The buy-versus-lease debate has been running for decades, and most of the advice you’ll find online still defaults to the same answer. Buying is always smarter because you build equity. End of discussion.
Except it’s not that simple. For a growing segment of American drivers, particularly those who prefer new vehicles, value predictable costs, and don’t want to worry about depreciation, leasing has become the more financially sound choice. And when USA Today featured VIP Auto Lease’s zero-down program alongside its expansion into all 50 states, the coverage underscored something the buy-at-all-costs crowd tends to overlook. The economics of leasing have improved dramatically, especially when dealer markups are removed from the equation.
The Depreciation Problem With Buying
The moment you drive a new car off the lot, it begins losing value. Most new vehicles depreciate 20 to 30 percent within the first three years. On a $40,000 purchase, that’s $8,000 to $12,000 in value that simply evaporates.
When you buy, you absorb that depreciation entirely. Yes, you own the car at the end. But you own an asset that’s worth significantly less than what you paid, and you’ve been paying interest on the full purchase price the entire time.
Leasing structures the payment around only the depreciation that occurs during your lease term, plus a finance charge. You’re paying for the portion of the vehicle’s life you actually use, then handing it back before the expensive maintenance years begin.
Depreciation Exposure: Buyers carry the full risk of value loss, which is most severe in the first three years.
Maintenance Timing: Leases typically align with the manufacturer’s warranty period, meaning most repairs are covered.
Capital Efficiency: Lower monthly lease payments free up cash for savings, investments, or other priorities that may offer better returns than car equity.
Jeep and Nissan Show Why Leasing Wins on the Numbers
Two popular brands make the lease-versus-buy comparison especially clear. The 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee carries a strong residual value, which means it’s projected to hold a solid percentage of its original price after three years. That’s a headwind for buyers, because you’re paying the full sticker price upfront for a vehicle that retains much of its value but ties up your capital in the process. For lessees, a strong residual is an advantage because it reduces the depreciation you’re financing each month, which directly lowers the payment.
The Nissan Rogue tells a complementary story. It’s one of the most affordable crossovers in its class to lease, partly because Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation subsidizes competitive money factors and residuals. A buyer financing the Rogue at full price might pay $450 to $500 per month with money down. A lessee through VIP’s wholesale channel could drive the same vehicle for significantly less per month with nothing down, freeing that cash for priorities that may appreciate rather than depreciate.
When Bulk Pricing Tilts the Equation Even Further
Leasing already limits your depreciation exposure. But when the starting price of the vehicle is lower, the math gets even better. VIP Auto Lease’s wholesale model reduces the capitalized cost through bulk purchasing, which means the depreciation amount you’re financing is smaller from the outset.
Combine that with a base money factor that carries no dealer markup, and the total cost of a three-year lease drops meaningfully compared to what you’d pay at a retail dealership. For drivers who plan to get a new vehicle every three years anyway, which is roughly how often the average American changes cars, leasing through a wholesale broker becomes hard to argue against on pure numbers.
The VIP zero-down Nissan auto lease program published by USA Today details how this structure works across multiple vehicle segments, from sedans to SUVs to trucks.
The Flexibility Factor Nobody Talks About
Beyond the monthly payment, leasing offers a kind of financial flexibility that buying doesn’t. At the end of a lease, you have options. Walk away and lease something new. Buy the vehicle at its predetermined residual value if you’ve grown attached. Or simply return it and take a break from car payments entirely.
When you buy, your exit options are more complicated. Selling privately takes time and effort. Trading in at a dealer typically nets you less than the car is worth. And if you still owe money on the loan, you might find yourself underwater, owing more than the vehicle’s market value.
Clean Exit: At lease end, you return the vehicle with no obligation beyond normal wear-and-tear guidelines.
Upgrade Cycle: Leasing makes it financially practical to drive the latest safety features, fuel efficiency improvements, and technology every few years.
No Resale Hassle: You never have to worry about selling the car, timing the market, or dealing with private buyers.
The Bottom Line for Budget-Conscious Drivers
I’m not saying buying is always wrong. For someone who plans to keep a vehicle for eight or ten years and doesn’t mind the maintenance costs that come after warranty coverage expires, purchasing can work out well. But for the majority of drivers who want a new car every few years, leasing, and particularly leasing at wholesale pricing with no markup, deserves a harder look than most financial advice columns give it.
The USA Today feature validated what wholesale lease customers have known for years. When you strip out the dealer margin and start from a lower price, leasing isn’t just competitive with buying. For many households, it’s the better financial move.
Contributed by Dan Rose,A Senior Automotive Finance and Personal Economics Writer.
Ready to Run the Numbers on Leasing Versus Buying?
The difference might be larger than you think, especially at wholesale pricing.
Visit us at https://viplease.com/ to compare lease payments on the models you’re considering and see how zero-down terms change the math.
Get Directions Below!
VIP Auto Lease, 1204 Hylan Blvd, Staten Island, NY 10305, (718) 477-7888, HWX8+5W Staten Island, New York, USA
VIP Auto Lease, 2912 Avenue X Suite 2, Brooklyn, NY 11235, (718) 477-7888, H3V5+CG Brooklyn, New York, USA
Getting a denial letter on a workers’ compensation claim feels like a door slamming shut. You have been dealing with pain for months, maybe years. You finally reported it, saw a doctor, filed the paperwork, and then the insurance carrier said no. I understand the frustration, and I want to be direct with you. A denial is not the end of your case. In fact, for repetitive stress injuries in New York, initial denials are so common that experienced attorneys often plan for them from the start. The appeals process exists for a reason, and workers who push forward with the right strategy frequently end up receiving the full benefits they were owed all along.
If your repetitive stress injury claim has been denied or your benefits have been reduced, here is what is actually happening and how to fight back effectively.
Why Insurance Carriers Love Denying Repetitive Stress Claims
Let me be blunt about the dynamics at play. Insurance companies are businesses. Their job is to pay out as little as possible. Repetitive stress injuries give them more room to maneuver than almost any other type of workplace claim, and they know it.
With a broken leg from a fall on a job site, there is usually a clear incident, a date, witnesses, and a medical report that ties everything together neatly. With carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic tendonitis, or a deteriorating lower back from years of repetitive lifting, none of those clean facts exist. There is no single event. The onset is gradual. And there are almost always alternative explanations the carrier can point to.
I have seen denial letters that blame a worker’s age, their weight, a prior medical history, recreational hobbies, even genetics. One carrier argued that a food service worker’s shoulder condition was caused by playing with her children, not by the overhead reaching she did forty hours a week for six years. These arguments are not always made in bad faith, but they are almost always designed to test whether you will fight back.
Common Denial Reasons: The carrier claims the injury is not work-related, attributes it to a pre-existing condition, argues the worker waited too long to report, or states that the medical documentation does not establish a clear occupational link.
Strategic Testing: Many initial denials are a calculated bet that the worker will give up rather than go through an appeal. Statistics show that represented workers are far more likely to overturn denials than those who go it alone.
Burden of Proof Reality: Under New York law, repetitive stress injuries are classified as occupational diseases. That means you must demonstrate that your condition arose from hazards specific to your type of work, a higher standard than for acute injuries.
What a Denial Actually Means Under New York Law
A denial does not mean the Workers’ Compensation Board has reviewed your case and ruled against you. In most situations, it means the employer’s insurance carrier has decided not to accept liability, and now the matter will go before an administrative law judge for a hearing. Think of it less like a verdict and more like the other side saying, “Prove it.”
That hearing is your opportunity to present medical evidence, employment records, and testimony that connects your repetitive stress injury to your job duties. The judge evaluates the evidence from both sides and issues a decision. If the evidence supports your claim, the denial gets overturned and your benefits begin, sometimes with back pay included.
This is also where having a repetitive stress injury workers’ comp lawyer in Queens makes the biggest difference. The insurance carrier will have legal counsel at every hearing. Walking in without representation puts you at a serious disadvantage, especially in cases where the medical causation is being contested.
Hearing Process: You will appear before a Workers’ Compensation Board judge who reviews evidence from both parties and makes a determination.
Back Benefits: If your denial is overturned, you may be entitled to retroactive wage replacement going back to when your disability or lost time first began.
No Upfront Cost: In New York, workers’ compensation attorney fees are set by the Board and paid by the insurance carrier after an award is issued. You do not pay out of pocket to get representation.
Strengthening Your Case After a Denial
If your claim has been denied, the single most important thing you can do is improve your medical documentation. In my experience, weak or vague medical reports are the leading cause of unsuccessful repetitive stress claims, not because the injury is not real, but because the paperwork did not tell the full story.
Your treating physician needs to provide a clear, detailed opinion that your condition was caused or significantly worsened by specific, identifiable work activities. A report that says “patient has tendonitis” is not nearly as effective as one that says “patient has tendonitis in the right shoulder consistent with repetitive overhead reaching performed during employment as a commercial painter for approximately five years.” The second version gives the judge something concrete to evaluate. The first gives the insurance carrier room to argue.
Beyond medical records, gather anything that helps paint a picture of your daily work routine. Job descriptions, shift schedules, photographs of your workstation, communications with your employer about the physical demands of your role. If coworkers can attest to the repetitive nature of your tasks, their statements can add meaningful support.
Medical Report Upgrade: If your doctor’s initial report was generic, ask for a supplemental opinion that explicitly ties your diagnosis to the repetitive motions your job required. Specificity wins these cases.
Employment Evidence: Collect job descriptions, duty rosters, or any internal documents that describe the physical requirements of your position. These help establish that the repetitive exposure was a core part of your role, not incidental.
Witness Statements: Coworkers, supervisors, or even clients who observed your work tasks daily can provide written or verbal statements supporting the repetitive nature of your job duties.
The Pre-Existing Condition Problem (and Why It Does Not Disqualify You)
One of the most discouraging things I hear from Queens workers is, “They said I already had this condition before I started the job, so I cannot get benefits.” This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of New York workers’ compensation law, and insurance carriers rely on that misunderstanding.
Here is the reality. New York explicitly allows workers’ comp claims even when a pre-existing condition is involved, as long as you can show that your job duties made the condition measurably worse. If you had mild arthritis in your wrist before you took a data entry position, and five years of constant typing turned that mild arthritis into debilitating carpal tunnel syndrome requiring surgery, your claim can absolutely succeed. The law recognizes that jobs aggravate existing conditions, and it provides benefits accordingly.
In fact, New York law even allows a worker who previously received comp benefits for a repetitive stress injury to file again if they returned to work and the condition worsened. The system is designed to account for the way these injuries evolve over time.
Aggravation Standard: You do not need to prove your job was the sole cause of your condition. You need to prove it made a pre-existing condition materially worse.
Re-Filing Rights: If you returned to work after a prior repetitive stress claim and the same condition has deteriorated, you may be eligible to file a new claim.
Insurance Carrier Tactics: Expect the carrier to use your medical history against you. An experienced attorney will anticipate this strategy and prepare counter-evidence, including updated medical opinions and functional assessments.
Do Not Let a Denial Letter Write the Final Chapter
Insurance carriers count on workers giving up after a denial. The paperwork is intimidating, the process feels adversarial, and the pain you are already managing makes fighting an uphill battle feel impossible. But here is what I have seen over and over again in Queens. Workers who push forward, who get proper representation and build a documented case, recover the benefits they were owed from the beginning. A denial is not a determination of your claim’s merit. It is just the starting line of the next phase.
If you have received a denial on a repetitive stress injury claim, or if your benefits were reduced or cut off, a qualified repetitive injury lawyer in Queens can evaluate your case, identify where the gaps are, and represent you at hearings where it counts.
Contributed by Dan Rose,A Senior Workers’ Compensation Legal Analyst.
Was Your Repetitive Stress Injury Claim Denied?
A denial is not the final answer.
Visit becklawny.com to schedule a free consultation with Beck Law P.C. and learn how to fight for the benefits you deserve.
Get Directions Below!
Beck Law, 31-16 30th Avenue, Suite #203, Astoria, NY 11102, (718) 626-3338
As anticipation builds for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, neighborhoods across North Brooklyn are beginning to prepare for the international wave of visitors expected to arrive in the New York region.
With several matches scheduled at MetLife Stadium, just across the Hudson River, local hotels, restaurants, and bars in Williamsburg, Brooklyn are poised to benefit from the global spotlight.
While much of the conversation around the tournament has focused on Manhattan, many travelers are expected to look to Brooklyn neighborhoods like Williamsburg and nearby Greenpoint, Brooklyn for accommodations, dining, and nightlife during their stay.
Local hospitality operators say the area’s strong food scene, waterfront parks, and convenient transit options make it a natural destination for World Cup fans looking to experience New York beyond Midtown.
Located just minutes from Manhattan, Williamsburg, Brooklyn has grown into one of the city’s most popular destinations for visitors over the past decade. The neighborhood is known for its independent restaurants, lively nightlife, boutique hotels, and scenic East River waterfront.
With subway connections that can quickly bring visitors into Manhattan and toward regional transit options serving MetLife Stadium, Williamsburg is expected to serve as a convenient base for fans attending matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Local tourism experts note that Brooklyn’s appeal lies in offering visitors a more neighborhood-focused experience—one where guests can walk to restaurants, explore parks, and discover independent shops between games.
Among the hotels welcoming visitors is 42 Hotel, a boutique property located in the heart of Williamsburg. The hotel features modern guest rooms with large windows, contemporary design, and easy access to nearby dining and nightlife. Hotel 42 is offering an exclusive Spring Sale now through April.
For visitors planning to explore North Brooklyn, the hotel’s location places guests within walking distance of many of Williamsburg’s most popular destinations, making it a convenient base for both sightseeing and attending World Cup festivities.
Popular restaurants near 42 Hotel include Lilia, widely known for its handmade pasta and Italian-inspired menu, as well as Sunday in Brooklyn, a neighborhood favorite famous for its brunch offerings.
Blackbird tucked away inside 42 Hotel has various American and Caribbean inspired dishes like their award winning Oxtail Mac N’ Cheese, and their 100 bulb light fixture is a popular sight to see.
For a lively gathering place, Radegast Hall & Biergarten offers a beer hall atmosphere that could become a popular destination for fans watching matches together.
Another well-known Williamsburg dining spot is Leo, known for its pizza and seasonal menu.
Local bars and venues also add to the neighborhood’s nightlife appeal. Pete’s Candy Store, a longtime Williamsburg institution, regularly hosts live music, while Brooklyn Bowl combines bowling lanes, concerts, and dining under one roof.
Domino Park offers a popular riverside promenade with sweeping views of the Manhattan skyline. Just north along the waterfront is Marsha P. Johnson State Park, a scenic open space overlooking the East River.
For those looking for green space within the neighborhood, McCarren Park provides sports fields, walking paths, and open lawns where locals often gather.
With millions of visitors expected to travel to the region during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, hotel demand is expected to be high throughout New York City.
Another accommodation option nearby is Holiday Inn Express Maspeth, located a short drive from Williamsburg and providing additional lodging for visitors exploring Brooklyn and Queens during the tournament.
City officials estimate that the 2026 FIFA World Cup could bring hundreds of thousands of visitors to the New York region. While matches will take place in New Jersey at MetLife Stadium, neighborhoods across Brooklyn are expected to see increased tourism and economic activity.
For North Brooklyn communities like Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Greenpoint, Brooklyn, the tournament could present an opportunity to showcase the area’s restaurants, parks, and local businesses to a global audience.
As the countdown to kickoff continues, many local establishments are already preparing to welcome soccer fans from around the world.
On the final Friday evening of February, Greenpointers and visitors alike sought inspiration, intrigue, and evocative conversation at Greenpoint Gallery’s Photos Only Salon Show.
Curated through an open call for submissions, this semi-regular show gives emerging photographers a rare opportunity to publicly celebrate their work in a city known for an impenetrable arts scene. Once-blank walls were transformed into mosaics of prints in an expansive range of styles, sizes, color schemes, moods, and themes. Subjects of the featured photos oscillated from a curious orange bird titled “Andean cock-on-a-rock,” to swerving skid marks on an empty country road titled “Past Mistakes.” A striking set of silver gelatin prints of a college campus, processed using the Mordançage technique, depicted dissolving shadows flowing beyond the frame in billowy veils of ink.
The crowd was as eclectic as the photos: a blend of artists, art-appreciators, and people just looking for something to do on a Friday night. Everyone I approached was eager to converse, including (or perhaps, especially) the photographers behind the photos showcased that evening. I struck up a conversation with a woman who turned out to be the photographer behind a featured collage series of New York City subjects superimposed onto calming rural scenes. The idea for this series emerged from her experience of splitting time between NYC and a rural North Carolina property she acquired through a saga involving a cheap Craigslist car, a golden Ganesha statue, a five-leaf clover, and an unwavering belief in signs from the universe. I also spoke with Tashroom Ahsan, the up-and-coming photographer behind the aforementioned Mordançage works. “I’ve been at this show before as a witness,” he said, “but there’s something remarkable about being a participant. Lending physical presence to my work and seeing others engage with it has given it a life I’d never seen before.”
Many attendees were artists in mediums other than photography. In a pond of twenty- and thirty-somethings, the grey-haired painter Julie effortlessly matched the lively, youthful energy buzzing in the space. She was glad to see emerging artists getting the chance to gain visibility and feedback on their work, reminiscing about how the early days of her practice have shaped the way her artwork looks today. When she was young, she couldn’t afford frames for her paintings so she began a practice of painting artistic borders around her work. Decades have passed. Her frames have grown ever thicker around the page, swallowing more and more of the space available for a central image.
Now her paintings are almost entirely about the frame rather than what fills it. As Julie observed Friday night’s photographs, she pondered the three components of any work of art: the artist, the material, and the unknown. Looking for the element of the unknown within the displayed works framed my experience of the photographs for the remainder of the evening.
I was a few stairs up the flight to the gallery’s upper level when I peered over the railing. A gargantuan stuffed frog stopped me in my tracks. I asked the man standing beside it if he knew what it was for, and he told me he’d made it for a children’s puppet show. Somewhere in the midst of this conversation, he subtly revealed that he was the visionary behind the space, and Shawn James went on to humor all of my subsequent curiosities about the gallery’s origin and evolution.
He shared that this was all possible because John Perry Barlow—whom he identified as “the guy who wrote most of the songs for the Grateful Dead”—bought one of his early paintings for $25K. Gesturing to the painting on the wall beside us, James told me that Barlow had shipped it back to him from his deathbed, along with a note saying James could probably get $50K for it now. Barlow had become a mentor for James throughout his later years. When James asked how he could repay Barlow for everything he’d done to support him, Barlow told James to be to other young artists what Barlow had been to him. From this, Greenpoint Gallery’s mission was born in 2003: to empower emerging artists through classes, lectures, career counseling, and affordable exhibition space.
At the gallery’s information booth, a multi-medium artist currently interning at Greenpoint Gallery expanded on the gallery’s program offerings, including shows and lessons across a variety of popular mediums, communal studio space, and even an artist residency program. The gallery is also always looking for more interns—an invaluable opportunity to learn what happens behind the scenes in gallery spaces and build up experience in the New York art world.
As winter gives way to spring, Brooklyn begins to feel lighter and more active. Parks start to bloom, waterfront paths draw evening walkers, and longer days make it easier to spend time outdoors.
To mark the season, 42 Hotel is offering an Early-Bird Spring Sale, which features affordable room rates and information highlighting fun local activities such as a trip to the Brooklyn Botanical Garden and deals at local bars and restaurants.
From March 1 through April 30, guests who book directly with the hotel will receive 15% off regular room rates, and one complimentary house cocktail per room at Blackbird, the hotel’s on-site bar and restaurant.
Spring in Brooklyn is best enjoyed outdoors, so 42 Hotel has created the 42 Hotel Cherry Blossom Trail, a guide to several well-known locations for seasonal blooms.
Prospect Park 95 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, NY 11215 One of Brooklyn’s largest parks, Prospect Park features cherry trees along its paths and open lawns, making it a popular destination for walks and picnics in early spring.
Brooklyn Botanic Garden 990 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225 Known for its extensive cherry blossom collection, the garden attracts visitors each year during peak bloom. Its landscaped grounds offer a quieter setting for viewing.
Brooklyn Heights Promenade Montague Street & Pierrepont Place Remsen Street & Columbia Heights With views of the Manhattan skyline and the East River, the promenade combines waterfront scenery with seasonal blossoms and is especially popular at sunset.
Each location is easily accessible from Williamsburg, making 42 Hotel a convenient base for exploring the borough in spring.
After a day outdoors, guests can return to Blackbird for a relaxed drink. Each Spring Early Bird reservation includes one complimentary house cocktail per room. It can be enjoyed before dinner or as a quiet way to end the evening.
If you’d rather stretch your legs and walk around the neighborhood, you can visit local restaurants such as Maison Provence, Hole In The Wall, Barcade, or Skinny Dennis for unique happy hour deals.
Located at 426 South 5th Street in Williamsburg, 42 Hotel NYC places visitors within reach of neighborhood shops, galleries, parks, and restaurants, with straightforward access to Manhattan. The hotel offers a contemporary setting that balances modern design with a neighborhood atmosphere.
Offer Details
Valid: March 1 – April 30 Booking: Direct bookings only Inclusion: One complimentary house cocktail per room at Blackbird Location: 426 South 5th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11211
Reservations are currently available for spring stays, but rooms are going fast, so book before they’re all gone,
Pete McGuinness left an indelible mark on the neighborhood he loved.
GEOFFREY COBB | gcobb91839@Aol.com
Author, “Greenpoint Brooklyn’s Forgotten Past
Greenpoint, Brooklyn today is an area of luxury high-rise waterfront properties, pricey, Michelin star restaurants and chic boutiques. Its residents are increasingly Ivy League graduates who live an affluent lifestyle, but not long ago, Greenpoint was the heart of industrial, working-class Brooklyn, an area of blue-collar factory workers and longshoremen, and no one personified working class Greenpoint more than its Irish American political boss Peter J. McGuinness.
A born and raised Greenpointer and former longshoremen, McGuinness represented Greenpoint on the City Council and then ran the area’s political machine from the end of the First World War until his death in 1948, as the last Tammany Hall style ward boss in the Borough’s history. People often said that McGuinness so embodied Greenpoint that it was hard to think of the one without immediately thinking of the other.
On Wednesday, February 25th, I will speak about McGuinness’ local legacy at the Oak and Iron Bar Local History Night, a forum where locals make presentations on aspects of North Brooklyn history. I have presented at the packed bar before and the atmosphere is great because we Greenpointers are really passionate about our community and its long, rich history.
I have written three books on Greenpoint history including, The King of Greenpoint Peter McGuinness: The Amazing Story of Greenpoint’s Most Colorful Character, which I published ten years ago. Though Greenpoint has over three hundred and fifty years of history, no character was as colorful as McGuinness and arguably no one left a greater legacy than Pete whose enduring contributions include playgrounds, the G Train stops, a bridge and the McCarren Park pool, just to name a few.
McGuinness, like the people he represented, grew up facing adversity and working hard. One of eleven children, Pete left school after eighth grade to work in the area’s lumberyards. An amateur boxer and a longshoreman, McGuinness was a powerhouse standing about six feet tall with a barrel chest, huge back and bulging biceps. Though he was a gentleman, he was well able to settle disputes with his fists. Once when six men tried to force him to accept a shipment of rotten lumber, a fistfight ensued, six-on-one. McGuinness knocked three of his opponents out and then lectured the remaining three on business ethics.
Nowadays, American politics is characterized by divisiveness, name calling and acrimony, but McGuinness, a Democrat, displayed a lifelong ability to work with Socialists and Republicans. He defied the Democratic Party and supported his childhood friend Republican John McCrate when he ran for the area’s congressional seat. When Fiorello LaGuardia defeated the Democratic candidate for mayor, McGuinness graciously stated, “The Little Flower is a most splendid gentleman. Under him, we know the poor people of this city will be looked after, irregardless of what may befall. What he done, he done honest and he done good.”
B. Charney Vladeck, a Socialist alderman from the Lower East Side and an enemy of corrupt Democrats was one of McGuinness warmest admirers. “That Irisher!” Vladeck used to say: “Sometimes he makes me wish I was a Democrat.” McGuinness won Vladeck’s friendship by giving Democratic sponsorship to a number of Socialist resolutions. “Many’s the time,” he said, “I used to say, Cheeny, old pal, if you got something you really want to get through this here board, give it to me, and I’ll make it Irish for you. I figured what the hell, if something was good enough for Cheeny, it was good enough for the other aldermen.”
McGuinness had a legendary sense of humor and there are a number of famous yarns about Pete. One of the funniest relates to Governor Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 visit to Greenpoint as part of his presidential campaign. McGuinness and the future president were touring the area in an open car, and huge crowds lined the streets to greet them. Roosevelt saw Jewish businesses, Polish children dressed in traditional costumes and Italian Americans, but few Irish Americans. Roosevelt inquired about the absence of the Irish and McGuinness somberly told him that most of the area’s Irish were now dead and buried in Calvary Cemetery. A tense silence ensued and Roosevelt thought he said the wrong thing, but suddenly in a loud voice McGuinness retorted, “But don’t you worry Governor Roosevelt, those dead Irish will still turn out for you on election day.”
Though McGuinness had passed away some thirteen years previously, he was still so beloved that when Oakland Street was widened and made into a boulevard, both local Democrats and Republicans agreed it should be named in honor of its legendary political leader. Come out on Wednesday February 25th to hear more about this local legend.
Greenpoint City councilmember Lincoln Restler voiced his opposition to the Monitor Point development in a passionate speech. Photo by Cole Sinanian.
By COLE SINANIAN | news@queensledger.com
The moment Bryan Kelly began speaking, several of the more than a hundred Greenpointers packed into the Polish Slavic Center solemnly pulled out their signs: “600ft Luxury Towers? Hard Pass,” read one.
“Bushwick Inlet Can’t Be Replaced,” read another.
Tensions in the room were high. Kelly, President of Development at the Gotham Corporation, had come to pitch an enormous mixed-use development that would add 3,000 residents to Greenpoint by its completion in the early 2030s. The sign-bearers had come to voice their disapproval before the Community Board.
Hanging in the balance is the fate of Monitor Point, a spit of land north of Bushwick Inlet that’s Greenpoint’s last swath of undeveloped waterfront. A section of it is part of a 27.8-acre parcel that the City set aside in the 2005 Williamsburg/Greenpoint rezoning for the long-awaited Bushwick Inlet Park.
Local activists with Save the Inlet and Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park have fought for years to prevent private developers from acquiring the promised parkland. Twenty years later, the Gotham Organization — in collaboration with the MTA — is seeking to remove the park designation from the City Map and upzone the adjacent property in order to build three high-rise apartment buildings, the tallest of which would rise to 600ft. The three towers would include 1,150 housing units, 40% of which would be affordable at 40-80% Area Median Income (AMI), and could add some 3,000 residents to the neighborhood. These towers, developers say, would provide much-needed affordable housing to the district, and help fund major public benefits, like a building to house the Greenpoint Monitor Museum, public waterfront access, shoreline rehabilitation, and crucial MTA funding.
But critics argue that the project is a land-grab. The 80,000-square-foot MTA-owned property located at 40 Quay Street will be leased to the Gotham Organization for a century, while air rights at the Greenpoint Monitor Museum-owned 56 Quay Street — designated on the City Map as park land but never acquired by the City — will be acquired by Gotham. It’s a betrayal, critics say, of the City’s 2005 commitment to integrating the land into Bushwick Inlet Park.
Other critics are longtime Greenpoint residents with the trauma of the displacement and gentrification brought by the 2005 rezoning and the luxury high-rises that followed fresh in mind, fearing that such a population bump of mostly wealthy residents will only lead to more gentrification. And for others still, it’s an environmental issue; rare birds and sea life live around the Inlet, which was just a century ago toxic with pollution. Now, years of care and rehabilitation have allowed the public to access the estuary once again, just in time to be overshadowed by residential skyscrapers that activists fear could turn the park and the Inlet into little more than a playground for the wealthy.
Still, several groups in attendance came to support the Monitor Point project, including the labor unions SEIU 32BJ and Local 79, whose workers expect it to bring them good jobs, as well as Los Sures, a local Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) cooperative.
The hearing, held on January 20, was the beginning of the project’s ULURP, set to go before Community Board 1 for a recommendation vote on February 3.
Affordable for who?
Outside the Polish Slavic Center, activists with Save the Inlet rallied before the hearing, braving the cold to chant and hold signs that read “Public Land for Public Good!” and “Stop Stealing Public Parkland for Luxury Towers in GPT!!!”
Inside, developers began by presenting their vision for an integrated, mixed-used community space that would finally connect Bushwick Inlet Park, the East River, the Greenpoint Monitor Museum, and the rest of the North Brooklyn waterfront esplanade via a series of public walkways and open spaces, while restoring a degraded and flood-vulnerable shoreline on Greenpoint’s last remaining plot of undeveloped waterfront. They argued the project goes far beyond housing, and will unlock more than 50,000 square feet of public open space that would include retail, park land, public plazas and lobbies, and the Greenpoint Monitor Museum itself. Part of this is a $20 million investment in “site resiliency, waterfront infrastructure, and pedestrian connections.”
“It adds 51,500 square feet of new open space — some of which was expected in the ‘05 rezoning and more — for the community, for public equity, not just for residents of the new building,” said Kelly. “It’s an open gate to the community, not a gated community.”
It would be all connected by a meandering path inspired by Bushwick Inlet that would finally connect the Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfronts. Dan Kaplan, senior partner with FX Collaborative Architects, said that the project’s architects were working on a “bird-friendly” design that would integrate texture and setbacks into the buildings to avoid bird collisions, and that an all-glass facade would be avoided “at all costs.”
The 690 units of luxury housing would finance the public benefit, developers said, like an additional 460 units of “permanently affordable” housing at 40-80% Area Median Income (AMI), publicly accessible “open space,” and an expanded Greenpoint Monitor Museum. Key to the development team’s presentation was that the land’s current use — housing a degraded MTA mobile wash warehouse — adds nothing to the community, prevents the public from accessing the waterfront, and won’t protect the shoreline from the effects of erosion and climate change. And in leasing its property to the Gotham Organization, the MTA will earn more than $600 million over the course of the lease that could be put towards transit improvements throughout the city. Money for Bushwick Inlet Park, meanwhile, will begin at $300,000 annually, and increase over the course of the 99-year lease.
Throughout their presentation, the development team repeated that their plan does more for the community than is required by law. At 40% affordable housing at 40-80% AMI, the Monitor Point towers will far exceed the 25% affordability at 60% AMI requirement in the City’s mandatory inclusionary housing law, Kelly pointed out.
“We have had about 150 outreach meetings,” he said. “That’s to your elected officials, religious organizations, civics, friends of open space, people who are not friends of the project, and people who are friends of the project. Because the result is, we’ve done our best so far to make changes to address your concerns, and that concern is 40% affordability.”
Activists from Save the Inlet held a protest against the development outside the Polish Slavic Center before the January 20 hearing. Photo by Cole Sinanian.
Restler weighs in
Much of the public, however, was unimpressed. While Kelly was explaining the annual park funding, some audience members shook their heads and shouted “shame!” When he said that the towers would stand 56, 40, and 20 storeys, respectively, someone in the crowd shouted “Way too high!” And as Kelly explained the goal of the project — to create “intergenerational, mixed income housing and ultimately fighting for the goal of creating open space for everybody,” he said — shouts rang out from the audience: “Liar! Liar!”
At several points throughout, Community Board 1 Second Vice Chair Del Teague, who moderated the hearing, had to silence unruly audience members.
“We have 85 people who want to speak,” Teague said. “I don’t even know if I can give people a full minute.”
The mood turned, however, when Greenpoint City councilmember Lincoln Restler — whose City Council vote will likely determine the fate of the project — got up to speak.
“I want to just say plainly where I’m at on this project to all of you, which is precisely what I’ve said to Gotham and the MTA,” Restler said. “I’m a no on this project.”
A raucous applause broke out before he’d even finished the sentence. Some audience members were on their feet in standing ovation. Kelly and the development team, meanwhile, looked uncomfortable as they retreated into the shadows in the room’s far corner. Someone catcalled: “Atta boy, Lincoln!” After about 30 seconds of applause, Restler approached the mic again:
“We built significantly more new housing in our district than any other district in the city,” he said. “We built well over 26,000 units of housing, but the vast majority of that housing is market rate, luxury housing, housing that our communities quite simply can’t afford.”
He continued: “This is the last large public site in Greenpoint, and the idea that we would build predominantly luxury housing on this site, I have to say, I find it offensive. This was the central jewel of the Greenpoint Williamsburg rezoning. And 20 years later, we do not have a fully funded park. In fact, most of the park is in need of significant remediation before we see construction move forward.”
Scot Fraser, a long time Greenpointer and member of Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park. Photo by Cole Sinanian.
Union jobs, Trojan horse
After Restler’s speech, the some 85 members of the public who’d signed up to speak lined up in waves to deliver their testimonies. First up was the SEIU 32BJ union, which represents building maintenance workers. Several members attended the hearing to express their support for the project, which they argued would deliver reliable, well-paid union jobs to working-class Brooklynites.
“I’m happy to report that developers of this proposed project have made a credible commitment to good jobs at the project,” said Theodore Perez, a worker with SEIU 32BJ. “Good Jobs mean prevailing wages. They mean benefits, and they mean a pathway to the middle class for the people who work them. We need housing built in every neighborhood in New York City to ensure that working families are not displaced by dwindling supply and skyrocketing rents.”
According to an unnamed Gotham Organization spokesperson, communicated via William Roberts with a PR firm called Berlin Rosen, both the unions SEIU 32BJ and Local 79 — which was also present at the hearing — have partnerships with the company that guarantee union employment at all Gotham properties.
“32BJ and Local 79 have been longtime partners of The Gotham Organization,” the spokesperson wrote. “All Gotham-owned buildings are staffed by 32BJ members, and we have worked closely with Local 79 across numerous housing projects. We look forward to continuing this partnership with Monitor Point.”
Sarah Roberts, also known as “the Brooklyn Bird Lady,” opposed the project on ecological grounds:
“I am here to oppose the proposed Monitor Point development not because I dislike change or I don’t want affordable housing,” but because we must protect what is truly irreplaceable,” Roberts said.
“Bushwick Inlet is not just another piece of industrial shoreline,” she continued. “These tidal wetlands provide natural climate resilience. They slow down storm surge, absorb blood water, store carbon and buffer our community from increasingly frequent and severe weather events
George Weinmann, Vice President of the Greenpoint Monitor Museum, testified in support of the project, highlighting the educational value of the museum, which showcases the USS Monitor, the legendary Civil War battleship that was built in Greenpoint. Weinmann traced his family history in Greenpoint back to his ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War, and explained how local children recognize him and his wife, Janice — who serves as the museum’s president — on the street as the “Monitor people.”
“We tell them that we are going to build a museum on the land that shares the launch site of the USS Monitor, the ship that saved the Union, and we don’t want to disappoint them,” Weinmann said. “Please approve and make the Monitor Museum a reality.”
Chris Duerr, a longtime Greenpointer and father, had a different take. He described how his son was eight-years-old in 2016 when Mayor de Blasio assured the community it would get the full, 27.8-acre Bushwick Inlet Park. Now, his son’s off to college, Duerr said, and the full park still isn’t built.
“This is not about affordable housing,” he said. “Affordable housing and this museum are the Trojan Horse for luxury tower development.”
Duerr continued, addressing Gotham directly: “The plans that you guys presented are very compelling, but we’ve seen a lot of plans, and we would appreciate not being gaslit one more time.”
The state approved National Grid’s bid to expand fracked gas, but also ordered it to engage with its staunchest opponent: Greenpoint’s community board.
By JACK DELANEY | jdelaney@queensledger.com
WILLIAMSBURG — The two groups shuffled in from the cold, unzipping their coats as they settled uneasily into opposite sides of the room.
On Thursday, January 15, representatives for National Grid — which provides energy to nearly 2 million customers in the New York metro area — met with Brooklyn Community Board 1 (CB1) at Swinging Sixties Older Adult Center, the first in-person forum since the state approved the company’s request to expand its fracked gas infrastructure last fall.
But this wasn’t a victory lap. While the approval of its “Long-Term Plan” was a major coup for National Grid, the regulator’s decision included some caveats. First, it noted that a new pipeline project running from New Jersey to the Rockaways, known as NESE, could eventually render National Grid’s 120-acre gas depot along Newtown Creek unnecessary, a boost to locals who have been calling for it to be decommissioned for decades.
Second, the ruling ordered National Grid to engage with CB1 and “take part in its meetings,” as a way for the fossil fuel giant to “hear the community’s concerns and attempt to address [them].”
The exact parameters or duration of that engagement are uncertain, but the upshot on Thursday was clear: National Grid’s emissaries would have to answer questions from residents who have spent thousands of hours trying to shut down its primary foothold in North Brooklyn.
The meeting began with a presentation by MaryBeth Carroll, director of gas scenario planning for National Grid and a lead architect of its Long-Term Plan, who foregrounded the discussion with an overview of the company’s operations throughout New York City. Nearly all of its fracked gas is sourced from the Marcellus Shale in Northern Pennsylvania, she explained, before being carried by pipelines to two storage facilities — one in Holtsville, Long Island, and the other in Greenpoint.
“Do you all acknowledge that Greenpoint residents don’t want this LNG storage in the neighborhood?”
The audience, exclusively composed of local environmental advocates, wasted no time in interrogating Carroll’s high-level summary. One bone of contention during the two-year legal battle over the Long Term Plan was whether the quantity of natural gas stored inside the Greenpoint Energy Center made sense. National Grid claimed that the hulking tanks were a fallback in case the demand for gas spiked far above supply amid an extremely cold spell. But an independent consultant found that those reserves were almost never used — and as one attendee noted, the corporation’s forecasts are based on a hypothetical “design day” in which the average temperature drops to 0º Fahrenheit, something that has not happened in NYC since 1934.
“It has not gotten within 10 degrees of that in the last 15 years,” noted a member of Sane Energy Project, a Greenpoint-based advocacy group that was out in force for the CB1 meeting. “If there’s evidence to show that it should be raised, are you currently working to raise it? Because clearly this is not appropriate design day, and that’s costing all of us who pay bills here a lot of money.”
The presentation next turned to safety protocols. “We want to make sure that everybody who is a customer stays safe, that everybody who is living in the communities around our customers stays safe, and that our employees stay safe,” said Carroll. “It’s just something that we are uncompromising on.”
But the Greenpointers in the crowd shot back with several pointed questions. Kim Fraczek, director of Sane Energy Project, brought up an explosion at the nearby gas depot in 2022 that knocked a worker unconscious, asking why the community board was never informed. (“I’m aware of that incident,” replied Carroll, promising to loop in CB1’s Steve Chesler in the future. “I don’t know the details.”)
Next, Laura Hoffman inquired about the extent of soil pollution at both the depot site and an adjacent Little League field that was opened by National Grid in 1999 as a gift to the community before being closed in 2022 as revelations of contamination came to light. “To my knowledge, the lead that was on the property from previous demolitions was never cleaned up, which was part of the reason why the kids were no longer allowed to use the ball field,” she said. “My grandson was one of the kids that played there. Since you’re talking about the commitment to safety, I want to hear about that.”
Another prominent topic was National Grid’s initiatives to promote non-pipeline alternatives (NPA), a range of measures — such as heat pumps, improved insulation, and managing demand — that limit the need for companies to build more gas infrastructure. Residents noted that National Grid refers many customers to Con Edison’s program rather than investing in one of its own.
“We would be very interested to work with you on that. If you’re considering doing pipe replacements, you can work together with us from the community to organize blocks to do that,” said Fraczek. “The last time you had a community engagement person come to CB1, he told me and a few others that the only thing he does with his job is tell people when to move their cars. I wonder if there could be a better partnership.”
“We’re happy to do it,” said Carroll. “We want to deliver on these things, we just need willing customers.”
The final word, before the National Grid contingent ceded the floor to a representative of an organization working to abolish microplastics, went to fourth-generation local Kevin LaCherra, who refocused the conversation on the Greenpoint Energy Center.
“This community does not want this facility here. It is on some of the most polluted land in North America. It’s 120 acres — you could fit every park in the neighborhood on that facility,” he said. “We’re asked to subsidize it; we’re asked to live next to it. So I do think, with all of this, what I really want to know is do you all acknowledge that Greenpoint residents don’t want this LNG storage in the neighborhood?”
“What I am most interested in going forward is how your planning, as you come back here, is going to reflect what we as residents are asking for,” added LaCherra. “That needs to be a part of this going forward — otherwise, it’s a lot of fancy slides.”
The other night I met James Nunez, a lifelong Greenpointer of Puerto Rican heritage and we reminisced about the long history of Puerto Ricans in North Brooklyn. Though Puerto Ricans still comprise a vibrant part of our community, many have been forced out of our area, victims to gentrification. James’ grandmother ran a Puerto Rican restaurant in the area until the 1990s. When I first arrived in Greenpoint in the early 1990s, walking north of Greenpoint Avenue meant experiencing Puerto Rico’s exuberant culture. Families sat outside on the street often playing dominoes while listening to salsa music, the smell of pork or chicken being barbecued on a grill wafting through the air.
Many North Brooklyn residents are surprised to learn that Puerto Ricans have lived in our area for over a century. In 1924, Congress passed the first immigration law, severely restricting immigration by establishing national quotas based on the 1890 census, heavily favoring Northern and Western Europeans, and completely barring Asians, particularly Japanese, reflecting widespread nativism and xenophobia. This act dramatically reduced overall immigration, created the first U.S. Border Patrol, and aimed to preserve a perceived homogeneous “American” demographic makeup for decades. In the 1920s, North Brooklyn was the beating heart of industrial New York City, then the planet’s largest industrial city. Local factories, heavily dependent on immigrant Jewish, Polish and Italian labor, facing a manpower shortage, looked to Puerto Rican whose residents were American citizens legally able to work in New York.
One of the local industries hit was the by the labor shortage was the American Hemp Rope Manufacturing Company located on a sprawling campus on West Street. Desperate for workers, the firm sent a ship to Puerto Rico and returned with 130 Puerto Rican women to make rope and shoelaces for the company Other local industries also recruited workers in Puerto Rico including Domino Sugar, which once ran the world’s largest sugar refinery in Williamsburg.
Puerto Ricans who spoke Spanish as a first language encountered many problems, including racism, discrimination and language issues because local schools for many years had no programs for immigrant children to learn English as a second language. Puerto Rican children suffered a very high dropout rate in schools. In 1961, Puerto Rican woman Antonia Pantoja founded ASPIRA (Spanish for “aspire”), a non-profit organization that promoted educational reform to help struggling Hispanic students. In 1972, ASPIRA of New York, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit demanding that New York City provide classroom instruction for struggling Latino students and bilingual and English as a Second Language instruction was born helping Hispanic students learn English and stay in school.
By the 1950s, North Brooklyn had become home to thousands of Puerto Rican migrants. Many white residents left Brooklyn in the 1960s for the suburbs and Puerto Ricans quickly replaced them. The North end of Greenpoint became predominately Puerto Rican and the south side of Williamsburg also grew into a huge Puerto Rican quarter.
By the late 1960s, Puerto Ricans comprised about a third of the local population. Many Puerto Ricans bought houses left by locals fleeing the area for the suburbs and a generation of Puerto Rican Greenpointers came of age locally. Although some Puerto Ricans owned their own homes most were renters who were forced out by rising housing prices.
Puerto Ricans soon organized to fight gentrification. In 1972, Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics in the south side of Williamsburg helped organize Los Sures, a community organization that still exists, which fights to help working-class people secure their housing rights. Los Sures was also perhaps the first North Brooklyn organization to provide a number of vital community services including education, senior citizen services and even a food pantry. Los Sures began responding to problems that confront tenants today, including withdrawal of city services, lease violations and illegal evictions. The organization also fought property owners trying to vacate their buildings to gentrify and whiten the neighborhood. Los Sures promoted community-based control of housing, both through management and ownership. In 1975, Los Sures became Brooklyn’s first community-based organization to enter into agreements to manage City-owned properties. It also became one of the first tenant advocacy groups to undertake large-scale rehabilitation. Still fighting for local people, Los Sures is a vital force in community activism.
Though the Puerto Rican presence in North Brooklyn is far smaller than it once was, many Puerto Ricans still and work in our area. Many Puerto Rican Greenpointers run local businesses including lifelong resident Catherine Vera Milligan who runs a wonderful coffee shop at 269 Nassau Avenue. If you want to eat delicious authentic Puerto Rican food try Guarapo restaurant on 58 North 3rd Street, Chrome at 525 Grand Street or La Isla at 293 Broadway. These places prove that Puerto Rican culture is still a vital part of the gorgeous mosaic of cultures that make up North Brooklyn. The other night I met James Nunez, a lifelong Greenpointer of Puerto Rican heritage and we reminisced about the long history of Puerto Ricans in North Brooklyn. Though Puerto Ricans still comprise a vibrant part of our community, many have been forced out of our area, victims to gentrification. James’ grandmother ran a Puerto Rican restaurant in the area until the 1990s. When I first arrived in Greenpoint in the early 1990s, walking north of Greenpoint Avenue meant experiencing Puerto Rico’s exuberant culture. Families sat outside on the street often playing dominoes while listening to salsa music, the smell of pork or chicken being barbecued on a grill wafting through the air.
Many North Brooklyn residents are surprised to learn that Puerto Ricans have lived in our area for over a century. In 1924, Congress passed the first immigration law, severely restricting immigration by establishing national quotas based on the 1890 census, heavily favoring Northern and Western Europeans, and completely barring Asians, particularly Japanese, reflecting widespread nativism and xenophobia. This act dramatically reduced overall immigration, created the first U.S. Border Patrol, and aimed to preserve a perceived homogeneous “American” demographic makeup for decades. In the 1920s, North Brooklyn was the beating heart of industrial New York City, then the planet’s largest industrial city. Local factories, heavily dependent on immigrant Jewish, Polish and Italian labor, facing a manpower shortage, looked to Puerto Rican whose residents were American citizens legally able to work in New York.
One of the local industries hit was the by the labor shortage was the American Hemp Rope Manufacturing Company located on a sprawling campus on West Street. Desperate for workers, the firm sent a ship to Puerto Rico and returned with 130 Puerto Rican women to make rope and shoelaces for the company Other local industries also recruited workers in Puerto Rico including Domino Sugar, which once ran the world’s largest sugar refinery in Williamsburg.
Puerto Ricans who spoke Spanish as a first language encountered many problems, including racism, discrimination and language issues because local schools for many years had no programs for immigrant children to learn English as a second language. Puerto Rican children suffered a very high dropout rate in schools. In 1961, Puerto Rican woman Antonia Pantoja founded ASPIRA (Spanish for “aspire”), a non-profit organization that promoted educational reform to help struggling Hispanic students. In 1972, ASPIRA of New York, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit demanding that New York City provide classroom instruction for struggling Latino students and bilingual and English as a Second Language instruction was born helping Hispanic students learn English and stay in school.
By the 1950s, North Brooklyn had become home to thousands of Puerto Rican migrants. Many white residents left Brooklyn in the 1960s for the suburbs and Puerto Ricans quickly replaced them. The North end of Greenpoint became predominately Puerto Rican and the south side of Williamsburg also grew into a huge Puerto Rican quarter.
By the late 1960s, Puerto Ricans comprised about a third of the local population. Many Puerto Ricans bought houses left by locals fleeing the area for the suburbs and a generation of Puerto Rican Greenpointers came of age locally. Although some Puerto Ricans owned their own homes most were renters who were forced out by rising housing prices.
Puerto Ricans soon organized to fight gentrification. In 1972, Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics in the south side of Williamsburg helped organize Los Sures, a community organization that still exists, which fights to help working-class people secure their housing rights. Los Sures was also perhaps the first North Brooklyn organization to provide a number of vital community services including education, senior citizen services and even a food pantry. Los Sures began responding to problems that confront tenants today, including withdrawal of city services, lease violations and illegal evictions. The organization also fought property owners trying to vacate their buildings to gentrify and whiten the neighborhood. Los Sures promoted community-based control of housing, both through management and ownership. In 1975, Los Sures became Brooklyn’s first community-based organization to enter into agreements to manage City-owned properties. It also became one of the first tenant advocacy groups to undertake large-scale rehabilitation. Still fighting for local people, Los Sures is a vital force in community activism.
Though the Puerto Rican presence in North Brooklyn is far smaller than it once was, many Puerto Ricans still and work in our area. Many Puerto Rican Greenpointers run local businesses including lifelong resident Catherine Vera Milligan who runs a wonderful coffee shop at 269 Nassau Avenue. If you want to eat delicious authentic Puerto Rican food try Guarapo restaurant on 58 North 3rd Street, Chrome at 525 Grand Street or La Isla at 293 Broadway. These places prove that Puerto Rican culture is still a vital part of the gorgeous mosaic of cultures that make up North Brooklyn.
A proposal to build towers by Bushwick Inlet has drawn pushback, and a key hearing is next week. Here’s what you need to know.
By COLE SINANIAN
news@queensledger.com
On Tuesday, January 20, Greenpointers will testify to Community Board 1 regarding plans from the Gotham Organization to build three residential towers just to the north of Bushwick Inlet, marking the beginning of what is sure to be one of Greenpoint’s landmark land-use battles of the year.
The proposed development, located at 40 and 56 Quay Street on a small peninsula called Monitor Point, would also include museum and retail space and require a rezoning from medium to high-density. It has garnered serious opposition from local activists, who argue the towers are far too big for the location and betray a two-decade-old commitment on the City’s part to reserve the area around the inlet for public parks.
There are also environmental and gentrification concerns; the towers would sit on the banks of a rare and ecologically sensitive estuary that’s only just begun to recover from centuries of environmental exploitation. And with nearly 3,000 new residents expected to be added to the neighborhood — most of whom would be paying luxury rent — critics worry that the project will only accelerate displacement in an already gentrified community.
Developers and City planners, meanwhile, have highlighted the importance of boosting housing stock and the public benefits the project would fund. Namely, a new Greenpoint Monitor Museum — which would explore the history of the USS Monitor, an early ironclad ship built in Greenpoint — and an extension of the East River esplanade that would connect the Greenpoint and Williamsburg waterfronts.
But the land on which the proposed towers would be built — currently owned by the NYC Transit Authority and the Greenpoint Monitor Museum — was set aside as park land as part of the 2005 Greenpoint/Williamsburg rezoning, with the intention of eventual acquisition by the City Parks Department. For the local critics, at issue is the question of the role the public should play in deciding the fate of New York City’s treasured waterfront land, and the City’s responsibility in honoring the word of former administrations.
“There’s this choice that’s being presented to us that’s not fair or feasible,” said Katherine Thompson, one of the directors at Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park, at a January 8 presentation at the Greenpoint Library. “That you can have either open space and protect the environment or affordable housing— it shouldn’t be this dichotomy.”
The Plan
The mixed-use development would include three residential buildings, pedestrian connections along the waterfront that would connect Bushwick Inlet Park to the Shore Public Walkway to the north, retail space, and a building that would house an expanded Greenpoint Monitor Museum. The residential towers would stand 640ft tall, 490ft and 260ft tall and sit about 50ft from the Bushwick Inlet shoreline. The two properties, 40 Quay Street and 56 Quay Street, currently house an MTA storage facility and the current Monitor Museum, respectively.
The developers would need a rezoning to build towers of this scale. Currently, the area is zoned R6, which is medium density and requires developers to implement setbacks and other contextual considerations when building towers. They are seeking to upzone to R8, or “high density” residential.
The Gotham Organization estimates construction cost of $630 million. Altogether the towers will include 1,150 residential units.
The Opposition
As part of the consequential 2005 Williamsburg/Greenpoint rezoning that transformed the heavily polluted, once-industrial area into residential neighborhoods, the City set aside several plots of land around Bushwick Inlet to be converted into public park space. Monitor Point was one of these properties, designated as park land on the City Map. Another became the current Bushwick Inlet Park. Others have remained empty, the soil contaminated from years of housing petroleum and fuel storage facilities, still awaiting cleanup.
Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park was formed in part to hold the City accountable for ensuring this land became the public space that the rezoning designated it as, said Greenpointer Steve Chesler, who sits on the organization’s board of directors. In 2015, a paper storage facility owned by CitiStorage caught fire and burned to the ground. The City considered allowing the property owner to sell it to a private developer, but Friends of Bushwick Inlet launched an aggressive campaign, urging the City to purchase the property and keep its commitment to making this land available to the public.
For Chesler and Thompson, the move to build residential towers on a property once slated as park land represents a betrayal by the City, and an insult to years of activism aimed at preserving the waterfront around Bushwick Inlet for.
A petition by a group called Save the Inlet has already gathered more than 5,000 signatures. At the January 8 meeting at Greenpoint Library — organized to educate Greenpointers and to help them prepare their testimonies for the hearing on the 20th — community members expressed concern about the neighborhood’s population density, the shadows the towers would cast, the traffic construction could cause, and the use of small affordable housing concessions to justify what they have described as an unsustainable and out-of-context development.
Scot Fraser, a documentary filmmaker who sits on Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park’s Board of Directors, called out the long shadows the towers would cast over the adjacent neighborhood. He also pointed out the irony of the situation — the northernmost section of the park, known as the Motiva Parcel, is set to open in the coming months after years of cleanup and advocacy. However, should the Monitor Point Towers be built, the Motiva section’s opening will likely coincide with the noisy arrival of cement trucks and construction crews.
“That part of the park is just about to open, the Motiva section of the park, will be immediately devoured by excavating trucks,” Fraser said.
Some residents at the meeting called the city’s affordable housing designations out-of-touch. According to the Draft Impact Environmental study, the Gotham Organization will make 25% of the Monitor Point towers’ residential units affordable at 60% area median income (AMI), a salary that, in New York City, amounts to about $87,000 for a three-person family.
Others, meanwhile, criticized the City for making the discussion about housing at all.
“They love the idea about us spending time talking about what percentage of affordable housing, because then they’ve already forced the false choice,” said a Greenpointer named Andy.
“We don’t want to talk about what percentage of affordable housing. We want to talk about, find another site.”
The Process
Despite the already simmering opposition, the plan is still in the earliest advisory stages of the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, which dictates the approval process for development.
ULURP goes like this: A developer submits its plan, along with a draft environmental impact statement, to the Department of City Planning, which reviews and certifies it. Next, the local Community Board has 60 days to review the application and provide a recommendation. This recommendation is non-binding.
“It’s not technically binding conditions,” said Chesler, who also sits on Community Board 1. “But the board kind of sets the stage. The borough president, and especially our city council member, have to answer to the people.”
The community board review stage is made up of several meetings, of which the public hearing on January 20 is a part. On February 3, the Community Board’s Land Use Review Committee will meet to deliberate, followed by a full-board vote on February 10.
After the community board’s recommendation, the plan goes to the borough president, whose recommendation will take into account the community board’s. Still, the borough president’s recommendation, like the community board’s, is non-binding, meaning the plan could still proceed without it.
The plans are then sent to the City Planning Commission (CPC) for a 60-day review. This decision is binding; the plan dies if the CPC rejects it.
If the plan is approved by the CPC, it then goes to the City Council for a 50-day review. “Member deference” is customary— that is, the City councilmember whose district the plans concern has the final say. In this case, that councilmember is Lincoln Restler.
Finally, the mayor has the option to veto the council’s approval. If he does not, then the project is approved.
The January 20th public hearing begins at 6:00pm in the auditorium of the Polish and Slavic Center at 176 Java St. The public will get one minute to read their testimonies. It might make sense to arrive early— if the January 8 meeting was any indication, the hearing on the 20th will be quite the spectacle.
