Concession Seating in DOT Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets

Online comments: 158

• Yvonne Groseil

  This is outrageous. It is privatization of a public amenity. I refer you to the work of William H. Whyte, “ The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.

  Comment added March 24, 2025 2:52pm

• PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PONZI

  “Under DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs, DOT may enter into a concession agreement with a pedestrian plaza or open streets partner, which authorizes, among other things, revenue-generating activity to occur through the operation of subconcessions”

  The carving out of public space in a kind of gangster turf taking, abetted by an agency -the DOT-which has already done so much damage to neighborhoods, is remarkable in its brazen chutzpah.

  The DOT is proposing to “permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for EXCLUSIVE USE BY THEIR PATRONS”

  The DOT is going to allow vendors, self-dealing interests, for-profit businesses to co-opt our streets and our public recreational areas for “revenue generation”.

  Are you kidding? FOR SHAME! UNACCEPTABLE!

  Comment added March 24, 2025 8:28pm

• Miggie Warms

  This is a joke, right? Turning public streets into private space for concession customers? That’s not even done in our public PARKS, unless it’s an actual restaurant in a BIG park like Central Park. Yet, you want to exclude residents of a neighborhood from sitting on seating provided on a public street or in a small park that should be FOR THE PUBLIC, regardless of whether they buy anything from a nearby concession. What a horrible idea, especially for elderly and disabled residents that you pretend your “open street” is meant to accommodate (along with non-disabled residents.)

  Comment added March 24, 2025 10:49pm

• Jennifer Kellow

  What can I say that others haven’t already. Outrageous that public spaces will be privatized. No! I pray this doesn’t pass, the people of this city attempt to make their voices heard and it usually falls on deaf ears.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:32am

• Allie Ryan

  This amendment should be voted on in a referendum not sneaked through in this pseudo-public fashion, which is basically marking a box that NYC DOT hosted public engagement, but as with the last NYC DOT public hearing that I attended in the Fall of 2023 about allowing eCargo bikes on the streets of NYC, this is a formality for approval despite public dissent or concern. There is an active lawsuit about the Open Streets program. So I do not understand how this amendment can be proposed at this time. https://www.nycaccessforall.org/

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:20am

• megan martin

  “Open streets” is a gross mischaracterization of the illegal occupation of our public roads by private lobbyists within the DOT. During their designated hours- we have bumper to bumper traffic where emergency vehicles can not pass, residents are unable to arrive at their destination. The impediment to the flow of traffic is dangerous and destructive.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:46am

• Thomas

  Hello,

  Please do not designate areas of pedestrian plazas & Open Streets for EXCLUSIVE USE BY THEIR PATRONS/ PARTNERS.

  New York taxpayers do not support privatizing public space!

  Thank you

  Comment added March 25, 2025 9:30am

• Charlie Eisenbach

  This is bad policy which I am not in favor of.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:12am

• Klaus-Peter Statz

  Do not hand our public streets over to private interests!

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:16am

• Tran

  This amendment confirms what we knew all along – Open Streets is merely a land grab disguised as a pandemic health benefit. New Yorkers will not allow our public streets to be taken over by the hospitality lobby!

  The streets belong to New Yorkers – not bars and restaurants!

  Shame on DOT!

  Comment added March 25, 2025 10:37am

• eli see

  Public spaces should not be restricted to only those patronizing a private establishment. These spaces should be open to all.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 12:55pm

• Katherine O'Sullivan

  These plaza’s are an excuse to privatize the common roadway that belongs to all of us.

  The “public” plazas are not public. I have had less direct access to Dyckman Street since it was barricaded during Covid. The space remains exclusively for the use of Dyckman Gardens Inc (that is the clubs/restaurants). It has become an eyesore, collecting garbage, with mostly police barriers and tattered old holiday decorations to look at
  We, the residents, were promised something else. DOT is not capable of running this program. It should be scrapped.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:11pm

• Catherine Unsino

  This pro business land grab should be put to an open vote, not slipped through via DOT’s sneaky allegiance to money instead of to the people’s wellbeing. In order to protect the safety of people with disabiities, of elderly residents and of everyone else, streets should be for cars and motorized bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. Bus routes should not be altered. Amen. Stop the subterfuge! Make this city safer and more accessible and stop operating it like an empire for the money grabbers. While the whole world repudiates empire, this state and now city embraces it. Shame on DOT and on every elected official who betrays the people’s wellbeing. Let’s vote them out of office.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:35pm

• FLOUTING ADA FEDERAL LAW

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will potentially flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities.
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes

  ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.

  Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely.

  For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.

  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access

  ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.

  Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.

  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way

  ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.

  Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways.

  For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.

  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.

  Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space.

  This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.

  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).

  Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.

  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives

  ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.

  Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.

  Summary of ADA Violations:

  Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.

  Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.

  Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.

  Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.

  The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 1:37pm

• Tom Harris

  My name is Tom Harris and I am President of the Times Square Alliance, the business improvement district organization that since 1992, works to improve and promote Times Square – cultivating the creativity, energy and edge that have made the area an icon of entertainment, culture and urban life for over a century.

  Times Square Alliance supports the Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession kiosk customers. As an organization that helps maintain, program, and support various pedestrian plazas, we understand that kiosks are crucial components in curating vibrant public spaces. In addition to providing services to visitors of a space, these concessions are one way for the Alliance to help recoup the expense of maintaining these plazas for the enjoyment of the public at large.

  Currently, however, operating a concession can be a huge risk for businesses. Allowing these establishments to operate small areas tailored specifically towards their clientele is an investment not just in individual businesses, but for public space at large as it enhances the feasibility of such an endeavor and allows for visitors to enjoy a tailored experience while balancing the right of the public to enjoy the remainder of the pedestrian plazas.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 2:17pm

• Rose Halloran

  How can this be legal? Shouldn’t taxpayers vote on such an amendment? As it is 34th Avenue is mostly empty of traffic, pedestrian and otherwise, between 9:00 and 5:00. It is a residential street. Authorizing your concessionaire partners access will result in filth and further encourage rats. I propose doing away with this underutilized travesty that is 34th Ave OS and return our neighborhood to its former beauty.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:07pm

• VOICES OF JACKSON HEIGHTS

  THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE ADA AND THE NYC/NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS. STOP THIS NOW BEFORE IT STARTS

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities. Here’s a breakdown of how the amendments may violate ADA requirements:
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. -These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely. For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.
  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.
  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways. For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.
  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space. This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.
  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.
  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives
  🧑‍🦽ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.
  🧑‍🦽Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.
  Summary of ADA Violations:
  🧑‍🦽Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.
  🧑‍🦽Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.
  🧑‍🦽Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.
  🧑‍🦽Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.
  🧑‍🦽The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.
  is?

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:55pm

• I do not support this

  As an NYC resident, I do not support the privatization of our streets. Just say no!

  Eric Olson
  Brooklyn

  Comment added March 25, 2025 3:58pm

• Kathleen Sullivan

  Once again, an example of living in a city that pretends to be democratic. Very often I would hear “Why should people park their private cars on a public street?” So, now it’s OK to have private dining sheds and private concession stands under the watch of the DOT on public streets? There once was a time when voices of the community were respected. Now, it seems that our local officials are learning a lot from right wing republicans……..our way or no way. Is this not jumping on the bandwagon to autocracy?

  Comment added March 25, 2025 5:25pm

• Beverly Carroll

  I am astonished that there is proposed privatization of public space. The entire open street belongs to the community and needs to remain public space.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 6:03pm

• Nathawanya

  I can’t believe that the DOT continues to rob taxpayer’s money for their own gain. Now it is privatizing public space for their own little network friends! The City Council should be ashamed for passing the Open Streets and making it permanent. Covid emergency is long over and so should the Open Streets! The Open Streets closes off access for handicapped cars and emergency vehicles. People’s lives are at stake and all the DOT cares about is their self-serving agenda. I am furious.

  Comment added March 25, 2025 8:23pm

• Neighbors On Canal

  If anyone wants to experience the DOT’s vision for privatized Open Streets and public plazas.. come down to our neighborhood in Chinatown / LES / now called “Dimes Square,” where 100% of Open Streets seating belongs to the bars and restaurants. http://www.neighborsoncanal.com

  Two blocks of Canal Street are closed off to traffic and emergency vehicles so private bars and restaurants can seat 300+ in the roadway, with zero seats for the public. You have to purchase a $16 cocktail to sit on your own street, or else private security hired by the restaurants will move you along.

  DOT also does not enforce its own rules, so our community is left to police these bars and restaurants that are in constant violation of almost every single DOT rule, local law, and common decency.

  Do not let this amendment pass – its is a poorly disguised land grab by the DOT and its lobbyists.

  See attachment for a glimpse of the future of your neighborhood if this amendment passes.

  Comment attachment
  Photos-from-a-Privatized-Open-Streets.pdf

  Comment added March 26, 2025 11:07am

• Jacob White

  Taking public spaces and reappropriating them for private business is a move in the opposite direction of where we should be headed. If we pass legislation reappropriating private spaces such as cafe’s and restaurant seating areas for public unpaid usage, it should equally be met with outrage. Public land is for the public.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 11:41am

• Mitchell A Grubler

  I am opposed to any further privitizing of public streets/plazas. Open streets and pedestrian plazas should be widely open to the general public without any exclusions. It is enough that DOT has privatized countless curb lanes with permitted sheds. Enough is enough.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 12:02pm

• ML

  STOP THE PRIVATE TAKEOVER OF PUBLIC STREETS
  This is a violation of the ADA and NYC/NYS Human Rights Laws.

  The proposed changes to NYC’s pedestrian plazas and open streets will:

  Privatize public space by allowing businesses to take a huge portion of public space for exclusive dining or seating areas

  Block accessible pathways, creating unsafe or impassable routes for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility aids

  Make it harder for people with disabilities to get picked up or dropped off safely

  Exclude those who can’t afford to be paying customers from using public spaces that are supposed to be open to all

  Fail to provide adequate alternatives or accessible routes when space is restricted or altered

  These rule changes don’t promote equity — they promote and profits over people.
  Public streets must remain public, open, and accessible to everyone, not carved up for commercial gain.

  Let’s be clear:

  Public space is not a luxury — it’s a right.

  Accessibility is not optional — it’s the law.

  This isn’t progress — it’s privatization.
  Stop these rule changes now — before they start. This is outrageous!

  Comment added March 26, 2025 1:55pm

• Michael McFadden

  Open Streets and Public Plaza’s – should remain exactly so.
  Private interests are not public interests.
  So simple.
  For the good of all not the few.
  This must not be allowed to move forward.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 2:40pm

• WW

  I’m beyond disgusted that such a rule would even see the light of day. Keep public spaces PUBLIC! Anything granting exclusivity is ripe for corruption. A public agency funded by taxpayers should never be able to give away public space to private concessionaires! A rule like this is a detriment to the community and open street serves. Please record this writing as a strong opposition to the proposed rule.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 3:06pm

• LaShaun

  Just absolutely disgusting that everything is for sale in this damn city. We, the tax paying residents, have to constantly fight for our space on this city, too many give away to corporations. It’s outrageous.

  Comment added March 26, 2025 5:36pm

• Glenn Dewar

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several specific ways, particularly in relation to equal access for individuals with disabilities. Here’s a breakdown of how the amendments may violate ADA requirements:
  1. Reduction in Accessible Pathways and Routes
  • ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, all public spaces, including sidewalks and streets, must provide clear, unobstructed paths for individuals with disabilities. These paths must allow for safe navigation and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters.
  • Violation Potential: The proposed rule allows subconcessionaires to designate up to 33% of the pedestrian plaza or open street for exclusive seating areas (and up to 50% if a major concession is approved). If this seating area is placed in a way that obstructs the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduces the available space for accessible routes, it could violate ADA regulations. The restriction of space for general public use may make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate these areas safely. For example, if exclusive seating blocks an accessible path or creates narrow, crowded spaces, individuals with mobility impairments may be unable to navigate these public spaces effectively or safely.
  2. Inadequate Access to Drop-Off Zones and Car Access
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA mandates that transportation hubs, including street curbs and car drop-off zones, must be accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the provision of clear, wide access for vehicles that transport people with mobility impairments.
  • Violation Potential: The proposed amendment could reduce or restrict access to areas traditionally used for car drop-off zones, particularly near residential buildings, businesses, or community spaces. Exclusive seating areas could extend into these zones, effectively blocking drop-off points or creating obstacles for accessible parking. This could make it harder for people with disabilities who rely on private transportation or taxis to access their destinations, violating the ADA’s accessibility guidelines for transportation.
  3. Obstruction of Sidewalks and Public Right of Way
  • ADA Requirement: Under the ADA, public sidewalks and pedestrian areas must be clear of physical barriers that prevent people with disabilities from moving freely. This includes maintaining a minimum clear width for pathways that can accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
  • Violation Potential: Designating exclusive seating areas for patrons of subconcessions could narrow the available space for pedestrians, especially if these seating areas encroach on already limited sidewalk space. Such a reduction in the available width for public movement could make it impossible for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers to pass through, violating ADA requirements for accessible pedestrian pathways. For example, if a pedestrian plaza or open street is used for exclusive dining areas, individuals with disabilities might find themselves forced to navigate around tightly packed seating, leading to potential safety hazards or difficulty accessing their destinations.
  4. Exclusion of People with Disabilities from Privately Designated Areas
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to services, including outdoor dining or seating areas, if those services are offered to the general public.
  • Violation Potential: If businesses are granted the ability to reserve exclusive areas for patrons (up to 33% or 50% of the space), individuals with disabilities who are not patrons or who cannot afford to dine at these venues could be excluded from accessing public space. This creates a situation where public spaces (i.e., pedestrian plazas and open streets) are privatized and inaccessible to people who may need the space for socializing, resting, or simply passing through. It could be argued that this discriminates against people with disabilities, who might find themselves unable to access these public spaces if they are blocked off for exclusive use by paying customers.
  5. Potential Disruption of Community and Recreational Activities
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that public spaces be designed to provide equal access to recreational and social opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Public plazas and open streets often serve as spaces for community activities, some of which may be specifically targeted at people with disabilities (e.g., outdoor fitness classes, art displays, or events).
  • Violation Potential: By restricting up to half of a public space for exclusive dining or seating areas, the proposed rule could severely limit the available room for community-based recreational activities. People with disabilities who rely on public spaces for recreation might find fewer accessible options, especially if the spaces they depend on are now privatized or used for commercial purposes, violating the ADA’s intent to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals to participate in public life.
  6. Failure to Provide Equal Alternatives
  • ADA Requirement: The ADA requires that alternative accessible routes or accommodations be provided when public spaces are altered or restricted in a way that limits access.
  • Violation Potential: If exclusive seating areas reduce the amount of available space for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, the amended rule does not specify whether adequate alternative routes will be provided. If alternative routes are not clearly marked or are difficult to access, this could violate the ADA, as people with disabilities would have no choice but to navigate spaces that are difficult or impossible to use.
  Summary of ADA Violations:
  • Obstruction of accessible pathways and drop-off zones.
  • Exclusion from public spaces due to exclusive, commercial seating.
  • Inadequate provision of accessible routes for people with disabilities.
  • Failure to provide adequate alternatives when public spaces are privatized or reduced.
  The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating the ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 5:30am

• Rachel Knopf

  This is giving public space to private entities. I do not support this. The space should be shared. Bicyclists and pedestrians should be able to enjoy closed streets / plazas as well as people eating outside. We don’t have enough parks and public plazas as it is. People will respond with anger and the sentiment that this feels like Republicans giving public goods to rich private corporations. Bad look, City Council.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 11:54am

• Steven Rose

  I absolutely disagree with this proposal.

  Our Open Streets is a community need and public service funded by tax payer moneys.

  The argument that this encroachment by private organizations is needed to cover certain organizing and admin costs is a bad faith argument, betraying the original purpose of our efforts to create a new PUBLIC space.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 12:12pm

• Maria Hoffman

  Unbelievable that this is even being considered. This voter does not support any swaths of our public space to be made exclusive for any private entities.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 12:24pm

• Kathy Farren

  I live on an area that is all residential. That is an open street area. How will this work in our area? We don’t allow people to sell stuff in our parks now you want to set up vendors on the closed/open streets. Missy if our plazas are by schools. Why would you want something like this across or in front of a school. Thought open streets was for recreation😡

  Comment added March 27, 2025 4:37pm

• Elizabeth Denys

  I support this rule change. Allowing restaurants and other establishments to use some of an open street or public plaza helps activate the streets. That activation makes them more inviting for all, including for non-commercial activity. It feels safer and invitational to me to use the open street or plaza, whether or not I’m patronizing one of these businesses to use it, when more people are around.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 9:06pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  The proposed rule changes to New York City’s pedestrian plaza and open streets programs will violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in several ways, particularly concerning equal access for individuals with disabilities. The combination of reducing available public space, increasing commercial activity, and potentially blocking essential access routes could result in significant barriers for people with disabilities, violating ADA’s mandate for equal access to public spaces and services.

  Comment added March 27, 2025 11:38pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  I’m beyond frustrated and enraged that such measures would be considered. Keep public spaces for the public. A public agency funded by taxpayers should never be able to give public space away to private concessionaires; that’s corruption! A ruling like this is a detriment to the community, especially our seniors and disabled. I strongly oppose the proposed rules.

  Comment added March 28, 2025 7:41pm

• Geoffrey Thomas

  I support the proposed rules change.

  Temporarily allowing a small portion of a street to be used as e.g. a seating area for a restaurant is not at all in conflict with the idea that the street is a public space for public benefit. If, say, a church rents out space for a community event or a wedding with an RSVP list, and the revenue goes to the upkeep of the church, nobody would say this conflicts with the mission of the church to be open to all to serve the public. It’s clear that this is a temporary, limited use and it in fact supports the mission to make sure the church has an operating budget. This rule works the same way. I appreciate the requirement that revenue must go towards upkeep of the open street or pedestrian plaza.

  The proposed rules limit the space used in this manner to at most one-third or potentially one-half of the available space on the open street (subject to DOT rules, i.e. quite possibly much less). Most of the streets near where I live have at least half of their space, often two-thirds (on one-way streets), as parking spaces, where once someone parks, that space is now for the exclusive use of that driver until they move their car – a common frustration for anyone trying to find parking. We all understand this is a normal part of actually making use of the street. I do not see why these rules are any different. If the streets were fully rented out so that one could not enter or traverse without being a paying customer, I would of course oppose this rule. But that is not what is being proposed.

  I look forward to this rule being implemented in open streets and pedestrian plazas near me!

  Comment added April 2, 2025 6:48pm

• PRIVATIZE OUR PUBLIC SPACE AT YOUR PERIL

  NO to seizing public space for elite selective exclusive use by a co-opted DOT continuing to take more and more ‘turf’ (to use gangster nomenclature!) for Lobbyists funded by those who buy and own the narrative.

  It brings to mind the enclosure acts in the 18th and 19th centuries in England, in which fields that were considered common property were privatized by the wealthy. And that reminds me of this bit of verse by ANONYMOUS:

  The law locks up the man or woman
  Who steals the goose from off the common
  But leaves the greater villain loose
  Who steals the common from off the goose.

  The law demands that we atone
  When we take things we do not own
  But leaves the lords and ladies fine
  Who take things that are yours and mine.

  The poor and wretched don’t escape
  If they conspire the law to break;
  This must be so but they endure
  Those who conspire to make the law.

  The law locks up the man or woman
  Who steals the goose from off the common
  And geese will still a common lack
  Till they go and steal it back
  — Anonymous, “The Goose and the Common”

  Comment added April 2, 2025 8:04pm

• La Sa

  No! A million times NO! New York City has too few public streets and plazas and those need to remain public!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:22am

• Sharon F Katz

  Nope. Streets must by law be open to all and handicap accessible. We are witnessing enough land grab by the 1% in this City.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:45am

• Judi Polson

  NO to privatizing even portions of “Open Streets”. It’s in the name: “open”. New York City streets are not, and should not ever be, for anyone’s “exclusive use”. They are public spaces, built and maintained by public funds, and the public must be able to use *what *they* have paid for* at any time.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 10:25am

• Susan Rose

  I never thought I’d live to see the day when the city would to this degree barter away the public realm to private corporations in order to profiteer at the expense of the tax-paying citizens of New York. The DOT instead of filling potholes and repairing streets to keep the public safe, as well as protect that public from the reckless, unregulated e-bike riders they promote on behalf of delivery and bike share companies has instead become a broker for private enterprise and their lobbyists. The question is “who benefits?” This is just one more example of the conflict of interest of this “government” agency. Increasingly they seem too enjoy policies to shut the public out!
  This is a terrible idea that I believe sits at the core of why pedestrian plazas were created in the first place. The long game was to privatize them removing from the public the very streets beneath their feet. If this is to be the future then why pay the incredibly high taxes New Yorkers pay? We should demand a reduction in our property taxes as our streets, our parks, our sidewalks are sold to the highest bidder. And in fact it has already been discussed.
  That’s one of the reasons why we need a new Mayor and Administration in the upcoming election. The DOT needs to stop working for private interests
  over the citizens of NY.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 11:23am

• Born in NYC

  NO, NOBODY WANTS PEDESTIAN PLAZAS, PRIVITIZED PUBLIC STREETS, OR OPEN STREETS. GOT TO A PARK. LET THE PEOPLE OF NYC VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, GUARANTEED THE MAJORITY WANTS NONE OF THIS.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 11:52am

• DCC

  As a long-time NYC resident, I am strongly opposed to the privatization of our streets. I’m appalled that such a rule would even be proposed. This is a violation of the ADA and the NYC/NYS human rights.
  laws. No, no, and no, again.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 4:50pm

• Mary Taylor

  How extraordinary this is. The citizens’ public space has been usurped since open restaurants came about and now this irresponsible agency wants an amendment to establish the absolute take over by private business. Completely undemocratic.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 5:01pm

• Robert Lee

  No

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:07pm

• Nicole Parcher

  I am opposed to this amendment. Public spaces should not be restricted to only those patronizing a private establishment. These spaces should be open to all. New York taxpayers do not support privatizing public space!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:08pm

• Shannon Phipps

  No to privatizing public property. BIDS, coalitions, lobbyist adjacent groups, non-profits and DOT partners have not demonstrated an ability to respect or observe residential quality of life issues. They have laughed at and harassed our disabled neighbors. NO MORE PRIVATIZING PUBLIC SPACE – PEOPLE OVER PROFITS. This will create more environmental pollution and waste in addition to an increase in quality of life issues that arise from having entertainment and crowds of people outside ones windows.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:23pm

• Danny

  As a NYC resident and public land owner I join the voices of my fellow public land owners and reject this proposal. DOT is a public servant, you work for the public, not private entities. We refuse to give our public land to self-dealing interests and for-profit businesses for revenue generation.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 8:59pm

• Dylan Yen

  Absolutely not. NYC DOT’s proposal to amend Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York—allowing plaza and Open Streets partners to designate areas of public space for *exclusive* use by private entities—is betrayal of the very principles of public property.

  Pedestrian Plazas and *publically owned streets* are meant to be shared—places where anyone, regardless of background or means, can sit, gather, or simply pass through without being excluded. Allowing sections of these public spaces to become “pay-to-play” zones fundamentally undermines their purpose and violates the public trust.

  This act of stealth privitization enables corporate actors and thier lobbyists to fence off seats, tables, or prime street frontage for paying customers only, while pushing out the people these spaces were meant to serve––the general public. New York’s public streets and plazas must not become the food courts for the highest bidder. Allowing privatized “exclusive use” zones creates a two-tiered system—where the rich dine behind velvet ropes and snap instagram pictures while others are shuffled to the margins or denied access entirely to a public street. This will exacerbate existing inequities in public space access and contribute to further gentrification of public infrastructure.

  Additionally, this amendment relies on DOT “review and approval”. However, recent DOT “pilots” (i.e. Canal St, East Village) show that once privatization is permitted, oversight is lax, and enforcement is inconsistent at best. How will DOT ensure that these exclusive zones are clearly marked and not allowed to monopolize high-traffic areas? How will it ensure that public access is not denied or blocked? The risks are too high, and the DOT’s track record too spotty, to rely on vague promises of oversight while serving thier lobbyist masters.

  If allowed, this amendment sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s a few tables in a plaza. Tomorrow, it’s entire sections of streets, parks, or sidewalks being claimed for exclusive commercial use. This incremental privatization threatens to transform New York’s public spaces––owned by the public––into private enclaves reserved for the exclusive use of the rich.

  The streets belong to everyone, not just those who can afford a latte or a reservation. This proposal is an affront to the spirit of equity that our public spaces are supposed to embody. DOT must withdraw this proposed amendment of subletting public streets for the “exclusive” use for anyone.

  The city deserves better, and I will not stand for it.

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:07pm

• Chris Dorado

  Please do not fill open streets with more business, as the amount of noise and disturbance to local traffic is already too much to bear. Thank you

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:13pm

• Ramona Rivera

  This is out of hand. Enough is Enough already. Noooooo

  Comment added April 3, 2025 9:34pm

• John Bigolski

  This is a violation of the public commons to give private for-profit entities access to public streets in such a brazenly unchecked way. Do not turn NYC into a resort hybrid of Disney World/Las Vegas/Dubai. New Yorkers that live, work, and raise families here DO NOT WANT THIS! NO!

  Comment added April 3, 2025 10:28pm

• Chris

  I am against any proposal to privatize any part of open streets to subconcessionaries for their exclusive use and monetary benefit.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 11:19am

• Nancy Barsamian

  This cannot be allowed to move forward as it is
  yet another means by which our streets will be
  made into tourist venues.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 2:24pm

• Kellan Stanner

  I support this rule and expect that, as with everything else, citizens will be able to provide feedback to DOT implementation vis-a-vis their elected officials. Doing so will allow concessionaires to activate city streets, support the local economy, and add to tax revenues, in something closer to the invigorated streets we saw during COVID. It is unfortunate this has become the latest NIMBY obsession.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 8:05pm

• PLC

  Overall, plaza concessions are a welcome amenity that make NYC open spaces active and welcoming. Outdoor dining, which the City sadly squashed along curbs, was popular and enjoyable. I hope that DOT will focus this rule on truly local, small business concessions. You should also consider adding non-reserved seating wherever you reserve for businesses. And I implore you to explore building public restroom amenities to large plazas and open spaces as well.

  Comment added April 4, 2025 10:17pm

• Nancy Preston

  NO!

  Comment added April 5, 2025 11:00am

• Matthew Berman

  This program stinks and should be ended. The “open streets” are dirty, noisey nuisances that impede traffic flow, destroy businesses and jobs, and limit everyone’s ingress and egress via throughstreets, which is especially disruptive to the disabled and to those who are dependent upon emergency vehicles.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 3:35pm

• Deborah M. Farley

  Why do people object to this?
  You obstruct the accessibility to pathways and drop-off zones.
  You actually exclude people from public spaces while granting exclusive access and special considerations to commercial interests
  Failure to provide/make adequate provisions for accessibility to routes for people with disabilities and first responders.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 3:56pm

• Lydia korchow

  DOT should not allow special interests to close streets and be at the will of lobbyists! I am a senior citizen who was almost hit twice recently by an e-bike while carefully walking on Berry St in Brooklyn! The open street concept is dangerous and violates ADA!

  Comment added April 5, 2025 4:33pm

• Esther Blount

  Private business non-profits or any one should never be allowed to closed down streets. When streets are closed traffic studies should be done. If this is allowed any politically connected entity would have more of a say then the community.

  Comment added April 5, 2025 6:53pm

• Bill Bruno

  I’ll start by saying that I absolutely support Open Streets. We need more of them. Our 34th Avenue Open Street (aka “Paseo Park”) is one of the crown jewels of the program. I am also a huge admirer of the work that is being done on Broadway and would like to see the entire length of it from Columbus Circle to Union Square to be bikes/pedestrians only.

  However much I want to encourage concessionaires (local eateries, etc) and street vendors to have space to set up as part of a balanced allocation of space, I am opposed to the idea of allowing them to fence off space that would be exclusive to their customers. This cuts against the idea of open streets being a truly public space and raises the real possibility of private actors buying off space intended for pedestrians.

  This is different from allowing roadside restaurants, which are also paid for. The curb lane is dominated by free storage for personal vehicles, so it’s already being permitted to be privatized by the user-of-the-moment, and there is no injustice in some of the curb lane being shared with uses other than car storage.

  There is, however, not such an abundance of pedestrian-friendly space that we can allow a similar scheme with open streets/plazas.

  Comment added April 6, 2025 10:27am

• Joe Essig

  Are you kidding? FOR SHAME! UNACCEPTABLE!
  Turning public streets into private space for concession customers? That’s not even done in our public PARKS.
  The history is disturbing coming right out of previous mayoral emergency powers misused during covid, including shameless rhetoric of “giving the streets back to the people”. The interests of original residents of Berry St – for example- against the rights of whom exactly? During the last open street celebration which closed Berry St adjacent school yards and parks with ample space and restrooms lay empty!
  Emily Gallagher and Transportation Alternatives are railroading seniors and the disabled out of their rights to: street cleaning, emergency services of all kinds including access-a-ride and opposing Priscilla’s Law that attempts to reduce rather obvious danger of ebikes roaming the streets unlicensed and uninsured and unregulated by NYPD. Their sneaky underhanded rhetoric is fooling no one. They say traffic stops form ebikes would be used to harass minorities. Give me a break!!!
  Signed voting, taxpaying, property owner b. 1952

  Comment added April 6, 2025 10:53am

• elizabeth crawford

  With its defiance of ADA law and ageist and ableist practices, the DOT is attempting to take more public sidewalks and streets for designated exclusive seating; this is currently underway. We need to say NO! I am writing to express my support for the other communities facing this disastrous, dangerous, disruptive, and illegal takeover of our streets. Please stop this takeover immediately. I am against further structures and outside businesses in my neighborhood on any streets. And certainly not closing streets or redesigning new access areas that prevent reidents from safe deleivery of goods or repair persons or timely exit in emergencies.and add more crowded sidewalks .
  Elizabeth Crawford

  Comment added April 6, 2025 7:23pm

• Mary Caulfield Davis

  Taking streets away from the public so private enterprise can profit is a dreadful idea that should be beneath anyone in your organization. People have very few places to congregate anyway, giving it over to profit makers is a betrayal of disgusting proportions.

  Comment added April 6, 2025 9:43pm

• Ryan

  We do not support this proposal — DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets partners, through their concession agreements with DOT, to permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for exclusive use by their patrons

  Public space is for public.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 8:25am

• Jee Park

  I think it’s awful that those private businesses have used public space for their own benefit. I would rather they pay

  Comment added April 7, 2025 9:45am

• Inwood Owners Coalition

  Our group represents over 500 Inwood residents. We have concerns over this rule change that must be addressed in order for it to have the positive impact that the city intends.

  Our neighborhood is home to Quisqueya Plaza, one of the very few DOT pedestrian plazas in the entire city that is within a residential area. The overlay commercial zoning near the plaza is limited to ground floor low-intensity retail only (i.e. stores, bars and restaurants); thousands of apartments are above the plaza and nearby.

  For many years our neighborhood dealt with the massive negative impacts of La Marina, a city concession on public parkland that despite having a very clear concession agreement managed to grossly violate it year after year with outrageous illegal acts. La Marina was only a few blocks west of Quisqueya Plaza. The fact that the new private dining use relies on the concession process therefore does not give us much comfort.

  The commercial zoning along Quisqueya Plaza has also been regularly ignored over the years, with many Use Group 6 restaurants turning into Use Group 12 nightclubs on weekends. Again the city has ignored its own rules, allowing a nightlife use to occur in a residential area and causing enormous tension with residents.

  The plaza itself has also been a problem with dozens of permitted events using intolerably loud sound systems that pounded nearby apartments with music practically every weekend and often on weeknights. Local NYPD do not bother to enforce sound permits or the noise code, again causing tensions with residents.

  For this rule change to have a positive impact it must be understood what hours and rules will apply to concessionaires and subconcessionaires and how those agreements will be enforced. It cannot be an act of legalizing a nuisance that makes life miserable for residents because of noise and disturbance. Hours must be limited, no amplified music should be allowed and violations for exceeding square footage or any other issue should be enforceable without interference from the politically-connected plaza operator or local politicians.

  Inwood has long been a neighborhood where the city’s rules are often ignored. The development of new rules such as this can be helpful, but only if the rules make sense for everyone and are actually enforced.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:02am

• Howard Borst

  This area has become a problem for the neighborhood residents. Extremely loud music and PA systems at all hours have destroyed the peace of the neighborhood. Sometimes events as early as 8am and sometimes as late as midnight. So loud that it makes it difficult to feel comfortable in our own apartments. Even with our windows closed. Also extra traffic with cars blowing horns and also playing loud music and motor cycles reving their engines are a common occurrence and the police do nothing. This is a family oriented neighborhood with elderly people and families with small children. This plaza is ruining the peace and quiet of this community. It should be turned back into parking spaces. If people need these types of events in our neighborhood The western end of dyckman street down by the Hudson River is the perfect spot for these loud affairs far from the homes of the residents.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:09am

• Melissa S.

  Hello!
  I am a resident of inwood and oppose the proposal to allow concession use of Quisqueya Plaza. There are very few open spaces where one can go sit to just exist without having to purchase anything or worry about being run over by bikes or mopeds.
  The restaurants and bars have plenty of seating indoors and even on our sidewalks! They don’t need the extra space of our plaza as well.
  Please keep Quisqueya plaza available as an open street for the neighborhood to enjoy. We love the events and food strolls that are able to take place here. These would be hindered if papasitos or mamasushi had tables in the area.

  Thank you for your time and attention.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:17am

• Eugene Murphy

  I don’t believe public plazas should be able to be leased to private businesses. Already, too many businesses in my neighborhood, Inwood, block off massive parts of public plazas (especially Quisqueya plaza) with massive metal police barricades, despite this currently being illegal. If it gets legalized, this will only encourage them to go further and will take away any recourse of the community to use this public space at all. Public plazas should be able to be used in their entirety for free, anything else robs the public of the right to public space without paying, which would be a travesty. Keep public space usable by all! Don’t restrict our freedom of movement in the public realm. Thank you

  Comment added April 7, 2025 12:01pm

• Darren Lucas

  The Inwood plaza is a disaster zone. The business owners DO NOT CARE about the well being of the neighborhood. The are hooked up with Yandis. Its all drug money FYI. they are all criminals

  Comment added April 7, 2025 1:51pm

• Ian Valerio

  We do not agree to the privatization of public spaces. They come at the cost of displacing the citizens for whom these spaces are designated. Further privatization does not supply the necessary bathrooms, parking spaces and proper infrastructure to support their customer base and the free public. Simply put neighborhoods such not me further inconvenienced as their is no real net financial benefit to this failed experiment. See the Chinatown situation circle summer 2024.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 4:15pm

• Ben Epstein

  This is an absurdly blatant move to steal free public space for private companies and reeks of corruption by anyone at the DOT who would put this forward. This plan does not serve the general public, but instead only benefits private businesses. More importantly, it is not at all the intent of these spaces, or public resources in general. It is antithetical to the description of these spaces on the DOT website:
  “Pedestrian plazas are reclaimed streets transformed into vibrant, social public spaces for all to enjoy. Plazas enhance safety, walkability, and access to public transit while supporting community.”

  Comment added April 7, 2025 4:17pm

• NYC Born & Raised

  Re Rules Title 34: Giving PUBLIC space on Plazas and Open Streets to private concerns is a terrible idea. Open Streets that have “hosted” vendors see a drop in quality of life. Ask the residents of Tompkins/ Lewis Ave in Bed Stuy Brooklyn who had to contend with visitors not just littering but even defecating and urinating in front of their homes. Events bring noise and trash. A DJ set up his professional equipment on Fowler Square in Fort Greene BK every Sunday for years in the warm weather. (I hope he won’t return now.)The noise levels were deafening and could be heard for blocks. People live here. Babies nap. Children do homework. Many now work remotely not just Monday – Friday. Many elderly neighbors are virtually trapped in their apartments and are subjected to relentless noise. This is a land-grab putting business over residents. Public space is for the public.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 7:00pm

• Erica Medrano

  This would be great if the parks department was in charge of this area, the police barricades were completely removed (what an eye sore), and have open seating benches/picnic tables for the public regardless of where they get their food from.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 7:50pm

• Ramona M Candy

  Is DOT actually proposing privatization/apartheid/gated public streets in NYC? What ever happened to their “public” plazas? Some of us never wanted the (so-called) workshopped-named (who did you think you were kidding?) “open streets.” We are New Yorkers and very accustomed to walking on sideWALKS all these donkey years – and at least for me, my whole life. Now, to add insult to injury, DOT is proposing that private businesses may set up customer-only seating on OUR streets??? Are you all kidding???? No, seriously? Are you kidding?? Even some of the advocates of so-called open streets are not happy (boo hoo). I live by a (so-called) open street in the vicinity of one beautiful, large park and several open sidewalk areas yet I have to bother with a (so-called) open street 8 blocks long. The closure causes ridiculous traffic on local streets. Who is DOT trying to fool? Again, we are New Yorkers. We are not stupid! We want our streets back!!!! Next thing you know walls will be built around these streets to simulate and create elitist gated communities and we will move just that much closer to apartheid in New York City. No money. No access!! New York City — going to the rats and the rich!

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:41pm

• R Candy

  Is DOT actually proposing privatization/apartheid/gated public streets in NYC? What ever happened to public plazas? Some of us never wanted the (so-called) workshopped-named (who did you think you were kidding?) “open streets.” We were so accustomed to walking on sideWALKS all these donkey years – at least for me, my whole life. Now, to add insult to injury, DOT is proposing that private businesses may set up customer-only seating on OUR streets??? Are you all kidding???? No, seriously? Are you kidding?? Even some of the advocates of so-called open streets are not happy (boo hoo). I live by a (so-called) open street in the vicinity of one beautiful, large park and several open sidewalk areas yet I have to bother with a (so-called) open street 8 blocks long. Who is DOT trying to fool? We are New Yorkers. We are not stupid! We demand our streets back!!!! Next thing you know walls will be built around these streets to simulate and create elitist gated communities and we will move just that much closer to apartheid in New York City. No money. No access!! New York City — going to the rats and the rich!

  Comment added April 7, 2025 10:41pm

• A. Gerver

  Overall, I am in favor of Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets welcoming sub-concessions. I am glad that they will be limited to 33% of the available area in most cases. That’s a good rule.

  Why am I in favor? Because outdoor dining is an important part of city living throughout the world and it should be more available year-round here in NYC. I hope that that DOT focuses this rule on truly local, small business concessions, rather than large chains.

  You should also: (1) consider adding non-reserved seating wherever you reserve seats and tables for businesses (there aren’t enough places for people to sit down and rest in this city); (2) make sure that containerized trash receptacles are in place and used to reduce littering and rat feasts; (3) PLEASE explore adding public restroom amenities to large plazas and open spaces as well; and (4) use some of the money raised to plant more trees (in large pots) and other greenery in the Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets. Some of them are in areas mostly devoid of trees and it would be nice to get more greenery around, both to cool down the concrete jungle and to clean the air a bit.

  I also expect, of course, that ADA rules and access for all will be maintained when sub-concessions set up their areas.

  Comment added April 7, 2025 11:40pm

• JEANETTE E BECK-HARRELL

  This is another poorly thought out idea DOT has decided for the “public” NO! to giving already scarce public spaces to private business. Most of these so-called open spaces are in densely populated communities who never asked for our roadways to be shut down or turned into rodent infested, noise polluted, shanty towns. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
  This voter will remember.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 12:53am

• Ivy

  This is outrageous.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 6:52am

• Anna Pakman

  As someone disabled and high risk for COVID, I can only eat at restaurants outdoors. In addition, so many interiors are severely lacking in wheelchair accessibility so outdoor dining is more accessible all around. I’m in favor of anything that makes it easier for restaurants to offer outdoor dining as I need it as an ADA accommodation.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 8:55am

• Deborah Farley

  This program should be ended. The open streets program results in dirty, littered streets, noisy crowds and street vendors that impede traffic flow and delay first responders. The program negatively impacts local businesses and their employees. The barriers limit or eliminate
  accessibility for the handicapped and seniors which is especially disruptive creating hardships.

  Comment added April 8, 2025 10:22pm

• Flatiron NoMad Partnership

  Since our founding in 2006, the Flatiron NoMad Partnership has helped transform our bustling and diverse neighborhood into vibrant and shared places for residents, commuters, visitors, and an ever-growing business network. Part of our daily work includes the management, maintenance, and programming of not only the Flatiron Public Plazas at the iconic intersection of 23rd Street, Broadway, and Fifth Avenue since their inception in 2008, but also public spaces and seating areas from 19th Street to 31st Street in support of the City’s Broadway Vision initiative.

  The Flatiron NoMad Partnership supports the NYC Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession customers. Concession revenue assists the Partnership in recouping a small portion the ongoing expenses of maintaining plazas and seating areas to a high standard which includes daily deployment of public tables, chairs, and shade umbrellas along with delivering seasonal cultural programming and curating public art installations.

  The proposed rule changes also support local businesses through potential concession opportunities. All monies raised through concessions are reinvested back into the plazas to help ensure that all who visit, live, or work in Flatiron and NoMad can enjoy clean, safe, engaging, and inviting public spaces.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added April 9, 2025 4:48pm

• Ron Wisniski

  More public space given up for private profit? Hell no! I’d like to know who is getting paid off to continue selling our public space to the highest bidder. DOT HAS WRECKED OUR STREETS. ITS A CHAOTIC NIGHTMARE. NO NO NO MORE!

  Comment added April 11, 2025 12:39pm

• DOT CREDIBILITY IS UNDER A MICROSCOPE

  Interesting… in reviewing the number of comments submitted-it seems that an overwhelming number has expressed outrage by the DOT’s scheme to amend Title 34 and seize publicly owned space to give for ‘exclusive’ use to subconcessionaires. It seems by contrast, the handful -strikingly few-who’re ‘all for it’- are either BIDs (aka businesses looking for profit-natch) or paid Lobbyists whose job it is to sanctimoniously rip off the public for their bosses-while telling us it’s perfectly fine for us to be screwed on the blocks where we live, pay rent, pay taxes and have been deprived of any pretext of quality of life.

  Now the DOT-whose credibility under this Commissioner- has long been under intense suspicion and dismay, will be tested further as the results of this public “Rules” weigh-in are decided after this hearing.

  Your credibility and deference to the majority who pay your salary, after all…are on the line and now under an intense microscope. We are watching.

  Comment added April 12, 2025 3:43pm

• Colin Adams

  Strongly disagree with this modification. We should avoid this privatization creep on public spaces as much as possible. There is an overwhelming lack of public seating in our city, and this change can only stand to further set us back in that respect.

  Comment added April 12, 2025 9:28pm

• Lisa O

  First – An absolute No to this proposal.
  An absolute No to private or “non-profit” interests or entities or organizations having any designated use or control of streets and/or space.

  Second – This proposal is truly unbelievable. Sounds like something that the GOP would seek!

  Third- Noise and trash are the biggest complaints from NYC residents.
  It is inconceivable that the City would seek to make things worse for residents!
  Residents who live by outdoor restaurants and open streets already have problems not being able to sleep at night (amplified music, noise etc) and dealing with trash and rats which result from outdoor dining and street events.
  As for noise, the NYPD which is already overburdened with these QOL responsibilities, would have no ability to address private entities who would have the “control.”

  Fourth – Open Streets and pedestrian areas are hurting local stores that pay rent and employ people and contribute to the neighborhood. Open Streets means more street vendors, more competition for local stores.

  Fifth – No one knows about this proposal. I only heard from a neighborhood acquaintance. The City must be aware that only people connected to community boards etc would be aware. And how about elderly who likely would not find it easy to access technology to comment?
  It is unacceptable for the City to be doing business this way.
  Again – sounds like GOP methodology.

  Comment added April 13, 2025 3:14pm

• Matthew Kebbekus

  I’d like to register my support for the proposed rule. Open Streets is a program that has proven vital to the cultural well-being of the city, helping to make streets more accessible to pedestrians consistent with the great global cities with which it competes. This rule helps to assert the rights of people over car traffic, which has the effect of making the city safer for pedestrians, less polluted by traffic and exhaust, and more accessible to people who don’t have the benefit of owning or affording private vehicle transport. Please vote in favor of the proposed rule!

  Comment added April 16, 2025 4:06pm

• Pete Sarat

  This seems fine. Many objections bear no relation whatsoever to the actual language of the proposal. The real theft of public space is the one carried out every day by NYC’s large minority of entitled private vehicle owners.

  I also think it’s obvious that some “anti” commenters are using generative AI to generate giant blocks of text. Sad that this is the world we live in now.

  Comment added April 16, 2025 10:16pm

• emily johnson

  As the parent of a young child, Open Streets presents an opportunity for me to visit local restaurants without worrying whether my kid will sit still or bother other patrons. I also am far more likely to travel to another neighborhood for an Open Street than I would if the street were open to traffic. Open Streets is a joy. Please support this rule. Thank you.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 4:43am

• Pedro Rodriguez

  Given how open streets are still being ran by volunteers, it makes sense to give other entities an incentive to active them.

  I will say though that we should be careful up not create a situation where having an open street becomes yet another Clearview Fairs situation. Where local orgs use said fairs as a way to fundraiser money at the expense of local businesses.

  This rule should simply ensure that Open Street businesses and local orgs can use the space for themselves.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:06am

• Daniel B Miller

  This seems pretty reasonable to me. Thanks for your hard work on this rule.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:23am

• Alana

  This is not the best idea for this. The idea is for it to be open for all to enjoy. If allowed to start privatizing sections, this goes against what the open street stands for. It is a place, a third place, where you do not have to spend money to be there and can jive with your community. To allow a business to take up some of that space and require purchases to sit in their section doesn’t make sense.

  If they want to set up chairs outside of thier businesses that is fine but it can’t be both part of the open street space for the public and exclusionary to folks who haven’t bought anything from the business. They can only be allowed to be exclusionary with the spaces, both indoor and outdoor, that they own or rent.

  Spaces that are publicly owned and set aside for the pedestrian plaza and open street must not be allowed to be privatized at all.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:50am

• Pedro Suarez

  My name is Pedro Suarez and I am Executive Director of the Third Avenue Business Improvement District in the South Bronx, since 1988, we have worked to improve and promote “The HUB” – the oldest and busiest commercial district in the Bronx.

  Third Avenue BID supports the Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession kiosk customers. As an organization that helps maintain, program, and support Roberto Clemente Plaza, we understand that kiosks are crucial components in curating vibrant public spaces. In addition to providing services to visitors of a space, these concessions are one way for the BID to help recoup the expense of maintaining these plazas for the enjoyment of the public at large.

  Currently, however, operating a concession can be a huge risk for businesses. Allowing these establishments to operate small areas tailored specifically towards their clientele is an investment not just in individual businesses, but for public space at large as it enhances the feasibility of such an endeavor and allows for visitors to enjoy a tailored experience while balancing the right of the public to enjoy the remainder of the pedestrian plaza. Additionally, Roberto Clemente Plaza and the local community would heavily benefit from allowing small businesses to use the space productively, as we struggle with severe quality of life concerns in the plaza.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:09am

• Peter W. Beadle

  I am a bit hesitant to support this. I get the justification behind it – encourage outdoor dining options and perhaps through that make public spaces more alive and used adding positively to the streetscape and community – but I think a lot of the negative comments I am seeing to this proposal raise valid concerns. One specific weakness in this proposed rule is that it does not specify that the seating is to be provided by the vendor. Under this rule a vendor can set up next to several existing benches or the seating (little round tables and folding chairs) we see on some Open Streets and claim that seating for their business, depriving the public of what had previously been public seating. I do not think that is right. Any exclusive seating should be in addition to what is already present and available to the public and that cost should be borne by the vendors.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:19am

• Taina Prado

  My name is Taina Prado. I am the Chief of Staff for the Alliance for Downtown New York, the business improvement district organization for the area south of the Brooklyn Bridge to the Battery.

  The Alliance supports the NYC Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive seating of concession kiosk customers. As the non-profit organization that manages the Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District, we maintain and beautify several public spaces and understand the value these spaces can have in creating a vibrant streetscape for those who live, work, and visit.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:36am

• Kevin Burns

  I support this! Anything to make our city more friendly and accessible for the people!
  This will make the streets more attractive for consumers and the businesses will have to clean up setup by the end of day.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 10:06am

• M N

  I support the intent, but not the wording, of the rule. DOT has failed thus far to secure sufficient funding for seating on open streets. This ruling is an adequate remedy for that issue for now – it will provide open street partners with the flexibility to work with businesses to secure seating that otherwise would not have been fundable.

  However, DOT needs to commit wholeheartedly to the due diligence needed to ensure that permit requests are rejected in situations where seating will be limited, not improved. And to bolster this commitment, the rule’s wording should be amended to include a requirement for permitting that the seating must either be newly established for private use or additional public seating must be provided elsewhere in the area to compensate for the reduction of previously public seating.

  Privately owned pedestrian plazas should also be excluded from this ruling. Establishments maintaining public plazas accept the costs associated with them because they are afforded the privilege of taking up public space via zoning bonuses and increased property value & branding/goodwill. Any necessary additional benefits should be negotiated without reducing public space.

  If DOT mitigates risks to public space with some additive amendments, this ruling would be really worthy of rallying support behind it.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 1:11pm

• Jay Cullen

  I’m glad to see the City of New York considering new ways to use our streets. Open Streets has been a massive success in my Brooklyn neighborhood and so I support this expansion. For our neighborhood, it’s been a blessing to have safe spaces to walk our dogs, strollers, and children. We used to have some unlicensed vendors who would sell things during the farmer’s market, which was lovely, but I understand why the City could not continue to allow it. But it sounds like this would be a way to make the practice legal, which sounds great to me.

  I’m looking forward to living a more human-centered community as I raise my family here.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 3:55pm

• Liz Krueger

  My name is Liz Krueger and I represent the 28th State Senate District, which includes the Upper East Side, Midtown, and Roosevelt Island neighborhoods in Manhattan. Parts of my district contain some of the lowest ratio of public park space per capita in Manhattan, and there is no question that many of my constituents suffer from a serious deficiency of open space, a problem that many New Yorkers face across the five boroughs.

  I am writing to express my concern regarding NYC DOT’s proposal to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York. This rule change would allow a significant portion of our Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, between 33% and 50% of the total square footage of a specific location, to be leased to private subconcessionaires for exclusive use as seating for their customers. I am opposed to the privatization of New York City’s extremely limited public spaces, and believe that this would allow businesses to take a disproportionate amount of land for their own use at the expense of the public.

  If this proposal were amended so that seating is not reserved for the exclusive use of patrons of private businesses, and is open to non-customers as well, as is the case with Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS), perhaps a case could be made for such a rule change. However, handing over a disproportionate share of our Open Streets and pedestrian plazas for exclusive use by the patrons of a private business is an infringement on the ability of all New Yorkers to fully enjoy their public spaces.

  It is my understanding that the money raised through this privatization would go into the maintenance of the pedestrian plaza or Open Street where it is located. While I appreciate that funding for Open Streets was paid for with federal pandemic aid which will soon run out, I believe that instead of rushing to privatize it, NYC DOT should look for sustainable, public revenue sources to fund this program. DOT Chief of Staff Ryan Lynch said in a recent news interview that the agency could run Open Streets with $5 million a year. This seems like a realistic amount of money to be negotiated for out of New York City’s almost $112 billion budget.

  I should also add that the requirement to reinvest the funds raised back into pedestrian plazas and Open Streets is not explicitly included in the language of the proposed rule change, which leads me to believe that it will be difficult to enforce and could potentially result a worst-case scenario where we get lower than expected revenue, while sacrificing significant public space. This could lead to a long-term lack of proper maintenance and a degradation of pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, which would have a deleterious effect on their usage and ultimately harm both the public and businesses which operate within their boundaries.

  I again want to reiterate my opposition to this ill-considered privatization scheme and urge NYC DOT to instead work with the Mayor and the City Council to find a stable, long-term alternative funding source for Open Streets and pedestrian plazas.

  Comment attachment
  Senator-Krueger-comment-re-proposed-DOT-rule-change-for-pedestrian-plazas-and-Open-Streets.pdf

  Comment added April 17, 2025 4:40pm

• Kevin Qiu

  To everyone who is opposed to this proposal because of the “privatization” of public space. I ask you, will you let streets become pedestrianized 24/7, aka given over to the public realm if there is a corresponding ban on commercial activity on the street? If so, I would like to hear your proposal for which streets you recommend, distributed equally among all neighborhoods. I don’t suppose Neighbors on Canal or any of the other astroturfing groups would agree to pedestrianization without commercial activity. They simply oppose pedestrianization in any form, with or without commercial activity. The fact that restaurants and bars use them is an easy attack but they have no problem letting “private” vehicles use these streets (most of the time for free). At least I can pay 16$ for a drink to sit at a restaurant. I have no way to use the Land Rover that’s parked there 100% of time

  So I say to anyone opposed because of the privatization aspect, I’d like to see you advocate for public use of these streets (not by cars) in a non commercial way, I’m 100% with you.

  To everyone opposed because it takes away precious car space. You are wrong, a minority of people in NYC own cars, it is the most blatant privatization of private space in the history of urbanism. The majority of space being dedicated to cars is a sin we will slowly rectify. If you want to continue living in 1950 feel free to complain all you want or just leave. I hear Florida is real friendly to cars

  Comment added April 17, 2025 5:44pm

• Doug Beube

  Keep the streets open. If you want them to be more friendly, make more parks and stop squeezing the pedestrians into the streets.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 8:23pm

• Nialls Fallon

  I support the Open Streets program. As a resident and user of the Open Streets programs across the city, it has been a wonderful amenity to our neighborhoods, provided a car-free environment for pedestrians, cyclists and families, allowed for al fresco dining as many of the world’s greatest cities provide and allows for larger areas of public space for the community to gather in. Please vote in support of this new rule. I am also the Director of the Canal Street Merchants Association and can attest to how the Open Streets has improved our business district with trash cleanup, increased foot traffic and job creation. Please vote yes.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:05pm

• Mia S

  Definitely No for this proposal!
  Truly speechless that the City of NY would even consider such a thing!

  Related to “Open Streets” in general, it is absolutely unacceptable that the City has permitted “Open Streets” on bus routes, thereby forcing bus detours. It is one thing to have “Open Streets” on one block of a side street, but “Open Streets” should never ever have been permitted on an avenue.

  Should also be noted that since “Open Streets” was allowed due to Covid, there have been some days when there were parallel “Open Streets” and another event like a street fair – and so there was ZERO bus access.

  The City needs to end any “Open Streets” on a bus route/avenue.

  Public transit is supposed to be the priority.
  People need and are entitled to full regular MTA bus service.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:19pm

• Douglas McGrath

  This is outrageous. What’s next? City government turns streets and sidewalks into dirty, noisy, rat-infested dining shacks? Oh wait…! Our city is in a CODE RED crisis- overrun with greed, and thoughtlessness. SHAME on the DOT and legislators who think it’s a great idea privatizing our ever-dwindling public spaces. Follow the money. These decisions aren’t what’s best for New Yorkers, they are what’s best for those who continue to control the city with money for their own interests.

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:39pm

• Mary McGuckin

  These amendments on Open Streets are not necessary. This was forced on our neighborhoods without the majority of those included in the decision, planning and implementation. Now you want to further disrupt the lives of those who live on open streets . We already live with chaos , congestion, noise, filth, illegal venders, e-bikes, families riding on one scooter, mopeds all zooming up and down the street, running red lights, ignoring safety rules. Now you want to add more to all this craziness, Enough! Every day people are put in peril. This has to stop! It is inhuman to subject the people who live with Open Streets out side their homes, to more of ones crazy radical ideas because they think it feels good! Why don’t you take the time and really hear those who are saying, NO! Listen to us! We live with this every day! Stop the Privatization of our Streets for the Trans Alt Biker Bros.
  DOT go back to representing all transportation.
  STOP BEING PUPPETS!
  STOP THIS MADNESS!

  Comment added April 17, 2025 9:53pm

• Dm

  Love open streets love to see it

  Comment added April 17, 2025 10:52pm

• Maxine Lois DeSeta

  Public spaces maintained by NYC resident taxpayer dollars should not be used for private for-profit businesses. This included vendors, restaurants, citibikes and any corporate businesses. The Open Street program should be cancelled immediately. It closes streets and endangers our residents when emergeny vehicles, fire trucks and buses have to be rerouted.

  Comment added April 18, 2025 7:02am

• Dennis P Farley

  The “Open Streets” project is only acceptable to “Ableist” individuals that are willing to make life more difficult for the Disabled and Elderly residents that will have to make more difficult arrangements for their Doctors Visits or even shopping. People in Adult Day Care scenarios can’t be picked op or returned to their actual residences by Senior Services from Senior Centers, or even “Access a Ride” carriers because of the (really closed) “Open Streets”. Only selfish people appreciate “Open Streets” without regard nor respect of us Seniors.

  Comment added April 18, 2025 9:09am

• Proposed Rule Change Will Slow EMT/FDNY Access Even More

  Referring you to this just published article exposing the dangerous delays and statistics to timely EMT/FDNY access when everyone should and must agree that every second counts to save a life.

  To enable so-called “subconcessionaires” to privatize public pathways, and roadways with exclusive seating-to serve their own for-profit remunerative interests and then expect the DOT which has been deleterious in managing the 5 years of outdoor dining -as cited in lawsuits-to permit ANY further interference with quick rescue of all New Yorkers would be in and of itself flagrant malfeasance. Whose apartment is on fire and FDNY is diverted because of it? Whose loved one is having a heart attack and has to wait extra minutes to be taken to a hospital? Your apartment? Your loved one?

  Congregate seating on the street-overseen by a restaurant-3rd party ‘volunteer’ org-a BID (aka BUSINESS INTEREST) or the AWOL DOT are the LAST FOLKS I TRUST to worry about saving my life…how about you?

  AM NY Headline: “Critical condition: Why are NYC ambulance response times getting longer every day?”

  https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/nyc-ambulance-response-times-slow/

  “Response times for NYC’s emergency medical services increased significantly so far in 2025, according to the city’s most recent data, with various possible reasons for the delays at play.

  The average FDNY ambulance response time for life-threatening medical emergencies this year is 12.35 minutes, alarmingly up from 11.87 minutes in 2024.

  The statistics get more chilling as the data is broken down month by month. The average emergency response time was 11.93 last month, up from 11.44 in March 2024.”

  Where is the line that is drawn when bureaucratic shenanigans take second place to genuine public good concerns?

  Comment added April 18, 2025 3:32pm

• M. HARI

  Well, my first comment is yet to be posted. Too much? Too bad! This privatization of publoc space is ludicrous and a spend of taxpayer money for PRIVATE BUSINESS PROFIT! Unless the businesses are planning to cut the public in on tjese profits? Just as with the ENORMOUS OPPOSITION to cargo bikes, 2023 Fall Zoom DOT meeting, where the dangerous idea was met with overwhelming opposition, Yda is and the mucdot STILL PUSHED THEIR CORRUPT AGENDA through. They ignore public majority on MOST ISSUES, CAUSES AND CONCERNS. Why? Who is on the take? Seriously!? Enough! This page if FULL OF OPPOSITION! CANT HAPPEN, RODRIGUEZ. YOU HEAR US?!

  Comment added April 18, 2025 11:38pm

• Jeremy S

  Like many others, I am shocked that the City would seek giving use or control of public space to specific organizations or private businesses.

  I am a life-long New Yorker (Bronx and Manhattan) and definitely against this.
  There are so many reasons and problems that it would not be possible to list all. Here are some:

  Obviously public space should not be run or controlled by a private organization. It is just wrong.

  Giving an entity this use is clearly unfair. For example, giving use to one restaurant gives special benefit to that one restaurant- no other restaurant gets such a perk.

  Again using restaurants as example. Outside dining is not an “entitlement “. In fact many people can’t afford to eat at any restaurant (inside or outside) – should we give those people discounts or funds so they can eat at restaurants?
  Make eating at restaurants an “entitlement “?

  The City already has major problems in addressing and controlling noise and garbage which seriously impact daily life. Given the City’s inability to manage noise and garbage so far, it is mind-boggling that the City seeks to make this situation even worse.

  BTW there are similar problems if the use is given to an “orgization”. Again, totally unfair in all ways. And no way that the City would ensure accountability, ensure there is no noise and no garbage.

  My family uses bus and subway.
  I am against pedestrian plazas and open streets generally but especially in Manhattan. Besides resulting in garbage , they make bus transit worse. The bus situation is bad enough when there are closures for street fairs or parades but even worse due to plazas and open streets.
  The City is supposed to be ensuring mass transit- not space for brunch for wealthy people.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 11:05am

• Darwin Yip

  I support this idea because it would revitalize areas that have been deserted due to the proliferation of cars, highways, and related infrastructures. By reclaiming land for people-centric activities instead of car use, we can bring back ‘third places’ where communities can gather. This would encourage social interaction, reduce crime, and help counter the rise of extremist ideologies, which often stem from social segregation and the toxic influence of social media. Think back to when we were kids— we could go out at dawn and return home at dusk. That’s no longer possible because of the dominance of cars and the disappearance of communal spaces. Today, children have fewer places to simply be kids and make lasting friendships. That’s why we need open streets and pedestrian plazas.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 8:43pm

• Nan

  I live on an open street (Avenue) in Queens and am appalled at your callous attempt to profit by selling off more of the limited peace we now have at home. We already suffer from this ill-conceived program smack in the middle of our residential-only (HA!) Avenue. Without additional permissions, we have to deal with special interest groups co-opting the street for activities one block from a playground and a school yard because they “need it”. We deal with music and noise incurred by activities in the middle of the street, side street shops running craft markets that spill onto the open street, and make it impossible to pass to get home, food vendors setting up illegally, parents throwing parties in the middle of the streets, day camp in the middle of the streets, bikes and e bikes with a high percentage of scary riders, and people sit for hours smoking right across from our windows. You would ticket this in any real green space. We need less, not more. I’ve watched the fire trucks and ambulances lose time, seen disabled and elderly neighbors struggle, and watched family investments drop. Do not sacrifice our sanity; listen to the people who live on these streets. Would you want to live in this hell that you’ve created? Should we all party outside your windows every week? Want to see a closed street that’s privately used with or without permission- I don’t know. Look at Diversity Plaza in Jackson Heights- it’s an embarrassment to all decent shop owners nearby who suffer from the stigma of it.

  Comment added April 19, 2025 11:34pm

• Mary

  The area is Jackson heights which was initially set up as a reprieve from the pandemic for those that needed FRESH air and space has now become so overcrowded. Messy chairs, street painting and vendors will make more congestion and noise pollution. Those with disabilities already have problems with mobility along the avenue.
  Those on 35th Ave have suffered with the 5 years xtra traffic polluting their buildings. Do not trust others to keep 34th Ave clean in exchange for business. It is a PUBLIC space. If city wants to keep area opened and car free , be responsible and be in charge of it! NO to proposing to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to authorize DOT’s pedestrian plaza and open streets partners, through their concession agreements with DOT, to permit their subconcessionaires to designate areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for exclusive use by their patrons subject to certain restrictions and the review and approval of DOT

  Comment added April 20, 2025 8:33am

• Jeremy S

  Hoping to be permitted to make another comment.

  Having read through comments again, there are some comments (understandably) from restaurants and BIDs.

  There is mention of the pedestrian plazas
  at 23rd Street, Broadway, Fifth Avenue and open streets on Broadway 23-31st St.
  There is some history/context that should be remembered.
  First, there used to be an MTA bus route on Broadway but this bus was eliminated due to the pedestrian plaza plan.
  Second, it is clear that pedestrian plaza and open streets have benefited expensive restaurants and hotels. But older shops have lost business and have been unable to stay due to high rent.
  So this is an example of how these street closures and specific usage benefit the wealthy and tourists.
  In contrast Bus riders and store owners did not benefit.

  “Dimes Square” is another example of how wealthy people have benefited from the space allocation and so much that it is now an Instagram and influencer destination.
  In contrast, regular NYC residents including older low income residents of Chinatown, are hurt by this.

  Various open streets in Brooklyn also demonstrate that the benefit is to the wealthy residents there. They have the time and money to enjoy dining etc.

  NYC government and elected officials constantly message about the need to be progressive.
  But in so many actions, NYC demonstrates that it is not progressive at all, that the desires of the wealthy get prioritized above all else.

  Again – no to this and shocking that it was even proposed.

  Comment added April 20, 2025 7:13pm

• cee m

  First of all, DOT can’t do the jobs it already oversees. So get this Open Streets plan- aka “Restaurant City” – away from DOT hands.
  Then, really contemplate that you will destroy the very neighborhoods that people live in, by turning their streets into privately-run businesses. I guess if you want people who live here to move out, you are well on your way to succeeding. We do not need downtown NY [Manhattan] to be “Times Square South.” Why do you want to destroy our city further????

  Comment added April 20, 2025 10:55pm

• Thomas Hughes

  Pedestrian plazas should be reserved for public, pedestrian use, not turned over to private businesses. Open Street spaces — where cars drive or park — are much better used for businesses, especially hospitality businesses like restaurants and cafes. The first priority for Open Street setups is, of course, school areas and neighborhoods where children have limited outdoor space; but in many neighborhoods, we have enough parks and playgrounds, and space reserved for cars — especially parked cars — should be put to better use.

  Comment added April 21, 2025 10:21am

• Cathleen Dwyer

  against this. It’s likely to devolve into only certain restaurants / corporations allowing usage of public land that is paid for by the taxpayers. Please, keep our streets our own. We should not be privatizing public resources.

  Comment added April 21, 2025 4:56pm

• Jeffrey LeFrancois

  My name is Jeffrey LeFrancois and I am the Executive Director of the Meatpacking District Management Association, a business improvement district that manages nearly 40,000 square feet of public plazas, four open streets, and works to keep the neighborhood clean, safe, and beautiful. We are incredibly proud of our dynamic public spaces and this rule will continue to help support their management and keep them vibrant.

  The Department of Transportation’s proposed rule changes that would allow for portions of public plazas to be designated for the exclusive use of concession kiosk customers is a smart next step for the city’s plaza program. As an organization that helps maintain, program, and support various pedestrian plazas, we understand that kiosks are crucial components in curating vibrant public spaces, as well as providing revenue to actually pay for the care and upkeep of the plazas. In addition to providing services to visitors of a space, these concessions are one way for the Meatpacking District to help recoup some of the expenses of maintaining these plazas for the enjoyment of the public at large.

  Today, it’s a huge risk for businesses to operate a concession on a public plaza. Allowing these establishments to operate small areas tailored specifically towards their clientele is an investment in the city for our public spaces to be dynamic and reflective of the neighborhood in which they are located.

  The Meatpacking District looks forward to this rule’s implementation.

  Thank you.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 10:50am

• Adam Fran

  Against. It is unclear to me how the 33% or 50% is decided as there is differing wordage.. Is it “pursuant to sections 197-c and 197-d” or “major concession approved through ULURP”, or “In all instances, the exclusive seating area would be subject to DOT’s review and approval”.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 11:22am

• Michael Oakleaf & Susan Lashley

  My husband and I are AGAINST every aspect of this proposed rule. It is a selective and exclusive privatization for profit of public space that unduly burdens and is a noise, trash, rat, and unruly crowd nuisance to local residents and non-food/drink businesses. It would add to the unacceptable lowering of the quality of life in New York City. It will impede fire and emergency response.

  Regards, Michael Oakleaf & Susan Lashley, E. 10th St., East Village NYC

  Comment added April 22, 2025 6:11pm

• Stuart zamsky

  My name is Stuart Zamsky and I live at 235 E. 5th Street 10003.

  I am writing to oppose the proposed amendments to Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to allow for the designation of areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for the exclusive use of private patrons.

  Public spaces should be for the public, not private entities. Please do not allow this land grab by the hospitality industry to take place.

  My neighborhood is already overrun by operators devouring public space that is more than they are entitled to. Their creep into illegal space is endless and already unenforced. There is no need to give the store away at this time. Why don’t we exercise some restraint and try to make order of the new system still yet untried?

  Stuart Zamsky
  235 E. 5th Street 10003

  Comment added April 22, 2025 7:24pm

• Mia S

  Follow-up Comment.

  Again – No to this proposal. No to use of streets for specific businesses and/or purposes.

  It is disturbing that the City is spending so much time and money on “Open Streets” and pedestrian plazas when there is such a huge need for support for parks and playgrounds (besides Central Park, Riverside and Prospect which get a lot of private money) especially in the boroughs.
  At a time of budget stress and likely loss of funds from the evil DT, the City should end funding of “Open Streets” and move funds to support parks and playgrounds.

  It is also disturbing to see some comments which seek “Open Streets” and pedestrian plaza designation because this removes vehicles/parking spots. Open Streets and pedestrian plazas should be about their own merit (or not) – not because they are methods to reduce vehicles/parking spots. (Any aim to reduce vehicles should take a deep look at reducing use of Amazon/E-commerce and Uber, such as taxing Amazon deliver and further taxing Uber. But the City keeps enabling Amazon and Uber).
  Moreover it is disturbing that some think it is OK to close streets for “Open Streets” – and force MTA bus detours.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 7:48pm

• Nancy Preston

  Public streets are for the public- NOT for the profit and exclusivity of private businesses at public expense. Period! Do not proceed with this travesty.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 9:25pm

• Cheryl M.

  OUTRAGEOUS!! I do not support this – public plazas belong to PUBLIC! Enough is enough!! Time for you all to be voted out

  Comment added April 22, 2025 9:34pm

• Hilary Russ

  I am opposed to the further encroachment of private business on public space. I appreciate that this proposal contains limits to the percentage of public areas that can be used by private enterprise. But it’s not enough protection for what is supposed to be our space, my space, my neighbor’s space, my taxpayer space. It’s unfair for handpicked private businesses to use this public space for commercial gain. These are not the kinds of plazas I want to see, where consumerism and consumption are confused for culture. I want to see performances, games, art and other true public uses that don’t ultimately amount to profiteering. That is the kind of public space that helps make this city great.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 9:51pm

• Margot Niederland

  My name is Margot Niederland ….I live at 27 Ludlow Street.

  I’m writing to say that I vehemently oppose the proposed amendments to Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to allow for the designation of areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and open streets for the exclusive use of private patrons.

  Public spaces have always been for the PUBLIC and they should remain so. Please do not ignore the needs of the people and allow this land grab by the hospitality industry to take place.
  Trump is doing enough to destroy our country…please don’t join him in destroying our city. Freedom for the people in public places should remain so.
  I hope that you’ll listen to the people, not to the moneyed class.

  Sincerely…
  Margot Niederland
  Website: margotniederland.com
  Phone: 212 431-0778

  Comment added April 22, 2025 10:00pm

• Hilary Russ

  To clarify my last comment, I’m not opposed to blocking off spaces to cars. I AM opposed to filling those spaces with commercial activity for private businesses. We already have limited enough space in our parks for people to gather. We don’t need these open-air plazas (which, again, are on their own a good idea) to be then filled with commercial enterprise.

  Comment added April 22, 2025 10:01pm

• michele campo

  city streets are public areas and should never be designated for exclusive use by restaurant patrons. this is a dangerous proposal.
  there has been NO public hearings by the DOT. no opportunity for dialogue.
  it is shameful the way our city residents are being treated!

  Comment added April 22, 2025 11:11pm

• Timothy Lee

  Exclusive seating allows private businesses to further monopolize public land for profit. Commercial rents on these streets are going to higher than ever and accelerate the displacement of long-standing local businesses. This amendment will suffocate small, independent, and non-hospitality businesses by handing over more public space to private restaurants and bars.

  By funneling more public resources and space into hospitality, the city is overexposing itself to a single industry. Should that sector falter due to an economic downturn, another public health emergency, or changing consumer behavior, the consequences will be far more damaging. Not only would the hospitality sector suffer, but the city will have also cannibalized the diversity, industry, and culture that once made its neighborhoods resilient and unique by making an earlier bargain to give up its private spaces for profit.

  Furthermore, the DOT has failed to adequately enforce quality-of-life protections for residents. Last year, we saw multiple instances of poor compliance by businesses and minimal enforcement from the city. With the planned expansion of Open Streets and no clear plan for increased staffing or accountability, these problems will only escalate this year.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 12:19am

• HAIDEE FINDLAY-LEVIN

  I live and work in the centre of this proposed area, have done for 25 years. I moved here when only artists and a local diverse community existed, living harmoniously together – this is a proposed private land grab by restaurants and bars – there will be no more public spaces. The noise is crazy enough, and will be out of control, changing not only the charm of this unique neighborhood, by filling it with Trust Fund kids and Bros as their private playground. Already their late night drunken screams are unbearable. We can’t access our buildings and the noise carries on until the early hours, until they leave for their quiet high rise or apartments far away, leaving a mess behind them

  Comment added April 23, 2025 3:11am

• Sergio Lopez Alvarez

  Hello, I live at 15 Seaman Ave, and I’m concerned to learn that they’re going to license Plaza Quisqueya. First, I want to let you know that it’s a residential area, and there are events there every weekend starting Friday during the summer, where noise and trash are common. Of course, a lot of people come, and you can’t walk on the sidewalks, let alone find parking spaces. In addition, people have arrived, moving very suspiciously as if they were selling drugs; they stay in their cars all night and until the next morning. Before Plaza Quisqueya was built, the restaurants were already noisy; now they’re out of control. The only benefit has been for the owners of those businesses, who had already taken over more than half of the sidewalk with the pandemic. Now they’re pushing for more space. And not to mention all the mistreatment the restaurant employees receive and the cultural appropriation they commit when holding their events. I definitely do not agree with changes that bring more noise, garbage, people, cars and drugs.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 6:57am

• Christopher Pang

  Public spaces exist to serve the community. They should not be privatised to serve corporate interests against community interests. This is especially the case in this proposal, where we have seen the Open Streets scheme result in road and sidewalk space congestion, consistently disturbing residential neighbourhoods with no regard for its inhabitants.

  Perhaps most egregious is the example on Canal, where the historic Chinatown neighbourhood descends into an al fresco hipsturbia as patrons sip on $20 spritzes deluding themselves into thinking that they’re on a terrace in Marseille. A few of those invariably lead to an evening of noise, drinking and smoking, unpermitted block parties, and instances of public vomiting and urination (in the proximity of Chinese funeral homes, no less). With no enforcement of rules limiting such behaviour, and no consequences for the infringements of public decency, Chinatown residents usually clean up after the offenders. This rule proposal will only encourage this activity, not only on Canal, but across the city for the next “dope spot” to gentrify.

  Comment attachment
  Screenshot-2025-04-23-at-07.47.17.pdf

  Comment added April 23, 2025 8:06am

• Elizabeth Zalman

  This is a joke. The amendment proposes a pay-to-play, that so long as a concessionaire can spend money, they can set up in public areas. We are SELLING OUR STREETS NOW?!?!?! This is a land grab by the DOT to bring in revenue, at the expense of taxpayers and locals. DO NOT APPROVE THIS SNEAKY AMENDMENT!

  Comment added April 23, 2025 9:18am

• bruce torrey

  This obvious land grab by the hospitality industry should not be permitted.

  What public benefit is there to restricting designating public space for the exclusive use of private businesses and their patrons?

  This proposal is yet another DOT nail in the coffin of the character of New York City street life.

  Public spaces are, and should remain, for the public. They should not be designated for private business only.

  Please do not permit this amendment to move forward.

  Thank you.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 9:29am

• 34th Street Partnership

  34th Street Partnership (34SP) has been managing public space around Herald and Greeley Squares spanning from 10th to Park and 31st to 35th since 1992. After the pedestrianization of Broadway in 2009, we took on management of Broadway plazas from 32nd to 35th. Core services that the Partnership provide throughout the district include sanitation, maintenance, security, and free programming. We currently activate plazas with salsa classes, hula hooping, and music performances, beautify the spaces with horticulture, and facilitate gathering with chairs, tables, umbrellas, and ping pong tables. 34SP receives no tax dollars, nor does it solicit funds from philanthropic donors. The public pays not one cent for the outstanding services and free public events that the Partnership delivers.
  34SP supports the Department of Transportation’s proposed rule change to allow sections of plazas to be designated for exclusive use by subconcession customers. These plazas have been a valuable gift to the pedestrians of New York City, but their success is tied intrinsically to their level of activity. A successful plaza is full of activity and attracts different groups of people, so it has a well-used and safe feeling. Dance classes and music performances alone cannot sustain a plaza at a healthy activity level.
  Allowing a portion of the plaza to be dedicated to private seating will only increase the activity and safety of the plazas.
  Allowing our subconcessionaires to intentionally invite patrons to the use seating on the plaza will increase dwell time for visitors without taking away from public use of the plaza. In fact, it can make adjacent public seating more appealing and as a result, the whole plaza will be safer. Intentional use of the space, as exclusive seating is, to tide us over from one program to the next is a welcome tool in the toolbox of plaza management.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 9:45am

• Manhattan Community Board 1

  COMMUNITY BOARD 1 – MANHATTAN
  RESOLUTION DATE: APRIL 17, 2025
  COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: EXECUTIVE
  RE: Comments on DOT Proposed Rule Change: Exclusive Seating in DOT Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets
  WHEREAS: The New York City Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is proposing to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to allow for the designation of areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and Open Streets for the exclusive use of private patrons subject to certain restrictions and the review and approval of DOT; and
  WHEREAS: The DOT rule change would allow a significant portion of city Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, between 33% and 50% of the total square footage of a specific location, to be leased to a private sub-concessionaire of the location’s DOT partner for exclusive use as seating for their customers; and
  WHEREAS: DOT will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule online on April 23, 2025, at 10 a.m.; and
  WHEREAS: CB1’s Executive Committee found the language of the regulation vague and unclear and raised many concerns and questions about the proposed rule as noted in this resolution; and
  WHEREAS: Both the DOT’s Pedestrian Plaza Program (begun in 2008) and Open Streets Program (permanent program begun in 2021) state in their published online descriptions that the purpose of these programs is to increase the city’s public space for “all to enjoy” with no mention of excluding, restricting, or limiting any person or group from full and complete access to the sites; and
  WHEREAS: According to DOT’s Open Street website (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/openstreets.shtml), “New York City’s Open Street program transforms streets into public space open to all” with “transformations that allow for a range of activities that promote economic development, support schools, facilitate pedestrian and bike mobility, and provide new ways for New Yorkers to enjoy cultural programming and building community”; and
  WHEREAS: According to DOT’s Pedestrian Plaza website (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/nyc-plaza-program.shtml), the pedestrian plaza program seeks to transform underutilized streets and traffic islands into “vibrant, social public spaces for all to enjoy to enhance safety, walkability and access to public transit while supporting community, commerce and culture”; and
  WHEREAS: Neither DOT’s Open Street nor Pedestrian Plaza programs make any mention of the city’s intention to have any person, entity, or partner exercise exclusive use of any portion of the Open Streets or pedestrian plazas; and
  WHEREAS: The DOT proposed Rule Change site is open for public comments until April 23, and as of today, has 120 public comments on the site, with 13 comments in support (8 coming from city BIDs) and the overwhelming majority of comments (over 100) strongly opposed to the rule change, highlighting concerns about the privatization of public space with references to the rule as a “land grab” and calling the program “dreadful,” “ludicrous,” and “unfair”; and
  WHEREAS: Several published comments came from non-profit groups and individuals in areas that have already experienced a great deal of open restaurant use on neighborhood Open Streets where noise and garbage have become insurmountable problems with little or no enforcement or remedy by the city; and
  WHEREAS: The majority of CB1’s Executive Committee fully supports the idea of closing streets for public use but is strongly opposed to the privatization of public space on Open Streets and pedestrian plazas in our district, believing this rule would allow businesses to take a disproportionate amount of land for their own use at the expense of the public; and
  WHEREAS: Certain committee members drew a distinction between the full closure of an entire city street with the Open Street program and the smaller areas generally found in pedestrian plazas, believing pedestrian plazas are particularly ill-suited for any exclusive seating; and
  WHEREAS: Parts of District 1 contain some of the lowest ratios of public park space per capita in Manhattan, and a deficiency of open public space is a problem that this community, like many others throughout the five boroughs, faces; and
  WHEREAS: Unlike applicants who apply for the use of public space for restaurant use through the City’s Sidewalk Cafe and Road Bed Cafe programs, there is no requirement with the Open Street Program for any applicant who seeks private commercial restaurant use on an Open Street to pay the city for this use, nor is there any requirement for Community Board or City Council review or approval; and
  WHEREAS: While it is understood that money raised through the privatization of public spaces with exclusive seating would go to the maintenance of pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, CB1 Committee members felt strongly that DOT should identify public revenue sources to fund this program rather than relying on the privatization of the plaza and its partner to fund it; and
  WHEREAS: Many members of CB1’s Executive Committee expressed concern about what they believed would be a “slippery slope” leading to increased privatization of public street space in the community, contrary to the expressed purpose of the Open Street program to “transform streets into public space open to all”; and
  WHEREAS: Members advocated for open seating/benches and tables for the public regardless of where food is purchased, including assurance that there is adequate public seating as is the case with NYC Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS); and
  WHEREAS: The Committee had many questions that the DOT representative at the meeting said would be provided at a later date, including but not limited to:
  How equity issues will be managed, ensuring all merchants on an Open Street can benefit from its closure
  How the program relates to the city’s Street Activity permitting process
  How the public will be able to access the use of the street if there is one partnership with one restaurant signing an agreement
  How enforcement will occur to address quality of life issues that have arisen with noise and garbage concerns
  The definition of “Major Concessionaire” and when ULURP would be applied to this program;
  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
  CB1 requests that DOT provide responses to all unanswered questions as recorded at the CB1 Executive meeting on April 8 as soon as possible; and
  THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
  CB1 urges that all comments in this resolution be considered and addressed by DOT concerning the proposed rule change for Exclusive Seating in DOT Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, including the following recommendations:
  In the spirit of the programs’ commitment to equity, no single business owner should be able to profit exclusively from any Open Street or pedestrian plaza, and there should be a balanced allocation of space among all people who live and work on the street.
  All merchants along any Open Street should be able to use the street, and an agreement should be made with the Open Street Partner to ensure equitable access.
  Restaurant owners should be required to apply to the city’s sidewalk cafe and road bed seating programs for restaurant use and be required to pay the city for this privilege.
  The DOT should not have singular authority for approval on use of Open Streets and pedestrian plazas. There should be no approval for any programming or use on a public street without community board review and approval.
  Open Streets and pedestrian plazas provided with any exclusive restaurant use should be required to provide access to public bathrooms (off-site use acceptable) during open hours.
  Prior posting of any modification to Open Streets and Pedestrian Plazas should be required, with Community Board notice and review as is the case with SAPO and all restaurant, sidewalk cafe, and road bed licensing.
  Scaled site plans with furnishings for all proposed uses of Open Streets should be required.
  There should be clarity on how open space partners work with SAPO to ensure safety and access for all proposed Street Events.
  A clear process should be established for how food vendors will work with DCA, DOH, NYPD, and DOB.
  Explicit language should be included in any DOT proposed rule change to reinvest all funds raised back into the pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, with clear language on what is included in proper maintenance.
  Clear rules for enforcement should be established for any use of public space to address quality of life issues.
  Open seating/benches and tables should be allowed for the public regardless of where food is purchased.
  The proposal should be amended so that seating is not reserved for the exclusive use of patrons of private businesses and would be open to non-customers as well, as is the case with Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS).

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:00am

• Manhattan Community Board 1 (Zach Bommer, District Manager)

  COMMUNITY BOARD 1 – MANHATTAN
  RESOLUTION DATE: APRIL 17, 2025
  COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: EXECUTIVE
  RE: Comments on DOT Proposed Rule Change: Exclusive Seating in DOT Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets
  WHEREAS: The New York City Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is proposing to amend title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York to allow for the designation of areas of DOT pedestrian plazas and Open Streets for the exclusive use of private patrons subject to certain restrictions and the review and approval of DOT; and
  WHEREAS: The DOT rule change would allow a significant portion of city Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, between 33% and 50% of the total square footage of a specific location, to be leased to a private sub-concessionaire of the location’s DOT partner for exclusive use as seating for their customers; and
  WHEREAS: DOT will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule online on April 23, 2025, at 10 a.m.; and
  WHEREAS: CB1’s Executive Committee found the language of the regulation vague and unclear and raised many concerns and questions about the proposed rule as noted in this resolution; and
  WHEREAS: Both the DOT’s Pedestrian Plaza Program (begun in 2008) and Open Streets Program (permanent program begun in 2021) state in their published online descriptions that the purpose of these programs is to increase the city’s public space for “all to enjoy” with no mention of excluding, restricting, or limiting any person or group from full and complete access to the sites; and
  WHEREAS: According to DOT’s Open Street website (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/openstreets.shtml), “New York City’s Open Street program transforms streets into public space open to all” with “transformations that allow for a range of activities that promote economic development, support schools, facilitate pedestrian and bike mobility, and provide new ways for New Yorkers to enjoy cultural programming and building community”; and
  WHEREAS: According to DOT’s Pedestrian Plaza website (https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/nyc-plaza-program.shtml), the pedestrian plaza program seeks to transform underutilized streets and traffic islands into “vibrant, social public spaces for all to enjoy to enhance safety, walkability and access to public transit while supporting community, commerce and culture”; and
  WHEREAS: Neither DOT’s Open Street nor Pedestrian Plaza programs make any mention of the city’s intention to have any person, entity, or partner exercise exclusive use of any portion of the Open Streets or pedestrian plazas; and
  WHEREAS: The DOT proposed Rule Change site is open for public comments until April 23, and as of today, has 120 public comments on the site, with 13 comments in support (8 coming from city BIDs) and the overwhelming majority of comments (over 100) strongly opposed to the rule change, highlighting concerns about the privatization of public space with references to the rule as a “land grab” and calling the program “dreadful,” “ludicrous,” and “unfair”; and
  WHEREAS: Several published comments came from non-profit groups and individuals in areas that have already experienced a great deal of open restaurant use on neighborhood Open Streets where noise and garbage have become insurmountable problems with little or no enforcement or remedy by the city; and
  WHEREAS: The majority of CB1’s Executive Committee fully supports the idea of closing streets for public use but is strongly opposed to the privatization of public space on Open Streets and pedestrian plazas in our district, believing this rule would allow businesses to take a disproportionate amount of land for their own use at the expense of the public; and
  WHEREAS: Certain committee members drew a distinction between the full closure of an entire city street with the Open Street program and the smaller areas generally found in pedestrian plazas, believing pedestrian plazas are particularly ill-suited for any exclusive seating; and
  WHEREAS: Parts of District 1 contain some of the lowest ratios of public park space per capita in Manhattan, and a deficiency of open public space is a problem that this community, like many others throughout the five boroughs, faces; and
  WHEREAS: Unlike applicants who apply for the use of public space for restaurant use through the City’s Sidewalk Cafe and Road Bed Cafe programs, there is no requirement with the Open Street Program for any applicant who seeks private commercial restaurant use on an Open Street to pay the city for this use, nor is there any requirement for Community Board or City Council review or approval; and
  WHEREAS: While it is understood that money raised through the privatization of public spaces with exclusive seating would go to the maintenance of pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, CB1 Committee members felt strongly that DOT should identify public revenue sources to fund this program rather than relying on the privatization of the plaza and its partner to fund it; and
  WHEREAS: Many members of CB1’s Executive Committee expressed concern about what they believed would be a “slippery slope” leading to increased privatization of public street space in the community, contrary to the expressed purpose of the Open Street program to “transform streets into public space open to all”; and
  WHEREAS: Members advocated for open seating/benches and tables for the public regardless of where food is purchased, including assurance that there is adequate public seating as is the case with NYC Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS); and
  WHEREAS: The Committee had many questions that the DOT representative at the meeting said would be provided at a later date, including but not limited to:
  How equity issues will be managed, ensuring all merchants on an Open Street can benefit from its closure
  How the program relates to the city’s Street Activity permitting process
  How the public will be able to access the use of the street if there is one partnership with one restaurant signing an agreement
  How enforcement will occur to address quality of life issues that have arisen with noise and garbage concerns
  The definition of “Major Concessionaire” and when ULURP would be applied to this program;
  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
  CB1 requests that DOT provide responses to all unanswered questions as recorded at the CB1 Executive meeting on April 8 as soon as possible; and
  THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
  CB1 urges that all comments in this resolution be considered and addressed by DOT concerning the proposed rule change for Exclusive Seating in DOT Open Streets and pedestrian plazas, including the following recommendations:
  In the spirit of the programs’ commitment to equity, no single business owner should be able to profit exclusively from any Open Street or pedestrian plaza, and there should be a balanced allocation of space among all people who live and work on the street.
  All merchants along any Open Street should be able to use the street, and an agreement should be made with the Open Street Partner to ensure equitable access.
  Restaurant owners should be required to apply to the city’s sidewalk cafe and road bed seating programs for restaurant use and be required to pay the city for this privilege.
  The DOT should not have singular authority for approval on use of Open Streets and pedestrian plazas. There should be no approval for any programming or use on a public street without community board review and approval.
  Open Streets and pedestrian plazas provided with any exclusive restaurant use should be required to provide access to public bathrooms (off-site use acceptable) during open hours.
  Prior posting of any modification to Open Streets and Pedestrian Plazas should be required, with Community Board notice and review as is the case with SAPO and all restaurant, sidewalk cafe, and road bed licensing.
  Scaled site plans with furnishings for all proposed uses of Open Streets should be required.
  There should be clarity on how open space partners work with SAPO to ensure safety and access for all proposed Street Events.
  A clear process should be established for how food vendors will work with DCA, DOH, NYPD, and DOB.
  Explicit language should be included in any DOT proposed rule change to reinvest all funds raised back into the pedestrian plazas and Open Streets, with clear language on what is included in proper maintenance.
  Clear rules for enforcement should be established for any use of public space to address quality of life issues.
  Open seating/benches and tables should be allowed for the public regardless of where food is purchased.
  The proposal should be amended so that seating is not reserved for the exclusive use of patrons of private businesses and would be open to non-customers as well, as is the case with Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS).

  Comment attachment
  Comments-Manhattan-Community-Board-1.pdf

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:04am

• Patricia Wei

  What is the point of having a public space so that the public can enjoy it, if you then allow parts of it to be private and not allow the public to use it? This is truly private lobbying at its best – please use taxpayer dollars to create these obstructionist plazas so cars can’t drive through, but then please also turn it over to the restaurant, bar, coffee shop to use as they please for FREE and obstruct pedestrians from walking through at the same time. The NYC DOT once again is showing how it’s a WIN, WIN, WIN for commercial establishments!!

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:26am

• Brent Bovenzi

  As a volunteer open streets organizer, this a good rule change to give us more options to work with local businesses. This allows us to strengthen relationship with small businesses in our neighborhood and gives them a stake in creating quality public space.

  We have seen with city funding that the budget for open streets and plazas is always under threat. We do as much as we can with volunteer resources, but we do need to pay for programming, public art and trash pickup. This should not replace the city’s financial support but supplement it.

  The new outdoor dining was pared so far back that most restaurants are not renewing this year. This is a step in the right direction to give restaurants, local businesses, more options to survive in the tough commercial market that is NYC.

  I am glad that the maximum space is set to 33% of a plaza or open street, therefore there is always at least 2/3rds of the space available to everyone.

  This is just an option. Most open streets and plazas wouldn’t even use this rule. On some commercial-heavy blocks, giving a fraction of the area to create a more lively plaza is totally worth it.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:32am

• Khadijat Oluwo

  Can you please explain what areas of Brooklyn community board 17 will be impacted by this amendment? Also, will you be interested in presenting this to transportation committee of CB17

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:37am

• Joe Cianci

  My name is Joe Cianci and I am testifying against this proposal by the Department of Transportation because this is basically privatizing public spaces for businesses and BIDS instead of what the roads are supposed to be used for, mainly for Transportation.

  Outdoor dining is not transportation. The roads are meant to service the people who need to drive and park their cars. That is transportation.

  Also, the Department of Transportation is acting more like a caliphate doing the bidding for lobby interests Transportation Alternatives and Open Plans, instead of a municipality that is supposed to serve all the people. Even the title of this proposal, exclusive seating, sounds autocratic.

  This proposal is in essence an attempt to make spaces belonging to the public into provinces. This annexing of the streets will also lead to more traffic congestion on other streets. Worst of all, the exclusive seating will make emergency responses longer as FDNY trucks, NYPD patrol cars and ambulances would have to find other routes so a few people can have dinner by dirty curbs and over a sewer cap.

  This proposal is not feasable and oppressive and should not pass.

  Roads are for driving, parking and riding, not for eating.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 10:47am

• Daniel

  I am a small business owner that weathered the Covid 19 pandemic. If it’s wasn’t for the engagement of the public and the use of the public space, my business would have closed. Instead I was able to continue to employ staff, provide a service for the community. Businesses also pay taxes and in many cases property taxes as well which go right back to the maintenance of our city. I care deeply about my community as I also reside in the neighborhood where my business is located. I know my neighbors by name and care deeply for them. I believe that most hospitality operators do so as well (remember when we used to bang on pots and pans in appreciation of essential workers!).

  Creating clear and concise rules and regulations is important for the coexistence of public and private individuals an institutions. I am in support of providing businesses with a percentage of space to be able to further provide for their patrons and their communities. Businesses also need to be held accountable and adhere to the rules and standards that are set in efforts improve the quality of life for the residents of our communities.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:00am

• Open Plans

  Open Plans writes in regard to the proposed rules on exclusive seating in plazas and on Open Streets, and our testimony is attached.

  Comment attachment
  Open-Plans-Testimony-on-4-23-25-Department-of-Transportation-Rules-Hearing.pdf

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:15am

• marie hyon

  Don’t Privatize Our Public Spaces

  I’ve lived in this neighborhood for over 25 years. What was once a peaceful, livable community is being transformed—fast—by noise, crowds, and late-night chaos.

  Privatizing Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets might sound efficient, but in reality, it hands over our shared spaces to private interests that prioritize foot traffic and profits over residents and quality of life.

  These streets were meant to serve the public—not become backdrops for nightlife and branding. We need open space, not open-air venues.

  Let’s keep our streets truly public—managed for the people who live here, not those just passing through.

  —A longtime neighbor

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:43am

• marie hyon

  Please don’t Privatize Our Public Spaces

  I’ve lived in this neighborhood for over 25 years. What was once a peaceful, livable community is being transformed—fast—by noise, crowds, and late-night chaos.

  Privatizing Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets might sound efficient, but in reality, it hands over our shared spaces to private interests that prioritize foot traffic and profits over residents and quality of life.

  These streets were meant to serve the public—not become backdrops for nightlife and branding. We need open space, not open-air venues.

  Let’s keep our streets truly public—managed for the people who live here, not those just passing through.

  I strongly oppose the amending of title 34
  —A longtime neighbor

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:48am

• Samir Lavingia

  I am the Vice-Chair of the Transportation and Environment Committee on Manhattan CB5 and I support this rule change. Activating public spaces makes them more enjoyable to use. We see this in the district with Shake Shack in Madison Square Park or with seating in many of our plazas.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 11:59am

• Geoffrey Nutter

  Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this.
  An absolutely unacceptable proposal.
  I support Open Streets—a great thing for the city! However, privatizing any public space is a BAD idea. Public space is OUR space.
  The businesses along Quisqueya Plaza on Dyckman Street where I live have not been good neighbors. This has essentially been a test case for this idea. Their bad behavior has been well-documented. They have used the Plaza as an extension of their dining rooms, and then habitually played excessively loud music–complete with DJs and large speakers–in the Plaza as if they own it. (I’m not even talking about the city-approved and permitted concerts–a separate issue). This abuse of the Plaza has been a constant stress on the community for the past several years. (A separate but related issue is the recent scandal with the 34th Precinct, when it was discovered that businesses in the area were paying members of the Department to close out the hundreds of 311 called that were logged by residents in response to music and other nuisances. The community had no recourse to respond to the abuse of public space by private businesses who assumed they could do whatever they wanted. If public space is given over to private businesses, what recourse will members of the public have when the businesses start abusing the privilege? The businesses here in Inwood already treat the public space as if neighborhood residents don’t belong in their large roped-off areas.

  So–THAT is an example of what can happen if this is made law. It’s ALREADY shown to be bad for communities.

  I love the idea of outdoor dining, and I love Open Streets. But the interests of the public should come before the interests of private businesses. The people who have been living in an area for years–people who live and work and sleep there–and the public in general should not be subject to the whims (and the authority!) of businesses that profit from the use of public space.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 12:20pm

• Vishnu Reddy

  I support this rule change. Allowing restaurants and other establishments to use some of an open street or public plaza helps activate the streets. That activation makes them more inviting for all, including for non-commercial activity.

  Like most New Yorkers, I do not have access to a car and feel that the way we allocate our public space unfairly and disproportionately favors the use and storage of private automobiles. This rule change would help move us in a better direction.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 2:28pm

• Thomas Lewin

  I strongly urge against this proposed amendment. The privatization of public spaces has been documented to show initial cost savings, but at the steep expense of equity and public access to essential services and valuable “third places.”

  Successful urban planning must carefully consider the potential impacts of privatization and work to ensure that the public’s needs are being met. This proposed amendment would not meet the needs of the public.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 3:20pm

• Jeff Schwane

  We need to reduce bureaucracy for outdoor dining! I support this and want to make outdoor dining setups easier and more accessible to small business owners.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 3:25pm

• Joseph Frazier

  I support this change, as open streets and outdoor dining have been among the best things to happen to the city in the past several years, and partnering with local businesses to support these programs will help ensure they stay viable going forward.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 3:59pm

• Joshua McDaniel

  I support this change! As a regular on Open Streets areas in Brooklyn, I support utilizing our streets for expanded activities and supporting our small businesses.

  Comment added April 23, 2025 4:16pm

• Tanya Bonner

  My name is Tanya Bonner, and I am a long-time resident of Washington Heights who co-founded and currently chair the WaHI-Inwood Task Force on Noise, a grassroots group advocating against excessive noise in the Manhattan communities of Washington Heights and Inwood.

  Our organization calls for a swift and decisive rejection of the DOT Proposed Amendment of Rules Relating to Exclusive Seating in Pedestrian Plazas and Open Streets.

  It has long been scientifically proven that excessive noise is a public health issue, potentially causing and/or exacerbating health conditions such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, lack of sleep, and aggravating already present mental health conditions.

  Our community has been inundated with so-called public plazas since DOT Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez began representing our community as a City Council Member. And those plazas have been a major contributor to a greatly diminished quality of life in our community due to the excessive noise issues they bring. Commissioner Rodriguez in his various political roles has given the various “managers” of these public plazas carte blanche to do whatever they want – without accountability to the community. This includes openly violating the so-called posted “rules” of the plazas by holding unpermitted events, restaurants occupying space within the plazas regularly playing outdoor music until all hours of the night, and even having outdoor “concerts” with amplified sound without first garnering feedback from residents nearby, or providing them with advance notification.

  These plazas are already being used by government officials like Rodriguez as a means to advance their political agendas, including garnering votes and political donations via putting certain favored entities in charge of “managing” the plazas. This proposed rule change would only intensify this already concerning pay-for-play relationship between the managers of the plazas and political officials, and create an even wider chasm between the politically-connected plaza managers and the surrounding community. The plazas in our community are already run like an exclusive club based on ethnicity, political connections, and do not offer activities that speak to the true diversity of the community.

  This proposed rule change will ensure even less accountability and even more opportunity for play-to-pay between political officials and plaza managers by allowing them to essentially cut the rest of the community out of the any kind of say about the public plazas in their own community.

  This action by Commissioner Rodriguez is both egregious and blatantly obvious in its intent: provide more power to himself by allowing private citizens of his own desire to exclusively and completely take over public roadways and public land. Commissioner Rodriguez is the same person who championed the rezoning in Inwood when he was the Councilmember representing that area. He sold out his own community in order to get the backing of the real estate lobby.

  Commissioner Rodriguez: we see you. We cannot be gaslit. We will not allow you to continue to enrich your political position at the expense of the well-being of this community.

  This proposed rule change must be rejected expeditiously.

  Sincerely,

  Tanya Bonner
  Chair, WaHI-Inwood Task Force on Noise
  and NYC United Against Noise

  Comment added April 23, 2025 5:38pm

• Roxanne Delgado

  No!!!!! Privatization of our publoc streers for money ventures they makes 100,000 of dollars throught govt funding and corporate sponsorship. It brings trash, noise and a impediment for seniors and disabled.

  When will DOT fix the potholes?

  Comment added April 23, 2025 5:55pm