DUMBO Neighborhood Foundation Files Lawsuit to Stop Dock St Dumbo

 
The DUMBO Neighborhood Foundation (DNF), a non-profit group formed in 2007 by neighborhood residents, filed a lawsuit to reverse zoning changes it believes were wrongfully approved by the New York City Council and to halt the so-called Dock Street Project, a controversial mixed-use project in the historic DUMBO neighborhood of Brooklyn. The petition alleges unlawful collusion between Two Trees Management, the real estate developer and New York City officials, resulting in “inappropriate middle school site selection and potential endangerment of the health of New York City school children.”

The lawsuit, filed in Supreme Court, Kings County, alleges defects in the land review process as well as a number of technical deficiencies in the rezoning of the Dock Street Project as a general large-scale development. The named defendants include The City of New York, New York City Department of City Planning, City Planning Commission, New York City Council, DOE, SCA and Two Trees.

The DNF claim that the defendants colluded based on FOIL-obtained documents, previously posted on DumboNYC, and that “The fix was in long before the public approval process commenced,” states Barry Silverstein, Director of DNF. “The Brooklyn Bridge should not be the pawn in this shameless arrangement between a developer and city agencies entrusted to protect the tax paying public. The truth is being uncovered and it’s deeply upsetting to many of us. My hope is that this lawsuit will repair the damage wrought by the bad decision making that has thus far plagued the SCA, DOE, City Planning and the City Council,” said Silverstein.

See the DNF press release (PDF) and the Notice of Petition (PDF), which is an interesting read full of information on the case.

Previously: Past Dock Street Dumbo articles

22 Comment

  • …defendants include The City of New York, New York City Department of City Planning, City Planning Commission, New York City Council, DOE, SCA and Two Trees…

    Corruption in local government is a plague. I think it is great that they are going after all these city agencies.

  • …defendants include The City of New York, New York City Department of City Planning, City Planning Commission, New York City Council, DOE, SCA and Two Trees…

    Corruption in local government is a plague. I think it is great that they are going after all these city agencies.

  • Bravo! There's ample evidence that this project is completely corrupt and tainted.

  • Bravo! There's ample evidence that this project is completely corrupt and tainted.

  • Wow these idiots don't know when to quit.

  • Wow these idiots don't know when to quit.

  • Great work, Gus. Expose these corrupt robber barons for what they are. There is hope. Now if everyone could pony up a few dollars for the cause, we might stand a chance.

  • Great work, Gus. Expose these corrupt robber barons for what they are. There is hope. Now if everyone could pony up a few dollars for the cause, we might stand a chance.

  • Good luck convincing a court that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. As long as there was a reasonable basis for approving the application it will stand. Give up protecting your precious views from your lofts. The contention that this development ruins the views from the BK bridge is erroneous. The only views that will be blocked will be from the windows of the loft apartments at 1 Main Street, 45 Main Stret and 30 Main Street. I ride my bike back and forth over the bridge everyday and have visualised the impact this project will create. The view from the Brooklyn Bridge toward the Manhattan and the Manhattan Bridge is minimially affected. As it stands 1 Main Street standing at 172' tall already blocks the views of the Manhattan Bridge from the same vantage point that the Dock Street proposal will block. So instead of seeing 1 Main from the Bridge a pedestrian, cyclist or driver will see Dock Street Building then the Manhattan Bridge will emerge at approximately the same location it currently emerges from behind 1 Main Street. The opposition to this project is so thinly veiled it is ridiculous. The largest portion of the building is parrallel to and setback from the BK bridge at an angle that minimally disrupts any views from the BK bridge toward the water and Manhattan. Remember this is the US and property owners have the right to develop their property in a reasonable manner in line with land use regulations set forth to protect the health, welfare and safety of the community. Exceptions to those rules can be made by discretionary action of the City Planning Commission as authorized by the City Charter and the ULURP rules. Or should we just let that site stay vacant forever so NIMBY's can retain their valuable views and screw the development team that had the foresight to build the area up in the first place. It is amazing how reactionary people can be when the views from their windows, which were never gauranteed in perpetuity are threatened. Any well balanced and objective individual that has truly scrutinized this proposal knows that it is really not what the naysayers make it out to be.

    • Um, 'Name' if that's your real name…

      There were rules in place. These agencies twisted them, possibly illegally.

      “Let the truth be known though the heavens fall”

      If you truly ride your bike on the bridge that you must be suffering from in-attentional blindness at the big gorilla that will be blocking the view.

      If nothing wrong was done, the courts will rule.

      If something wrong was done, the courts will rule.

      You are ranting about rules and such, well, a lesson for you in government, there are checks and balances. Of course this was coming, denying such is living with your head in the sand. The courts are there to make sure things done by the other branches and agencies of government are on the up and up. Your ad-hoc attack to the opposition of more Bloom-blight shows your nervousness at the possibility this pending disaster will be averted. If you are so supportive of the system of governance, than let the chips fall where they may.

      No2Walentas2Trees

      • Obviously Name is the default identifier that this site grants to a person who does not register and rather posts as a guest. Same for a number of other entries. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, I am just being realistic. Of course there are checks and balances, and I truly believe in them. But you have to know when to pick your battles based on the knowledge of the judicial review of these types of actions and on the probability of a winning outcome. I just see this case as loser. Nothing personal. I have no investment what so ever to incur nervousness. I just think that too many people these days are ultra senstive to development, even if it is well thought out, well designed and of a mixed use and contextual nature as the Dock Street building is. I just don't believe in the “I was here first attitude” and think this opposition and suit exemplifies that. I understand why there is sensitivy in low density areas that have been inundated with low quality multi family construction with no visual appeal, but where it is absolute logical to have higher densities and encourage more residential development such as a place like Dumbo, where a pretty nice looking building is being proposed that has been substantially revised from its original conception where views were actually blocked, it appears that this opposition based on illegal back door dealings, and impacts on the Brooklyn Bridge, etc., is a pretext to neighborhood residents who don't want to lose their own views from their own windows, and not really rooted in the visual obstruction one may view from the perspective of being on the bridge itself or from most other public vantage points. The more tightly knit, the more density in that area, the more vibrant it becomes as a beacon to the rejuvination of New York City and the wholesale adaptive reuse of a neighbhorhood that was long neglected before Two Trees invested in the area. The obstructionist values expressed by this opposition is what is turning this city into Paris where anything new is so scrutinized it barely gets off the ground. I wish you luck though!

        • Thanks for the wish of good luck, and not to re-hash the history of what has happened (Petitions, policticians, historians, community groups who are all against it), but it is only your opinion that dock st has been well thought out and well designed. Have you bothered looking around town lately at all the ugly development so far? Sure, on a table with lighting anything looks nice. I am sure the farragut houses look far different than the scale model used. And in that particular case, Vinegar Hill was ravaged. The area would have been far different today. There used to be street after street of nice homes and brownstones from plymouth to tillary, all gone because some short-sighted developer used the same arguments then as Walentas and supporters are using now. I ask you, in hindsight, what would you have preferred? There are condos going up everywhere and nobody to live in them. The whole development argument is moot in this economy. Things are turning for the bad. I am not against development, however, there is a time and place for it. There is no shortage of housing, only affordable housing. So the condos go empty, as will dock street. You have to know when to say enough to development, it just can't go unchecked, or you risk something bad happening. Look at the situation in Williamsburg- What has all the over-development done? The daily news ran a story about who is moving in to the stalled developments, heorin addicts. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/20… ) Yeah, that sure helped out that neighborhood. And this isn't a NIMBY attitude, this is just the reality of the situation. It has gone out of control, dock st is no different. Dock street is a symptom of what has gone wrong under Bloomberg. The process has just become a rubber stamping ritual, effectively making democracy and consent of the governed irrelevant. Mr. 'Man of the People, who happens to have Billions' has raised rents sky-high, while claiming he cares about the middle class. So to stop Dock St is to say no to this out of control 'build' attitude that is not reaping any rewards for anyone.

          It is a fight worth fighting.

          No2Walentas2Trees

  • Good luck convincing a court that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. As long as there was a reasonable basis for approving the application it will stand. Give up protecting your precious views from your lofts. The contention that this development ruins the views from the BK bridge is erroneous. The only views that will be blocked will be from the windows of the loft apartments at 1 Main Street, 45 Main Stret and 30 Main Street. I ride my bike back and forth over the bridge everyday and have visualised the impact this project will create. The view from the Brooklyn Bridge toward the Manhattan and the Manhattan Bridge is minimially affected. As it stands 1 Main Street standing at 172' tall already blocks the views of the Manhattan Bridge from the same vantage point that the Dock Street proposal will block. So instead of seeing 1 Main from the Bridge a pedestrian, cyclist or driver will see Dock Street Building then the Manhattan Bridge will emerge at approximately the same location it currently emerges from behind 1 Main Street. The opposition to this project is so thinly veiled it is ridiculous. The largest portion of the building is parrallel to and setback from the BK bridge at an angle that minimally disrupts any views from the BK bridge toward the water and Manhattan. Remember this is the US and property owners have the right to develop their property in a reasonable manner in line with land use regulations set forth to protect the health, welfare and safety of the community. Exceptions to those rules can be made by discretionary action of the City Planning Commission as authorized by the City Charter and the ULURP rules. Or should we just let that site stay vacant forever so NIMBY's can retain their valuable views and screw the development team that had the foresight to build the area up in the first place. It is amazing how reactionary people can be when the views from their windows, which were never gauranteed in perpetuity are threatened. Any well balanced and objective individual that has truly scrutinized this proposal knows that it is really not what the naysayers make it out to be.

    • Um, 'Name' if that's your real name…

      There were rules in place. These agencies twisted them, possibly illegally.

      “Let the truth be known though the heavens fall”

      If you truly ride your bike on the bridge that you must be suffering from in-attentional blindness at the big gorilla that will be blocking the view.

      If nothing wrong was done, the courts will rule.

      If something wrong was done, the courts will rule.

      You are ranting about rules and such, well, a lesson for you in government, there are checks and balances. Of course this was coming, denying such is living with your head in the sand. The courts are there to make sure things done by the other branches and agencies of government are on the up and up. Your ad-hoc attack to the opposition of more Bloom-blight shows your nervousness at the possibility this pending disaster will be averted. If you are so supportive of the system of governance, than let the chips fall where they may.

      No2Walentas2Trees

      • Obviously Name is the default identifier that this site grants to a person who does not register and rather posts as a guest. Same for a number of other entries. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, I am just being realistic. Of course there are checks and balances, and I truly believe in them. But you have to know when to pick your battles based on the knowledge of the judicial review of these types of actions and on the probability of a winning outcome. I just see this case as loser. Nothing personal. I have no investment what so ever to incur nervousness. I just think that too many people these days are ultra senstive to development, even if it is well thought out, well designed and of a mixed use and contextual nature as the Dock Street building is. I just don't believe in the “I was here first attitude” and think this opposition and suit exemplifies that. I understand why there is sensitivy in low density areas that have been inundated with low quality multi family construction with no visual appeal, but where it is absolute logical to have higher densities and encourage more residential development such as a place like Dumbo, where a pretty nice looking building is being proposed that has been substantially revised from its original conception where views were actually blocked, it appears that this opposition based on illegal back door dealings, and impacts on the Brooklyn Bridge, etc., is a pretext to neighborhood residents who don't want to lose their own views from their own windows, and not really rooted in the visual obstruction one may view from the perspective of being on the bridge itself or from most other public vantage points. The more tightly knit, the more density in that area, the more vibrant it becomes as a beacon to the rejuvination of New York City and the wholesale adaptive reuse of a neighbhorhood that was long neglected before Two Trees invested in the area. The obstructionist values expressed by this opposition is what is turning this city into Paris where anything new is so scrutinized it barely gets off the ground. I wish you luck though!

        • Thanks for the wish of good luck, and not to re-hash the history of what has happened (Petitions, policticians, historians, community groups who are all against it), but it is only your opinion that dock st has been well thought out and well designed. Have you bothered looking around town lately at all the ugly development so far? Sure, on a table with lighting anything looks nice. I am sure the farragut houses look far different than the scale model used. And in that particular case, Vinegar Hill was ravaged. The area would have been far different today. There used to be street after street of nice homes and brownstones from plymouth to tillary, all gone because some short-sighted developer used the same arguments then as Walentas and supporters are using now. I ask you, in hindsight, what would you have preferred? There are condos going up everywhere and nobody to live in them. The whole development argument is moot in this economy. Things are turning for the bad. I am not against development, however, there is a time and place for it. There is no shortage of housing, only affordable housing. So the condos go empty, as will dock street. You have to know when to say enough to development, it just can't go unchecked, or you risk something bad happening. Look at the situation in Williamsburg- What has all the over-development done? The daily news ran a story about who is moving in to the stalled developments, heorin addicts. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/20… ) Yeah, that sure helped out that neighborhood. And this isn't a NIMBY attitude, this is just the reality of the situation. It has gone out of control, dock st is no different. Dock street is a symptom of what has gone wrong under Bloomberg. The process has just become a rubber stamping ritual, effectively making democracy and consent of the governed irrelevant. Mr. 'Man of the People, who happens to have Billions' has raised rents sky-high, while claiming he cares about the middle class. So to stop Dock St is to say no to this out of control 'build' attitude that is not reaping any rewards for anyone.

          It is a fight worth fighting.

          No2Walentas2Trees

  • Finally, someone is holding the developer and city accountable for all of the corruption related to Dock Street, and there is the chance for some consequences to be handed down. Well done.

  • Finally, someone is holding the developer and city accountable for all of the corruption related to Dock Street, and there is the chance for some consequences to be handed down. Well done.

  • Thanks for the wish of good luck, and not to re-hash the history of what has happened (Petitions, policticians, historians, community groups who are all against it), but it is only your opinion that dock st has been well thought out and well designed. Have you bothered looking around town lately at all the ugly development so far? Sure, on a table with lighting anything looks nice. I am sure the farragut houses look far different than the scale model used. And in that particular case, Vinegar Hill was ravaged. The area would have been far different today. There used to be street after street of nice homes and brownstones from plymouth to tillary, all gone because some short-sighted developer used the same arguments then as Walentas and supporters are using now. I ask you, in hindsight, what would you have preferred? There are condos going up everywhere and nobody to live in them. The whole development argument is moot in this economy. Things are turning for the bad. I am not against development, however, there is a time and place for it. There is no shortage of housing, only affordable housing. So the condos go empty, as will dock street. You have to know when to say enough to development, it just can't go unchecked, or you risk something bad happening. Look at the situation in Williamsburg- What has all the over-development done? The daily news ran a story about who is moving in to the stalled developments, heorin addicts. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/15/2009-07-15_hordes_of_hobos_set_up_shop_in_williamsburg_punks_invade_neighborhood.html ) Yeah, that sure helped out that neighborhood. And this isn't a NIMBY attitude, this is just the reality of the situation. It has gone out of control, dock st is no different. Dock street is a symptom of what has gone wrong under Bloomberg. The process has just become a rubber stamping ritual, effectively making democracy and consent of the governed irrelevant. Mr. 'Man of the People, who happens to have Billions' has raised rents sky-high, while claiming he cares about the middle class. So to stop Dock St is to say no to this out of control 'build' attitude that is not reaping any rewards for anyone.

    It is a fight worth fighting.

    No2Walentas2Trees

  • Thanks for the wish of good luck, and not to re-hash the history of what has happened (Petitions, policticians, historians, community groups who are all against it), but it is only your opinion that dock st has been well thought out and well designed. Have you bothered looking around town lately at all the ugly development so far? Sure, on a table with lighting anything looks nice. I am sure the farragut houses look far different than the scale model used. And in that particular case, Vinegar Hill was ravaged. The area would have been far different today. There used to be street after street of nice homes and brownstones from plymouth to tillary, all gone because some short-sighted developer used the same arguments then as Walentas and supporters are using now. I ask you, in hindsight, what would you have preferred? There are condos going up everywhere and nobody to live in them. The whole development argument is moot in this economy. Things are turning for the bad. I am not against development, however, there is a time and place for it. There is no shortage of housing, only affordable housing. So the condos go empty, as will dock street. You have to know when to say enough to development, it just can't go unchecked, or you risk something bad happening. Look at the situation in Williamsburg- What has all the over-development done? The daily news ran a story about who is moving in to the stalled developments, heorin addicts. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/15/2009-07-15_hordes_of_hobos_set_up_shop_in_williamsburg_punks_invade_neighborhood.html ) Yeah, that sure helped out that neighborhood. And this isn't a NIMBY attitude, this is just the reality of the situation. It has gone out of control, dock st is no different. Dock street is a symptom of what has gone wrong under Bloomberg. The process has just become a rubber stamping ritual, effectively making democracy and consent of the governed irrelevant. Mr. 'Man of the People, who happens to have Billions' has raised rents sky-high, while claiming he cares about the middle class. So to stop Dock St is to say no to this out of control 'build' attitude that is not reaping any rewards for anyone.

    It is a fight worth fighting.

    No2Walentas2Trees