CB6 Says Yes to Lightstone's Gowanus Development
Despite Community Board Six’s land use committee recommending a new environmental impact study be performed before evaluating a new development planned for the Gowanus Canal, not to mention lots of community opposition to the development, the full board voted to approve Lightstone’s plans last night. Pardon Me For Asking reports: “Last night’s monthly meeting of Community Board…
Despite Community Board Six’s land use committee recommending a new environmental impact study be performed before evaluating a new development planned for the Gowanus Canal, not to mention lots of community opposition to the development, the full board voted to approve Lightstone’s plans last night. Pardon Me For Asking reports: “Last night’s monthly meeting of Community Board Six was a bizarre, badly organized affair that left many Gowanus and Carroll Gardens residents scratching their heads and wondering about the board’s integrity.” The full board voted against the motion by the land use committee, which asked that development be put on hold until a new impact study was conducted, that 30 percent of the units be affordable, that the building height be reduced to eight stories from 12, and that Community Board Responsible Contractor Conditions be followed. A second motion, to neither approve nor disapprove, but require the impact study, also did not pass. According to PMFA, this is the motion that finally passed: “The Community Board conditionally approves the minor modifications provided that the developer follows CB6’s Responsible Contractor policy and that city planning starts a full scale study involving the rezoning of the Gowanus Corridor.” PMFA states, “It was less than a stellar moment for CB6.”
Less Than a Stellar Moment for Community Board Six… [PMFA]
Rendering via Gowanus Your Face Off
There’s something rotten in the state of CB6, that’s for sure.
First, we have a huge “public hearing” where the Land Use committee OVERWHELMINGLY votes to recommend tabling this development. Then a few weeks later we have a full CB6 meeting, where we are told at the beginning, “Nobody who isn’t on CB6 will have a chance to speak tonite; most of the work is done in committee.” Okay, great–that work was done by the Land Use committee, and they board voted to TABLE. And we all know that, usually, cb6 relies on the decisions of their subcommittees. But not last nite.
First up, the chair of the land-use subcommittee, who surprisingly enough had voted to TABLE (even though his tone in dealing with the public that night was just dripping with condescension), presents the development to CB6 in such glowing terms you would think he was employed by Lightstone.
While he is doing that, one of the other chairs of CB6 is constantly interjecting other things no one is asking him about that also portray the development as though it were excreted from the lord’s anus itself. Next up? Another Land-use committee member who voted to table but, “now that i’ve had some time to think about it…i think i ‘ve changed my mind.” And then another commitee member says practically the same thing. And where were the rest of the committee members who voted to table? Well, guess what? They’ve been kicked off CB6 for not being “pro-development” enough. So they don’t get to speak at all. In fact, it seamed that the vast majority of the room didn’t know much about the project so they had to rely on what they were being told last nite–by mostly pro-Lightstone CB6 members. And to cap it all off, the vote itself was balls-out confusing, with people being asked to vote “Nay” if they were FOR the project, and “AYE” if there were against it.
And all the while, Lightstone’s hired lobbyists stood in the room, briefcases in hand, silently watching.
Yup, there’s something rotten in the state of CB6.
There’s something rotten in the state of CB6, that’s for sure.
First, we have a huge “public hearing” where the Land Use committee OVERWHELMINGLY votes to recommend tabling this development. Then a few weeks later we have a full CB6 meeting, where we are told at the beginning, “Nobody who isn’t on CB6 will have a chance to speak tonite; most of the work is done in committee.” Okay, great–that work was done by the Land Use committee, and they board voted to TABLE. And we all know that, usually, cb6 relies on the decisions of their subcommittees. But not last nite.
First up, the chair of the land-use subcommittee, who surprisingly enough had voted to TABLE (even though his tone in dealing with the public that night was just dripping with condescension), presents the development to CB6 in such glowing terms you would think he was employed by Lightstone.
While he is doing that, one of the other chairs of CB6 is constantly interjecting other things no one is asking him about that also portray the development as though it were excreted from the lord’s anus itself. Next up? Another Land-use committee member who voted to table but, “now that i’ve had some time to think about it…i think i ‘ve changed my mind.” And then another commitee member says practically the same thing. And where were the rest of the committee members who voted to table? Well, guess what? They’ve been kicked off CB6 for not being “pro-development” enough. So they don’t get to speak at all. In fact, it seamed that the vast majority of the room didn’t know much about the project so they had to rely on what they were being told last nite–by mostly pro-Lightstone CB6 members. And to cap it all off, the vote itself was balls-out confusing, with people being asked to vote “Nay” if they were FOR the project, and “AYE” if there were against it.
And all the while, Lightstone’s hired lobbyists stood in the room, briefcases in hand, silently watching.
Yup, there’s something rotten in the state of CB6.
donald, unfortunately I’m afraid your question can be answered in two words: greedy bastards. Because I’m all with you; i’m not against development there, but this kind of out of scale crap that is filling our borough is just craptastic. and ejr2, you are overlooking the fact taht these apartments are RENTALS NOT CONDOS. Now, ask your same questions again.
“The developer can get more money for the units if the canal is cleaner. YES/NO?”
you know what? in my experience, landlords usually don’t give a damn about improving anything as long as their unit is rented.
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MYSELF…..
no one ever expected nyc to clean up in the 60’s, 70’s and part of 80’s and now look at it.
hdlbklyn, I agree with all that you’ve said, but there was never an invitation for a “collaborative process.”
And also, why call the land use committee “zealots”? Why such a negative view? There were lots of people at the public hearing that said they wanted better development (not no development). I believe that land use was trying to steer the “ship that had sailed” in exactly that direction.
The clean up will take at least a decade and as of this date the feasibility study has not been released. It is a bureaucratic process, a decade might be a tad optimistic but for arguments sake even if the canal were cleaned in ten years it would remain on the national register for many more years during which time the EPA will monitor it.
One of he reasons that Toll backed out was that buyers would not be able to obtain mortgages. As for people bringing more resources, well the polluters such as National Grid and Chemtura will be paying for the clean up.
copycat.