So...What's wrong with ULURP?

Since the BMT planning process began, those opposed to the plan have demanded that the process go through a ULURP instead of local government's increasingly preferred General Projects Plan (GPP). The small but vocal neighborhood faction that's opposed to the BMT redevelopment has increasingly coalesced around ULURP as a key demand. At an April 3rd rally, the US Representative Jerry Nadler declared:

“My message to the City and the task force members is clear: I urge you to approve port improvements now and defer housing decisions for later through the ULURP process."

But other than the sound of a fart underwater, what is a ULURP? ULURP stands for Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, and it's a process that's been in place since 1975 as a correction to the damage that Robert Moses did to the city of New York, which included this neighborhood's defining feature: the BQE trench that separates us from Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill. The process is designed to put planning decisions into the hands of local leaders using a seven-month-long standardized planning process involving community boards, the City Council, and the Mayor.

This all sounds great, totally reasonable, and has been in place for 50 years, so what's wrong? Well, it turns out LOTS. A memo from the Citizens Housing and Planning Council sums it up best.

Instead of helping local electeds shape decisions by citywide officials that advance broader housing goals, ULURP drops them into a Thunderdome-style battle with opponents of local proposals, where it can be politically hazardous to advocate for citywide needs. The political incentives of this process make it harder for an official to say “yes” to housing than “no” (or “not now”)

…And electeds who might support new housing are confronted by small but hostile local groups who threaten to vote them out of office for approving housing. Because the practice of deference is known, residents know they can target local officials and hold them accountable. This creates the Meidas Touch of member deference: it appears to confer power on individual members, but with that power comes a political burden that can also rob them of the freedom to vote their conscience.

Consider the situation faced by a Council member engaged in the review of a housing proposal they regard as beneficial, but which is intensely opposed by neighbors. If the member chooses the outcome they think is most responsible to the public, they will incur the wrath of a small but vocal group of constituents, who may create anything from bad publicity to a legitimate reelection threat. While small blocs of votes won't influence borough-level or citywide elections, they can make a difference in a low-turnout district primary.

We're seeing that exact scenario play out with the BMT planning, with elected council members like Shahana Hanif cowed by a very vocal minority that opposes housing.
Conversely, we see local leaders like the Cobble Hill Association able to pragmatically and openly negotiate for what's good for the neighborhood, rather than operate purely from fear of political reprisal. The result: reasonable and rigorous position statement supporting mixed-use development of the BMT that reflects the reality of the city and the goals of the neighborhood. ULURP prevents responsible development by making rezoning building requirements in New York City neighborhoods nearly impossible. Explains a CBCNY study:

Addressing [housing shortages and climate threats] will require New York City and State to make smart land use decisions that appropriately guide private development and manage public space. The City's zoning code is ill-equipped to meet these needs; it is outdated, inflexible, and overly complex. Implementing needed zoning changes, however, has become increasingly difficult. Too often, the land use decision-making process through which the City reviews and approves changes has been an impediment to progress, restricting the City's ability to spur job growth, develop housing, and become more resilient and sustainable. This is one reason why New York produces less housing on a per-capita basis than most other large cities, even those with more onerous planning and public review processes. A dysfunctional review process also makes it more difficult to pass the broad, publicly led rezonings that are needed to increase as-of-right residential capacity at the scale needed to address the City's housing needs.

The same study's findings were devastating. Between 2014 and 2017, only 60% of private rezoning applications were approved. Worse, the pre-certification and review required by the application took nearly two years for the median project – longer than any city, other than San Francisco.

The results of decades of this dysfunctional system speak for themselves. New York saw a faster ten-year increase in the average cost of housing between 2012 and 2022 than any other American metropolis. Homeless rates more than doubled between 2022 and 2024, making New York the state with the fastest-growing homeless problem after Illinois (source). Working New Yorkers, many who make $50,000 a year or more, fill our shelters.

ULURP is a system created by well-meaning liberals. There's no bad guy to point at when ULURP derails needed housing projects.. Everyone is acting in good faith, doing what's best for their neighbors and constituents. But we should evaluate by their results, not be their intentions. And ULURP is a system with outcomes that would be the envy of any baseball bat-wielding racist in South Boston and Chicago. It's a recipe for regressive housing and segregation.

Politicians are waking up to this being a bad process. No matter what you think of Eric Adams and his one-man Vichy Regime, we do have to give him credit for kickstarting ULURP reforms. Almost every Democratic mayoral candidate is against ULURP.

In short, calls for ULURP are effectively calls to crush much-needed new housing under the weight of outdated bureaucracy.

We're all still reeling from this neighborhood's Pearl Harbor: the EDC saying housing could be part of the plan when they probably thought it was the entire time. This word “could,” the modal auxiliary verb heard round the world, set the tone for community feedback for half a year, but here's the reality: this city is in a housing crisis that could easily lead to a slow-motion economic catastrophe and 1970s-style decimation. If you want to preserve the character of our neighborhood, at the very least we have to make sure our city remains this planet's greatest, most international city.

This is a slogan you see everywhere at BMT-related events. There should be no housing in flood zones. First of all, planners have come up with an effective 100-year flood prevention strategy that benefits not only the site itself, but adjacent neighborhoods which you can learn about here.

But this also begs the question: given that basically all of Red Hook is currently either in a flood zone, or will be soon, what should we do with the housing that's there now, especially if the Task Force votes “no?” The obvious answer is to unwind the Red Hook neighborhood to make room for much-needed parking lots for shipping containers.

Here's how you can help:

First of all, the decision to tear down your home should not be taken lightly. This is doubly true if you rent your home. A word of warning: the following advice may result in you not receiving your full security deposit at the end of your lease, so it's a good idea to discuss this with your landlord first. Many property owners are not as enlightened when it comes to resiliency planning, so it's a good idea to also remind them that Red Hook also lacks a subway line. Is your building less than 30 years old? It may be harming the character of the neighborhood! For all the reasons that the EDC shouldn't build on the BMT site, your own building should not exist either.

That said, destroying a home is easier said than done. You should look into hiring a contractor with years of demolition experience. But getting a head start on the demolition can save you tens of thousands of dollars. Doing it safely and effectively comes down to knowing just a few simple things:

1. First of all get the necessary permits.
2. Then disconnect ALL utilities.
3. You can strip the building to its studs using a claw hammer for drywall, and a sledge hammer for harder surfaces like tile.
4. Make sure to wear proper safety equipment: gloves, safety goggles and a dust mask.
5. Do you know where your load bearing walls are? Typically these run perpendicular to floor and ceiling studs. These should only be removed by a professional.
6. A sawzall (aka reciprocating saw) and pry bar are all you'll need to break apart most studs and floor boards.

All of this may seem daunting at first, but with a little bit of know-how and an experienced demolition team “no housing in a flood zone” can start with you. Or maybe — and hear me out — you could tell the Task Force to vote “yes” to the BMT plan.

In Defense of Cities I

The EDC's latest plan calls for 3,800 of the projected 6,474 - 8,659 housing units on the BMT site to be on Columbia Street. We believe this number can and should be increased to over 5,000 by filling in Pier 7 or by eliminating the arbitrary 65 foot “contextual” height restriction, since the condemned shipping cranes are already taller than this. Given Red Hook's limited transportation, that neighborhood should not be taking on more housing than Columbia Street.

Congressman Dan Goldman wrote an absolutely blistering defense of the BMT planners in last weekend's Daily Mail. You should read the whole thing, but here's a few choice excerpts:

The majority of the Terminal's piers are either completely unusable or potentially months away from catastrophic collapse. As the infrastructure and investment have declined, so have the number of good-paying union jobs. At the same time, we are facing a generational housing crisis that makes it almost impossible for middle- and lower-income families to remain in the city. Average rents are at an all-time high, vacancy rates hover at or below 1%, and there is little new supply in the pipeline to match the demand, especially for affordable housing.

In fact, density is being absorbed by our friends in places like Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights, neighborhoods where space is already strained, parks are scarce, and commutes are long. We have the available space and infrastructure, here and now. The case against building housing on Columbia Street is uniquely feeble. Goldman really starts cooking:

To be “progressive” is to seek progress, which requires action. For too long, elected officials in this city have been handcuffed by inaction due to a risk aversion that caters to a loud minority that often is well-housed and unburdened by their grocery bill or medical expenses. The status quo simply must change.

Our great city is stagnating. The place that has fueled the dreams and aspirations for generations of Americans has become a national punchline for its inability to meet even the most basic needs of its residents — first among them: housing. We cannot simultaneously say that housing is a human right while making it impossible to build enough to provide that right.

We have just one word for you, Representative Goldman: Zing!

Read the whole op-ed in the Daily News.

In Defense of Cities II

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson hammered another overdue nail in the coffin of liberal NIMBYism a couple of weeks ago in their new book Abundance. Scarcity is a choice, they argue, and there’s still time for us to build a future where we satisfy our needs and live up to our values. Like Rep. Goldman, Klein draws a straight line from NIMBY movements in California and New York to the decline of cities, and the American Authoritarianism that’s arisen as a backlash to the resulting dysfunction. Not to fear-monger but compared to Italian Fascism, American Fascism will have way worse outfits, and the trains will definitely not be running on time.

Get it at Books are Magic. And here's Matt Bruenig at Jacobin with a thoughtful critique.

This Friday, attend a rally to shut down the SIMS Recycling plant.

Friday, April 4th
100 Columbia Street (Between Baltic/Kane)
@11:45

From neighbor and organizer Leah Carroll:

The Task Force charged with deciding whether the NYC EDC's proposed redevelopment of the Brooklyn Marine Terminal will be meeting at this location. That task force is composed of a number of key decision makers from the Mayor's offices as well as elected officials including Congressman Dan Goldman. We need to tell them to shut down this toxic facility immediately until it can be relocated to a properly zoned area far out of range of ANY residential community.

Oh, and sign the petition!

Cities like New York and San Francisco have struggled to grow their economies over the last ten years. Meanwhile cities like Austin, Atlanta, and Phoenix have been circling around us like vultures, picking off young knowledge workers and small businesses one-by-one.

There's a reason for this: the housing crisis. Housing has never cost more, and vacancy has never been lower. We're struggling to attract workers — the economic lifeblood of cities — and get them to stay. Austin shows us there's a clear way out: build homes. I know the question of where can be fraught. For twenty years, our neighbors in places like Bed-Stuy and Flushing have been displaced from their homes to build high density housing. With the BMT, we have the opportunity to displace condemned shipping cranes and giant piles of toxic concrete, not people.

Who pays the cost if we don't? Everyone. But especially renters. Every year New York renters transfer billions of dollars to property owners, both directly in rent and indirectly through appreciation driven by the housing shortage. Over and over again, it's (usually well-meaning) homeowners who band together to block the development of more housing. In other words, the very people who benefit from a housing shortage! The BMT project is no exception. We can't let neighbors in five-million-dollar brownstones exclude New Yorkers from living in $700,000 "luxury" units nearby.

The cost of NIMBYism is too damn high, and our city's future is at stake.

📣 Attend the EDC meeting in on Thursday, March 20 📣

Please RSVP for an event this Thursday about the mixed-use future of the BMT hosted by Assembly Member Jo Anne Simon, Congressman Dan Goldman, Senator Andrew Gounardes, and Council Member Shahana Hanif. The EDC will present their vision for the BMT site and field questions from members of the community. This is a great way to educate ourselves about the project and get more clarity on the vision and status. Urbanization of Columbia Street is long overdue, and will benefit both current and new neighbors alike as long as the plan creates a greener, more walkable neighborhood with plenty of foot traffic to support small businesses. High density unlocks this but it isn't enough on its own.

We need to hold both the politicians and the EDC accountable to the promises they’ve made during this process, including:

• 25% subsidized housing on the BMT site. This would give everyone who works on the site the opportunity to live there, too.
• Support for our neighbors in the Red Hook Houses. We endorse fully funding their maintenance.
• Job opportunities and job training, especially for low-income neighbors.
• Cleaner air. Divert heavy truck traffic to Hamilton Ave and away from our neighborhood, remove the concrete recycling plant, and make Columbia Street more pedestrian-friendly.
• Climate resilience. How can we develop the site to ensure its ongoing resilience, and better protect Red Hook and Columbia Street Waterfront District from flooding and future storm surge?
• Access to greengrocers, pharmacies, and other basic amenities in our neighborhood. Nobody should have to get in a car just to buy essentials.
• Access to transportation alternatives. Increasing the ferry frequency is a great start but reliability has a long way to go.

The Task Force and the EDC haven't always had a great partnership but now is the time to come together and build a vision for the BMT that benefits everyone.