Mayor Adams’s plan for the Brooklyn Marine Terminal will move forward, after last Monday’s last-minute Task Force vote (17 in support, eight opposed). I voted against the plan.
When the NYC Economic Development Corporation took over the BMT from the Port Authority, it said it would transform the BMT into "a harbor of the future" with manufacturing jobs, maritime opportunities, and economic development. This was lost early on, as EDC quickly seized upon luxury housing to pay for the port. They didn’t really consider anything else. There was only ever one proposal from EDC – which was modified and improved upon by myself and the other Task Force members – but no genuine analysis of alternatives, or exploration of the immense possibilities that the site could offer, or of the serious engineering constraints of the site.
The Task Force was supposed to engage local stakeholders, yet the community most directly impacted – Columbia Street Waterfront – was excluded. A red flag, but I nevertheless entered this process in good faith, a strong proponent of an environmentally just working waterfront of maritime uses at one of the last remaining ports in the city. I was enthusiastic about playing a constructive role in this process to achieve those ends. That’s why I am terribly disappointed that this process was rushed from the start, constrained by an artificial timeline, heavy-handed, and mired in backroom deals.
I also want to comment on the disheartening lack of courtesy, transparency and meaningful community engagement in this process. Throughout this process the community engagement was minimal and appeared to be done so the EDC could check a box saying they had “X” number of meetings. But when most of the people there are EDC staff, consultants, and elected officials and their staff, the affected communities haven’t been engaged. The final meeting was sprung on us last-minute for an obviously non-existent reason about the city’s capital budget deadline (which is modified quarterly), but in reality was scheduled because two of the voting members had flipped to yes and the EDC finally had the votes they needed after five postponements.
A revised plan — which failed to address the fundamental flaws — emerged without any conversation or review. Task Force members were instructed that there would be no more changes to the plan and no community review; this flies in the face of a democratic process.
The BMT is in a highly congested transportation-starved area which is seriously lacking in sufficient water, sewer, and transit infrastructure. It’s difficult to develop given its length and narrowness along the waterfront in an area with a shallow water table and a history of increasing flooding. I have continuously asked for transportation and sewer studies and data to support this proposal but EDC insisted all will be studied during the Environmental Review process — after a yes vote. That makes no sense. An EIS reviews impacts identified by previously gathered and analyzed data and modeling, not the other way around. In my mind, any BMT plan must reflect reality, not someone’s wish list.
READ A CONTRARY VIEW FROM COMMUNITY BOARD 6 DISTRICT MANAGER
I support affordable housing at the site but all residential uses entail impacts that must be assessed comprehensively and transparently. With 60% luxury units, likely displacement of the existing community must be examined. I have concerns that the density of housing planned for can actually be built there which is why I pushed for a feasibility study. This is not in small part because the site lacks basic water and sewer infrastructure (expensive to build), has a shallow water table with a history of flooding (Mother Nature does not cotton to being trifled with!) and is a transit desert. The environmental challenges - only likely to become worse with climate change - also make it less likely that structures will be insurable.
The plan squanders a golden opportunity to alleviate vehicular traffic and to plan for Blue Highways (our waterways). There’s nothing in this plan that is guaranteed to improve the dearth of public transit options in Red Hook or improve the stand-still traffic. Transportation impacts seemed to have been a concern for the many Task Force members from the get-go, but when I made a motion to add language (previously agreed to between a Task Force member and the Deputy Mayor) to the plan to help address this, the Chair denied my motion to have a vote on the matter based on by-laws which don’t even exist. You can see the video clip here. I, along with others, have brought up transit concerns for months so this was incredibly disappointing.
The next step is the General Project Plan, which has even less public input. This is especially concerning given the ESD’s record of opacity. Much of the affordable housing at Atlantic Yards has yet to be delivered in large part because no feasibility study was done before the GPP was created. ESD just believed the developer’s promises and has failed to hold them accountable. BMT is moving to the same state General Project Plan process that Atlantic Yards went through; that’s cause for concern.
I have engaged with many proposals over 30 years. I have seen no evidence that this "plan" is feasible. I know what feasibility looks like and this isn't it. It’s gaslighting. There is no financial plan. There is no evidence that this plan can be built.
After much consideration, research, and conversations with constituents, I reluctantly voted no. I could not in good conscience vote yes on a plan that is so fundamentally flawed.
