Today’s news:

Bermuda ‘Triangle’! Huge controversy over city’s East Williamsburg housing project

The Brooklyn Paper

The city’s controversial plan to convert a large swath of manufacturing-zoned land in Williamburg’s “Broadway Triangle” into a residential community won its first approval from a community board panel on Tuesday.

Community Board 1’s land-use committee narrowly approved — though with significant stipulations — the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s contentious proposal to rezone the 31-acre portion of the triangle to create 1,851 units of housing, 905 of which would charge below-market rents.

The city’s plan has been a divisive issue in Williamsburg, where the mostly industrial and commercial area would give way to new residential buildings. Supporters tout the benefits of much-needed affordable housing while opponents allege corruption between the city and two politically connected neighborhood groups that have been awarded first dibs at affordable housing contracts.

At the heart of the conflict is the city’s decision to award the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and the Bushwick Ridgewood Senior Citizens Council — two non-profits tied to influential Assemblyman Vito Lopez (D–Bushwick) — without putting the sites up for bid.

“This isn’t about the community,” said Esteban Duran, a CB1 member and an adversary of the plan. “The community’s voice was never heard.”

The fight over the triangle turned volatile at a June 9 Community Board 1 meeting, where dozens of protestors literally muffled a city presentation with chants of “Open the process, shut them down,” transforming the meeting into a cacophonic eardrum buster the likes of which hasn’t been heard in Williamsburg since last summer’s Sonic Youth concert in the McCarren Park pool.

Seth Donlin, a spokesman for the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, dismissed allegations of wrongdoing, noting that the city can issue the so-called “sole-source dispositions” granting temporary site control to groups that “approach the city with a plan that seems feasible and involves seeking outside monies.”

Lopez, who is also the all-powerful chairman of the county Democratic party organization and chairman of the state Assembly’s housing committee, also refuted the claims and accused project adversaries — many of whom belong to a coalition of North Brooklyn community organizations that say they have been snubbed the chance to control the site — of attempting to halt the proposal so they can develop the affordable units.

“This area is pretty poor and needs housing,” said Lopez. “I am in support of an expeditious process so that we can move to build thousands of units of affordable housing. The people who need affordable housing should not have to wait for it because of self-interest.”

Other issues

Though the role of the non-profits is at the center of the controversy, disagreements about the Broadway Triangle are so broad that they actually include the size of the site itself.

The city’s proposal calls for a residential rezoning an eight-block site bordered by Throop Street, Flushing Avenue, Harrison Street, and Middleton Street, while opponents of the proposal want to see development in a larger area bounded by Broadway, Flushing Avenue, and Union Avenue — including a five-block plot at the southwestern corner of the site that is owned the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

The city claims it decided to exclude the Pfizer plot — which is currently zoned for manufacturing — in the residential rezoning to avoid a spike in the property’s value that could affect future land-use negotiations with the drug-maker.

“If we were to include it, it would kind of give a blank check to them,” said Shampa Chanda, an HPD assistant commissioner. “The community loses its opportunity to engage Pfizer in a larger discussion and get community benefits out of it.”

It’s not just the size of the site that’s in question — it’s also the size of the buildings.

Reversing the paradigm in many Brooklyn rezonings, opponents of the plan are demanding the city allow taller, bulkier buildings that could result in as many as 3,731 new residential units, 1,800 of them affordable.

But the city stands behind its eight-story cap as a means of contextual design — as and a way to avoid severe impacts on neighborhood schools, open space and infrastructure.

Also controversial is the city’s right to use eminent domain on residences and businesses in the Broadway Triangle, as well as the fact that only the 448-units of the touted affordable housing that would be built on city-owned land must be developed on-site.

The remaining affordable units must be constructed or maintained somewhere within CB1.

The board’s recommendation

Taking some of these concerns into account, the Community Board 1 committee approved the project with suggested amendments including:

• a cap on the amount of affordable housing built off-site.

• a “transparent” process to eliminate the no-bid contracts.

• a city fund to help relocate affected businesses.

• a guarantee that open space is created in the area.

The plan will face the CB1 full board next month before heading to the borough president, the City Planning Commission, and finally the City Council.

Political fallout

The Broadway Triangle has become a key issue in the race for the 33rd Council District, where al l six candidates — except for Steve Levin, who is Lopez’s chief of staff — recently stated their opposition to the city’s plan.

If Levin doesn’t win the seat in November, it probably won’t matter, given that the rezoning will likely face a vote before the election. Current Councilman David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights) supports the city’s plan, but Councilwoman Diana Reyna (D–Williamsburg) — whose district abuts the property — is against it.

Typically, councilmembers defer to the local representative, but Yassky was recently snubbed by his Council colleagues, who ignored his opposition to the controversial Dock Street project in his DUMBO district and approved it anyway.

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

Gad from greenpoint says:
Yea build huge low income buildings there, aka projects. Thats really going to help the community.

Some people never learn.
June 25, 2009, 10:11 am
lee from williamsburg says:
Lopez says "thousands" of affordable units? It's more like a few hundred.
June 25, 2009, 12:28 pm
Bob from Bushwick says:
This Broadway triangle issue is far from over, it already going on for more than 15 years and it keeps going on and on, Vito Lopez is just trying to make some noise
That’s only his experience!! He never likes us in the first place; he is just a very good player, even Latino people from his district do not like him at all! Just recently he needs organizations to back him so he is using them for his own purposes,
I really don’t understand UJO for working with him in the first place? I and many people having properties for a long time and now the city is just taking away you called this accomplish? You just give for people and the other hand taking away from people; I call this miss representing the people!!!
June 25, 2009, 1:24 pm
Keith from Bushwick says:
I am not surprise at all as of today Steve Levine don’t have a chance at all!! He is 24 and just Vito Lopez puppet ….with no Experience what so ever!! People don’t need that his former buss should control him, like the press is calling him “Vito power”….
June 25, 2009, 2:03 pm
Scott from Flatbush says:
Gad is wring, affordable housing does not mean projects. It's that kind of view that prevents planners from proposing things that can truly benefit a community.

It's absolutely ridiculous for the city to propose a plan without considering the huge vacant Pfizer building and it's massive parking lots. When they started this process Pfizer was still employing thousands of people, now there's no one working there. Wake up HPD! look at the big picture and do something that will lead public housing into the 21st Century.
June 26, 2009, 10:55 am
adrees says:
i wanna to meet those people who are the member of search commity of bermuda triangle
July 18, 2009, 7:01 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links