Well, they said that across the street from where they are currently, you know, east of Seventh Avenue would be an option they would consider. This is still in our district. We are hoping to continue the conversation along those lines. But we need to keep the pressure. We really, really need to keep the pressure, like taking the pressure off, thinking that, well, you know, maybe it's not that bad, is not helping anyone. So are they going to move? You know, I think the reality is that they will move when it is in their interest. I think the venue is actually really antiquated. You know, it is the oldest arena in the country. Are they going to want to move at some point? I think that for them, it's a nightmare to operate the venue. You know, loading, unloading is just so, so difficult. Maybe at some point they will want to move and hopefully then we can actually accomplish something that is really meaningful for everybody. They have an opportunity, actually to come out of this as really the saviors of Penn Station. I hope they will grab this opportunity.
Mila Atmos: [00:35:53] Yeah, definitely. This is a good opportunity for them to upgrade, which is to say to build fresh from the ground up and something that is state of the art in this year, 2023. And since they haven't been paying taxes, you know, they should have plenty of money. So I'm going to pivot here a little bit. You and I are coming to this conversation as Americans and as New Yorkers, but also as immigrants. And I wonder how that has affected your view, because something like New York's inability to build crucial infrastructure on time and on budget or even to agree to that timeline and budget is kind of shocking to me. I think we think of America outside of the US as a land of commerce and progress, and yet almost everywhere else on earth builds infrastructure faster and cheaper than we do here. So what's your perspective on this?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:36:51] Yeah. You know, I think that you're raising a very good point. This country is really not good at building infrastructure. There are some structural
reasons for that, and it would probably take another show to get into it. But, you know, I am originally from France, and when I look at the infrastructure improvements that are happening in Paris and around Paris, I'm just blown away. I am blown away. I mean, wait for the Olympics in 2024. People are going to cry when they see, you know, this amazing network of rail that basically, you know, entirely connects the grand Paris region. It's crazy, insane, beautiful. And, you know, with also high speed train that criss crosses the country and beyond and takes you to London and Berlin. You know, it's like, wait, we were able to build a rail track between Paris and London, and they don't even speak the same language. And in New York, we can't link New York to Washington, D.C. or Chicago with high speed train, and they speak the same language. How is that possible? It's a little bit puzzling. At the same time, I think that right now we have a president and an administration in the White House that is really committed to catching up. But there has been so much deferred investment that is going to be very, very hard. What concerns me is that at some point I am really worried that this country is going to fall behind, because if we take just New York. New York needs to remain competitive with the other large cities in the country, in the world. You know, it's not only new York versus L.A. and Chicago and Dallas or Austin. You know, how do we remain competitive with Paris, with London, with Frankfurt? I mean, you look at the Asian cities, it's like, wow. You know, what they're doing, what they're investing is just crazy; and falling behind is really, it's a risk. It is really a risk. Are we going to be able to catch up? I don't know. I think that the lobby for train and rail is not as well organized as others, namely planes and cars. It's going to be an uphill battle.
Mila Atmos: [00:39:12] I think deferred investment is the key phrase here. So in your remarks, when you received the Crains award, you mentioned that your advocacy is most powerful when you stand together. We hear that we are more divided than ever. But I think local politics can be so different. How do you think about building coalitions and what have you learned about winning and fighting from your years of service?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:39:39] Yeah, so I think that it's very easy to fall into the human nature of divisiveness. Very easy. You know, it's kind of like the default position. It's me against this one; me and this one against the rest of the world. But what I have seen over and over and over is that when you talk to people, even if you wholeheartedly disagree with them, this is where good things start to happen. And it has been my view and my position pretty much from the get go, talk to everybody. You don't have to
agree, but talk to everybody. My lines of communication are open with absolutely everyone. I scream, I yell, I fight, I argue. I tell them to their faces how I hate what they're doing. But we keep talking. Whether it is Vornado, of whom I have been extremely critical, or Madison Square Garden and other big stakeholders who have projects in Community Board Five that I wholeheartedly disagree with. We're still talking and this is the way it should be. It's hard at times. It leads to very unpleasant conversations, but this is really necessary. And then the other thing is that at times there are some unlikely partnerships that emerge where some residents may actually find support with the local business community or some property owners or thinking outside of our own little box or out of our comfort zone or out of what we know to be allies is really critical. And with the Penn Station example, this is exactly what happened. We built a coalition that is so diverse: small business, large business, residents, owners, tenants, activists, civic organizations. We were able to bring everyone at the table. And although we know that at some point our interests will diverge, there is such a craving to stay together.
Mila Atmos: [00:41:55] That's so powerful. A craving to stay together. Yeah, that's very, very hopeful. So here on Future Hindsight, we're all about building our civic action toolkits. After your 18 years of local public service, which is really ground zero for civic action, what are two things our listeners can do to make their voices heard locally?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:42:22] I would say there's a general sort of like statement. My first advice is get involved. Find whatever it is that suits you. Whatever you can keep up with and get involved, if anything. Support your local or ultra local news media. They are so essential. So critical. Remain informed. Vote. Of course. I'm giving more than two here.
Mila Atmos: [00:42:52] All good. All good.
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:42:54] But get involved. Whichever way it is. Join a community board. Join a civic group. Join a union if you're in a unionized industry. Become involved with a local chapter of a political party with which you have an affinity. But getting involved is really key. We need to participate. This is really the critical part, and that's the beauty of the community board because it really gives people an opportunity to be involved and to participate in our democracy.
Mila Atmos: [00:43:29] Yes. Hear. Hear. Looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:43:35] I really have to think deep about this one. There are many reasons, actually, why at times I don't feel hopeful. I will say that having a desire for regular people to actually effectuate change, to keep people honest, to challenge the powers that be, is something that makes me hopeful. At the same time, I'm not going to lie. Those are really tough battles and it is very easy to get discouraged. It is very easy to think, you know from the beginning that it's a lost battle, which is why I remind myself every day. It's not about the win. It's not about the win. It's not about the win. It is only about the fight. That's the only thing that matters. And the coalition that we put together to fight the Penn Station bad project that's has inspired me and we've been able to continue the fight even in the darkest moments where we thought that it was totally hopeless. So what keeps me hopeful is actually that we were able not to fall for the hopelessness.
Mila Atmos: [00:44:54] That's, that's very big. Thank you very much for your leadership, for your service, for all of us in New York. You know, when we read the paper about Penn Station, we don't know who's in there fighting for us. But you are. And so I'm incredibly hopeful for that. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show.
Layla Law-Gisiko: [00:45:14] Thank you so much for having me. Really appreciate it.
Mila Atmos: [00:45:18] Layla Law-Gisiko has served on Manhattan's Community Board Five for the past 18 years and was just recognized with a Woman of Influence award by Crain's New York Business.
Next week on Future Hindsight, we are joined by Jenice Fountain. She is the executive director of the Yellowhammer Fund, a reproductive justice organization in Birmingham that serves Alabama, Mississippi, and the Deep South.
Jenice Fountain: [00:45:50] So when we talk about anti-abortion movements, when we talk about anti-abortion protesters or this narrative is so important to realize how much of a death threat this is to actual living people that could carry pregnancies and how we
address it matters. If we address it as its ignorance, then people are going to address it in a soft way. There's nothing about the way that this movement has attacked birthing people that is soft, that is empathetic in any way. And so our need to empathize with folks that are offering us death threats is really alarming to me.
Mila Atmos: [00:46:25] That's next time on Future Hindsight.
And before I go, first of all, thanks for listening. You must really like the show if you're still here. We have an ask of you. Could you rate us or leave a review on Apple Podcasts? It seems like a small thing, but it can make a huge difference for an independent show like ours. It's the main way other people can find out about the show. We really appreciate your help. Thank you.
This episode was produced by Zack Travis and me.
Until next time, stay engaged!
The Democracy Group: [00:47:07] This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.