Petition Up to Protest New Gowanus Development
Following the Community Board Six land-use meeting in which the Lightstone Group presented its proposal to develop along the Gowanus Canal, a group of Gowanus residents remain concerned. In anticipation of the full Community Board Six meeting this Wednesday, they started a petition to call for a new environmental review at the site. (Lightstone does…
Following the Community Board Six land-use meeting in which the Lightstone Group presented its proposal to develop along the Gowanus Canal, a group of Gowanus residents remain concerned. In anticipation of the full Community Board Six meeting this Wednesday, they started a petition to call for a new environmental review at the site. (Lightstone does not need a full environmental review since the Toll Brothers proposal was already approved through the ULURP process. They are seeking only minor modifications to the Toll plan.) The land-use committee voted that the Department of City Planning table the Lightstone Group proposal. As the petition states, “We need to let CB6 know that these recommendations have widespread community support.” At the meeting last month, some residents expressed support for revitalizing the site and opening up the waterfront; others expressed concern about the lack of infrastructure to support the development and the state of the Superfund site. Today the issue also received the New York Times treatment, which quotes more residents about what they think of the plans.
Grand Plan for a Toxic Site Is Scorned and Celebrated [NY Times]
Long List of Concerns for Gowanus Rental Development [Brownstoner]
Neighbors Concerned About Gowanus Development [Brownstoner]
All the Details on Lightstone’s Gowanus Development [Brownstoner]
New Developer Eyes Toll Brothers’ Old Gowanus Site [Brownstoner]
Those “minor modifications” are not actually so minor, which is one of the issues at hand. Lightstone is spending plenty of money on lobbyists –with at least three different lobby firms currently working to get their plan through (targeting the Department of City Planning, among others). Maybe that’s how they convinced DCP that their mods were “minor”? Also, at the Public Hearing, three times as many people were opposed to the project as were for it, and the majority of the folks on the “pro” side do not live in the neighborhood; it is misleading to state this as “some residents” are for it and “other residents” are against it. It would be better stated as “most” residents are against it and “a few” are for it.