Greenpoint Residents to Sue City Over Planned Waterfront Developments
A group of Greenpoint residents and City Council candidate Stephen Pierson intend to sue the City and developers to stop the Greenpoint Landing and 77 Commercial Street developments, whose 12 towers of 30 to 40 stories would bring thousands of new residents into the neighborhood. The lawsuit will argue that the City’s greenlighting of the…
A group of Greenpoint residents and City Council candidate Stephen Pierson intend to sue the City and developers to stop the Greenpoint Landing and 77 Commercial Street developments, whose 12 towers of 30 to 40 stories would bring thousands of new residents into the neighborhood. The lawsuit will argue that the City’s greenlighting of the two developments, which were said to have no negative environmental impact, was based on an inaccurate, outdated eight-year-old environmental impact study. At the very least, the suit will delay the developments until a potentially more sympathetic mayoral administration comes in, said Pierson. The group announced the suit at a rally Wednesday night where protesters held signs that said “the roof is too damn high” and “Greenpoint does not equal Midtown.” The waterfront was rezoned in 2005 despite opposition from the local community board, paving the way for large-scale development. Above, the future site of Park Tower Group’s Greenpoint Landing at the mouth of Newtown Creek on the East River. Do you think public outcry now has the potential to reverse the rezoning — or force a redesign of the two high-rise developments planned there?
G’pointers to Sue City, Developers Over “Inadequate” Waterfront Tower Studies [Brooklyn Paper]
Photo by Park Tower Group Via Crain’s
Not one mention of the people who have lived here for decades. How do you move and find new lives when your whole life has been here. Oh yes we should just move because we cant afford to live here. You think that is the answer you call us names like nimby and townies. Ironicaly have you ever played chess if you have maybe you would realize we dont have to move. We own for yrs or have rented for yrs and we can stay it is you who have to move paying high rents with leases.
What we are trying to do is protect our area from unwated shadow casting of tall buildings and the demise of our family lives which to some degree you have effected. Now maybe just maybe we dont want it anymore we have the right to say so. See we dont have to leave but you do.
We are tired of you calling us ignorant and set in our ways.etc. We watch as you strutt around thinking your the best thing since sliced bread, knowing your time here is short as soon as your next lease comes up!!!
We watched the Northside turn into a yuppie euphoria and watched the hipster chased out. We as a collective group dont want this here and we have the right to say so. Why we own and go to church here and the parks too. Amazing we have the right to exist beyond your leases and your fads. We survived here when no one wanted and we will when everyone wants to be here. So call us names and we will turn the cheek mow us down with your bikes we will step out of the way. But never tell us to leave we dont have too.
and to answer your question, i moved to clinton hill. it’s nice to be able to grocery shop and get to work in the morning without needing 3 bars of xanax.
Williamsburg: 32,926 (CB: BK72)
North Side-South Side: 45,774 (CB: BK73)
East Williamsburg: 34,158 (CB: BK90)
35k < 111k
tell that to Long Island City
Amenities come AFTER. Why would you invest $$$$ before the people are there?
i did! much happier
living in a neighborhood too dense relative to amenities sucks. ie, WB pre 2010 vs WB today.
Thats how a free market works…both N.Williamsburg/Greenpoint have been under-developed/under priced relative to its waterfront location/proximity to the city. Its now being developed and people like the 5-10 minute commute to Manhattan,ergo prices rise….happened in MePa,SoHo,NoHo,Chelsea etc etc
As for my screenname – its from a Kids in the Hall skit –> http://vimeo.com/51807092