TRO Issued on Brooklyn Bridge Park Pier 6 Towers

By on July 19, 2014 10:33 am in brooklyn bridge park, Real Estate

As previously reported, area resident Lori Schomp is not a fan of the current plan for housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6. Emboldened by just under 3,000 signatures on her petition at Change.org, the activist won her first battle yesterday:

Brooklyn Eagle: The city seeks to include 30 percent moderate- and middle-income housing in the luxury waterfront project.

The group also says a supplemental environmental review needs to be carried out because park circumstances have drastically changed since the housing plans were initially made. These changes include Superstorm Sandy, significantly increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a change in park finances and overcrowding in neighborhood schools.

RELATED:This Interactive Map Shows Every Demolition In Brooklyn Since 2003

Lori Schomp, a petitioner in the legal action along with fellow Willowtown resident Joseph Merz, said in a statement, “Planning must take into account current circumstances, and new consideration must now be given to what Brooklyn needs in terms of park space and services to accommodate park visitors as well as school, traffic and other infrastructure challenges faced by local residents.

She added, “I support the mayor’s visionary efforts on affordable housing; however, putting additional luxury housing—even with an affordable component— in the Brooklyn Bridge Park takes away public green space from all of the people of Brooklyn.”

NYS Senator Daniel Squadron, NYS Assemblymember Joan Millman, and NYC Councilmembers Brad Lander and Steve Levin issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit:

“This lawsuit is yet another example of why we have urged the administration to stop moving forward at a breakneck speed on the Bloomberg-era plan for housing at Pier 6, and instead begin to work with the community.

“We have long voiced concern about housing in the park and will continue to do so, especially in light of the continued unknowns at the LICH site, which is a stone’s throw from Pier 6 and will have infrastructure and planning impacts on the same immediate area. The Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the Administration should immediately cease any action on this RFP and begin a community-driven process to revisit other viable options to the Bloomberg plan for housing at Pier 6.”


Final Press Release 7.18.2014 3-30 PM by Brooklyn Heights Blog

Final MOL_people for Green Space by Brooklyn Heights Blog

Final Petition_people for Green Space by Brooklyn Heights Blog

OSC_People for Green Space by Brooklyn Heights Blog

Share this Story:

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • Quinn Raymond

    Everyone wants affordable housing until it’s put anywhere near them.

    The building has long been a part of the park’s plan, the only difference is now it won’t be 100% luxury condos. Now there will be some teachers and cops living there.

    In a city with almost no vacant land “I want affordable housing, just not near me” is functionally the same as “I don’t want affordable housing.”

  • Peter Brooklyn

    At what point are there just too many people – rich people, poor people, middle income people, any kind of people – living within a fixed space with a fixed service infrastructure? Does someone need to fall off of the overly crowded Clark Street subway platform and onto the tracks during rush hour for us to finally say, “Gee, we’ve got too many people trying to share the same facilities?”

  • Remsen Street Dweller

    Please note the irony here — the attorney for People for Green Space, who succeeded in getting a judge to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Brooklyn Bridge Park is none other than Frank Carone, who defended SUNY’s disregarding of several TROs. It’s probably a sure thing that the Brooklyn Bridge Park will obey the TRO, unlike SUNY that dismantled LICH despite many TROs issued specifically to prevent it from doing so. SUNY clearly is above the law..

  • BrooklynBugle

    A conspiracy theorist would think that condos at LICH and not wanting housing at Pier 6 would somehow be linked. #justsayin

  • heights res

    Not the same at all. Should never have had any plan for housing in a PUBLIC park….

  • Solovely

    What about the 200,000 park visitors each weekend? and the future? As Brooklyn’s population continues to grow? Denser cities mean green space is more precious. Healthy communities need parks and other public places.

    **
    [Visitors have] drastically increased beyond what the FEIS anticipated [2005 data]. The FEIS expected the Park to generate approximately “27,000 trips during a typical summer Sunday and 15,000 trips during a typical summer weekday.” However, the actual numbers have turned out to be much higher. Nancy Webster, of the Conservancy, stated that while Brooklyn Bridge Park has yet to carry out a visitor count in 2014, “roughly 100,000 people visited [the Park] each Saturday and Sunday [in 2013].”

    On the topic of the 2014 visitor count, Webster stated that “while [BBP] [hasn’t] counted, the numbers feel higher.” The actual visitor count in BBP in 2014 is likely much higher than the estimate from 2013.”

  • Henry’s End

    Why is the Brooklyn Heights Blog, otherwise such a wonderful resource, so biased against stopping the towers? Highlighting Quinn’s comment, for example, when 75% of the people are in favor of Ms Schomp and Joe Merz, a community legend? It is disappointing that such a great journalistic blog is so obviously biased on this issue. In any case, thank you for covering the story and for contributing so much to the community.

  • BrooklynBugle

    Glad you’ve really thought this accusation through: http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/68669

  • Quinn Raymond

    Magical thinking is believing that your own parochial interests are the best thing for the broader community or the city as a whole.

    This is best illustrated by the fact that the Pier 1 activists and the Pier 6 activists have both suggested the others’ backyard would be a better place for a development. It’s the literal definition of NIMBY.

    People will ascribe all kinds of intentions to their own positions as needed– I am simply pointing out the fact that you cannot be for affordable housing in Brooklyn Heights but against this project.

    Unless you have a viable alternative proposal? Has anyone opposing this project suggested a specific plan to address the affordable housing crisis?

    No?

  • Quinn Raymond

    Your second and third sentences directly contradict each other.

  • Quinn Raymond

    The population of Brooklyn Heights actually decreased from 2000 to 2010 by 2,000 people.

    Do you think another couple of hundred people is going to be the tipping point? Meanwhile the rest of the neighborhood is seeing a reduction in density thanks to the conversion of apartments into single family homes.

    If you want to address crowding at the Clark Street 2/3 join the Riders Alliance: ridersny.org.

  • Quinn Raymond

    Proving my point this is pure NIMBYism. Everyone wants their own immediate area to be free of development.

  • Quinn Raymond

    The park has been an astounding success. The city and state should endeavor to replicate that success throughout the rest of the city in underserved areas so that people don’t have to travel as far to experience recreation.

  • Solovely

    Your data is too old. The growth has been in recent years. Look at the Census Bureau Quick Facts, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 — it’s 3.5% growth for Kings County (Brooklyn)… and I am sure we will find that this accelerated growth rate continued into the second half of 2013 and into the first half of 2014, where we are today. Did you read the petition? There is actually a lot of data in there, whether you agree or disagree with the petition’s overall argument is up to you, but the data is data. Projections for the future are important too. We can’t just look at the past.

  • Solovely

    This is why we need a new Environmental Impact Statement. We can find out where people are coming from… we can have real data now as opposed to the assumptions and guessing that occurred with the 2005 planning.

    I’m not sure where else in the city there are huge areas available to become park areas?

  • Solovely

    I am a mild mannered person, but for you to say your point is proven is absurd, and I am confused, isn’t everyone NIMBY, then?

    There was years of scurfuffle for Pier 1 ( I use only because it is a fun word, I admire their advocacy) from the northern Brooklyn Heights residents and many people from all over Brooklyn who just wanted a park, then, and continue to just want simple green space… now.

    Pier 1 ended up with 8 and 10 stories at Pierhouse/Toll Brothers, and the green and steep berm.

  • A Neighbor

    We have precious little parkland in this part of the borough. Not to state the obvious, Brooklyn Bridge Park is a park — with precious little open parkland. (Olmsted might turn over in his grave — read his writings about the importance of open spaces.)

    The thirst for this park can indeed be seen by the hundreds who use it — and I, for one, welcome that.

    Building high rises on Pier 6 — no matter whom they are for — and the hotel/condos on Pier 1 is an outrage. This is a park. I have a suggestion — build them in Prospect Park or Central Park, plenty of room there. That, of course, is a non- starter.

    And to Mr. Quinn, whoever you are, equating high rises on Pier 6 with NIMBY is a disingenuous — or ignorant — debating tactic.

  • BobStone

    Those who accuse others of NIMBYism are frequently those who feel I’M GLAD IT’S IN YOUR BACKYARD. I haven’t thought of a good acronym yet

  • BrooklynBugle

    Yes we’re so biased we profiled Ms. Schomp: http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/67165

  • Jorale-man

    The phrase NIMBY is misapplied here. That’s typically used in cases of civic necessities that must go somewhere and nobody wants them – things like garbage dumps, prisons or drug treatment clinics. In this case, there’s no solid evidence that this tower must be built in order for the park to survive. Opponents, as I understand it, are simply asking for a new review of park finances before we commit to a 31-story tower in what’s supposed to be green space.

  • BrooklynBugle

    It’s so slanted that it’s persuaded over 80% to agree with Ms. Schomp in our poll. That is, unless, the group is astroturfing the poll as they are this thread.

  • petercow

    The building in the park wasn’t there to cure the lack of affordable housing, or any other social ill.

    It’s there as a concession, to pay for park maint. By putting in affordable housing, it has to be bigger than it otherwise would have to be .

  • Andrew Porter

    I’m curious if the population included Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their many residences are being sold off. Don’t know if they were included in the local population, or if the numbers include Brooklyn Law School, St. George students, etc.

  • Andrew Porter

    In a few years the former JW-owned buildings between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges are due to become offices, retail and residential. There will be even fewer acres of park per person in this area.

  • Doug Biviano

    The high-rise housing in the park, the LICH closing/deception, and sell off of public libraries is only a symptom of the real problem. The primary problem is that the power of government has been taken out of the community by a permanent class of politicians that always gets re-elected and hand picks candidates. The same elected officials who gave up their veto power over development in the park (Millman and Squadron) are both endorsing hand picked replacement candidates (Simon and Sikora). Sikora is also deeply involved in the de Blasio LICH campaign deception stunt and Gary Reilly letter. I explain more at dougbiviano.com

  • Doug Biviano

    Power to the Neighborhoods! dougbiviano.com

  • Eddyde

    Um, please cite a reliable source for your stats.

  • Eddyde

    It is not about being against “affordable housing” it is about any new housing, period.

  • Brixtony

    IMGLIB?

  • BobStone

    I love it. You may have to copy-write that. Thanks.

←  
Newer Comments  →