We face a consequential decision on Brooklyn’s future.
At stake is the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, a 122-acre waterfront site that has faced decades of disinvestment and deterioration. If a community-led Task Force approves a proposal to change that reality, it will kick off a decade-long transformation of the Terminal into a mixed-used development with a modernized port; new parks; large industrial, commercial and community spaces; and thousands of new affordable homes.
The process that brought us here has been long, bumpy and far from perfect. As one of the Task Force’s Vice Chairs, I’ve seen the challenges firsthand. But this perspective has also made clear to me that, in the face of billions in federal funding cuts and competing local priorities, it’s our best shot at delivering a modern Terminal that meets our communities’ and city’s needs.
And while some key questions remain, especially on transportation issues, I see that abandoning this process and starting over, as some neighbors have suggested, will do far more harm than good.
Since the Task Force, which includes the area’s elected officials, community representatives, public housing residents, and maritime and industrial stakeholders began work in September, we’ve held nearly 20 meetings, six public workshops, and dozens upon dozens of community meetings, advisory group meetings and stakeholder engagement sessions. My office has sent out more than 50,000 emails, texts and other communications about the project, and received hundreds of phone calls and emails in return.
Throughout this engagement, one thing has become clear: there’s no unified vision for how the Terminal should be developed. Some neighbors say the entire site should remain maritime. Others don’t support keeping an active port in Brooklyn at all. Some believe the whole site should be parkland and others think the site should be leveraged to build affordable housing.
The proposal now before the Task Force represents a compromise of the many ideas and priorities that have emerged from this nearly year-long process. The plan’s centerpiece is a fully-rebuilt, electric, $1.7 billion 60-acre port that would occupy half the Terminal site and feature a new flexible pier that allows for enhanced maritime activity, including Blue Highway uses, along with full activation of the currently-underutilized Red Hook Cruise Terminal.
The plan also proposes to allow up to 6,000 new homes; 2,400 (40%) of those homes must be affordable at an average of 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) and 1,500 must be family-sized. 10% of the homes must be affordable at 40% AMI, meaning a family of three earning about $58,000 would pay no more than $1,458 per month for a three-bedroom apartment. And no affordable apartment would exceed 100% AMI.
The plan calls for the creation of 28 acres of new public space, including a destination park adjoining Brooklyn Bridge Park, another new park near Degraw and Columbia Streets, six acres of open space at the Cruise Terminal, and over 5,000 feet of direct waterfront access. There would be 500,000 square feet of industrial and commercial space and 250,000 square feet for community facilities. The plan also incorporates resiliency measures to protect against storm surges, building on the protective barriers being built as part of the Red Hook Coastal Resiliency Project.
Mirroring the success of the Gowanus rezoning, the city would finance $200 million for repairs of the nearby NYCHA Red Hook East and Red Hook West developments, and establish a $50 million fund to support the creation and preservation of additional affordable homes nearby. This desperately-needed investment would ensure that 53% of the homes developed or preserved in the community would be permanently affordable.
All of this work would be overseen by a new development organization that would approve contracts and spending. Importantly, this entity would have authority to enforce its contracts—a crucial difference from the Atlantic Yards project that ensures affordable housing actually gets built. The organization would have local residents and elected officials on its board. And borrowing another page from the Gowanus rezoning, the plan would also create and fund a Community Oversight Task Force to ensure these commitments come to fruition.
Despite these major wins, there’s still more work to be done. The Terminal is just a few blocks away from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and traffic overflowing onto local roads is a major issue. And that’s not to mention the challenges these communities will face when the City begins work to repair or replace the triple cantilever.
In light of these challenges, and thanks to dogged advocacy from several task force members, the BMT project proposes to study the transportation impacts in an expansive area that spans, at a minimum, from Dikeman Street up to the Tillary Street interchange, as far east as Clinton Street in Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill, and the arterial truck routes of Hamilton Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, and 9th Street.
The transportation study will adhere to the standards outlined under CEQR (Citywide Environmental Quality Review), and will include an intersection-by-intersection, data-driven analysis of all vehicular, transit, cyclist, and pedestrian traffic issues on each intersection. Notably, under CEQR, this analysis isn’t limited to the impact on traffic flow, but also includes street safety. Any significant impacts must then be studied for potential mitigation, including increased transit access and enhanced safety improvements.
I believe the transportation planning will continue to be the stickiest issue that confronts this potential development, if it moves forward. But I feel comfortable with the planned area of study and the level of comprehensive analysis that will consider these challenges holistically, without simply prioritizing vehicular throughput.
The most difficult question facing the Task Force has been how to pay for all this. So far, New York City has committed $175 million, New York State has committed $20 million, and EDC won a $165 million federal grant, its largest ever, towards the port’s construction. But that still leaves a funding gap of nearly $1.4 billion.
Some believe the city and state should fully fund the cost. If we lived in a perfect world where dollars were infinite, I would agree. But the reality is this: $1.7 billion is a lot of money at a time when we’re grappling with limited resources, federal budget cuts, and competing local priorities.
This year, New York State already raised taxes by $2 billion to fully fund the MTA’s capital plan. The City Council just approved a budget that did not include any additional funding for the Terminal. Now, with Trump’s disastrous budget, New York is poised to lose $13 billion for housing, $10 billion for Medicaid, and $3 billion for SNAP. Should port funding take priority over SNAP? Medicaid? Housing vouchers? There are also competing local priorities of the next mayoral administration to consider. In the face of federal cuts, finding money for the port would almost certainly mean redirecting funds away from transit, childcare, and housing.
At a time when we’re facing decimating cuts to the social safety net, insisting the port is only publicly funded is not realistic, and in fact, it sets the project up to fail. If we care about rebuilding the city’s only active port, we cannot ignore the only viable financial plan that doesn’t pit safety net hospitals or food stamps against the working waterfront.
So, we should be honest: while this plan isn’t perfect, it reflects a lot of good ideas and hard choices made by community stakeholders. A Task Force vote to approve the plan would simply move the process to the next stage: a General Project Plan, which requires environmental review, public input, approval by the board of the Empire State Development Corporation, and a unanimous vote by the Public Authorities Control Board.
Approval by the Task Force would not mean shovels in the ground next month—but abandoning this process would severely delay both the port modernization and the construction of much-needed affordable housing, possibly for years. We have a generational opportunity to forge ahead with a plan that ensures the community has a seat at the table every step of the way as this project unfolds. If we scrap the work we’ve done so far, all the benefits we’ve fought for could be erased. This is not the moment to give up.
State Sen. Andrew Gounardes represents New York’s 26th State Senate District, which includes the neighborhoods of Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Sunset Park, Red Hook, Park Slope, Gowanus, Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, Fort Greene, Brooklyn Heights, Vinegar Hill, and DUMBO. He is vice chair of the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Task Force.
