Condo Plan for 160 Imlay Thrown Into Question
Another twist in the 160 Imlay Story: Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Lewis sent developer Bruce Batkin back to the drawing board when she ruled that the BSA’s original decision back in December 2003 to grant a variance to convert the building into condos despite the manufacturing zoning was “irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not…
Another twist in the 160 Imlay Story: Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Lewis sent developer Bruce Batkin back to the drawing board when she ruled that the BSA’s original decision back in December 2003 to grant a variance to convert the building into condos despite the manufacturing zoning was “irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not based upon substantial evidence.” Tom Russo, founder of the Red Hook Gowanus Chamber of Commerce, which sued the city over the decision in January 2004, hailed the ruling as “a victory for the small businesses of Red Hook” while Batkin vowed to fight on.
Judge Halts Condo Plan [NY Daily News] GMAP
Photo by Cornershots
01:17 AM
I like you. Can I be Daisy Dukes?? I have the shorts.
Cooter, is that you?
11:15 knows what is going on.
it is like the “Dukes of Hazzard”
Red Hook = Hazzard County
Greg O’Connell= Boss Hog
running any potential rivals out of town with harrassment tactics.
$= power & Boss Hog is not someone to tangle with.
Bush Administration= Sham Democracy
This is just Greg O’Connell’s powerplay as everyone in the neighborhood knows. He wants to buy properties in RH on the cheap (e.g. industrial). He paid for the lawsuit of his own pocket. The so called Red Hook Chamber of Commerce does not allow any businesses that may support residential construction. The owner of Imlay Street opted for a BSA hearing rather than a ULURP because CB 6 is dominated by Greg (he is chair of the waterfront cte) and his pals. It would have been a totally bias review.
As for retaining industrial in the “back” (west of Van Brunt) I would beg differ that there are thriving businesses there. Time Mover Storage? A couple of bus depots? Two waste transfer station? Sorry, these uses do not generate a lot of jobs. If the industrial rententionists are serious about retaining businesses, they should focus on three areas in Red Hook – just south of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the southern ends of Smith and Court Street and the tugboat terminal. These areas are away from residential and have decent infrastructure. It seems like a poor allocation of resources to focus on areas west of Van Brunt Street – like a storage facility really needs sweeping views of Governors Island and the Manhattan skyline.
I don’t see what’s news about this post, brownstoner? That ruling was a while ago as you yourself note and it was recently covered in the brooklyn papers that Batkin is putting the building on the market since the fight to condo it was proving to burdensome.
It’s all a racket. If a developer doesn’t want to go through the hassle of a rezoning, which involves ULURP and environmental reviews and after all that an outcome that isn’t guaranteed (the Planning Commission may or may not grant the rezoning), heck why go through all that – just go for a variance. (The BSA ain’t too fussy, as the court apparently concluded in this case.) Then, years and years later, when DCP is good and ready to “study” land uses in a neighborhood, lo and behold, in what was formerly a manufacturing zone you have lots of residential uses, via a preponderance of variances over the years. (Plus, of course, those ever-so convenient artistes who adore the live/work arrangements in m’fng districts – and we all know that artistes make things safe for yuppies, which leads to rezoning for residential uses.)
Good for the judge for breaking up this cozy little racket, at least for the moment.
hmm…I meant above “granting variances” rather than “rezoning”, but one leads to the other.
The problem, as I understand it, is that if there is a precident or series of precidents for rezoning manufacturing to residential, residential uses are going to be pushed out of Red Hook and Gowanus.
So what, you say? There are thriving businesses in that area that are not compatible with residential neighbors. If they get pushed out, their jobs disappear and the costs of the services they provide goes up.
Beyond this specific case there is an argument to be made for having cities with balanced “portfolios” of commercial, residential and manufacturing districts — like three legs to a stool. This is one of the ideas behind zoning.
Let the so-called “free market” decide this one, and we’ll take another step towards the world where we all resell each other abstractions, while materials and workers for making things (really, anyone who needs space to do things) are bussed in from far away at great cost.
Seems a shame that both types of people can’t use the same building. Why not have small businesses and artists renting out the first couple of floors and have condos fill out the rest of the bldg? I don’t understand the problem; clearly I’m confused.