Good afternoon, Chair Farías and thank you for holding this hearing today. I am deeply concerned about the lack of public awareness about this plan, so I thank you for giving it the City Council’s time and attention, especially since EDC’s use of a General Project Plan (GPP) rather than ULURP means the Council ultimately won’t have the oversight that it otherwise would have. I want to take this time to address a few issues with the project as proposed, including industrial retention, housing, process, and governance.
My main concern with this proposal is how it continues the City’s chipping away at what little manufacturing land we have left. For our city to have a diverse economy that provides opportunities for New Yorkers with varied educational backgrounds and skill sets, as well as a just transition away from fossil fuels, we need manufacturing space – particularly on the waterfront. We need space for Blue Highways to get polluting trucks off the road, and space to connect offshore wind to the grid. Look at Equinor’s project at SBMT, which has brought 1,000 construction jobs to Sunset Park. We’ve already lost much of Brooklyn’s industrial waterfront to the Greenpoint/Williamsburg rezoning and Brooklyn Bridge Park. You all know that I am as pro-housing as elected officials come. But the pledge to protect our Industrial Business Zones exists for a reason – because local manufacturing is a critical component of our city’s functioning. No housing is affordable without a job, and once we take away space for jobs, we can’t get it back.
That is why I am opposing housing development in this plan. EDC claims the housing is necessary to pay for the port upgrade; however, this is only the case because of governmental decisions that let it fall into such disrepair. All budgets are a choice, and I am skeptical that there are no other options. Additionally, adding housing here leads to added costs for other things like public realm and transportation improvements. This creates a cycle of spending that EDC says can only be solved with more housing. I am also concerned about any proposal that would add market-rate housing to public land. I understand that it is being used here to cross-subsidize other parts of the plan, including NYCHA and preservation efforts in CB6, but I question whether 35% affordable housing is the maximum possible.
Part of the reason I have questions like this is that we are being asked to vote on a premature proposal that is incomplete since the environmental review hasn’t yet been done. The information we have now does not include viable alternatives, nor does it sufficiently explain how this proposal balances all of the considerations and tradeoffs appropriately. And speaking of tradeoffs, the community has legitimate concerns about how to make commitments enforceable. We’ve all seen through Atlantic Yards what can happen with a GPP – even when it seems like commitments are made, the State can just change its mind. On top of that, the community should not be asked to make tradeoffs for improvements that should be happening anyway, such as climate change protections and upgrades to public housing. Finally on process, EDC’s plan to include the UPS site in this proposal sets a bad precedent. Did we learn nothing from North Brooklyn’s Bushwick Inlet Park about the need for the government to purchase land before its own intervention increases that land’s value?
Regarding governance, I am concerned that the proposed Local Development Corporation that will oversee the project long-term has too much control from the mayor and not enough community representation. There are also many outstanding questions about roles and responsibilities for long-term operations and maintenance, which can contribute additional costs to the project.
I want to be clear that the answer for BMT isn’t to do nothing. I appreciate EDC’s efforts in forming the Task Force and giving us the final vote. However, we can’t just take one agency’s word for what is and isn’t feasible here. And being forced to vote the entire project up or down leaves little room for the Task Force to evaluate aspects or components of the plan, consider alternatives, and modify the proposal, as would happen at the City Council in ULURP. That is why I’m calling on EDC to not rush the process, take the time to finish the EIS, consider alternatives, and have a real dialogue with the community. Thank you.