I’m Guessing I’m Some Kind of “Nimby”, part 2

Being called a NIMBY isn’t the worst thing someone can be called. I was part of a group of Gowanus residents called “NIMBY’s” because we challenged the 2021 Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan. 

We raised concerns that the massive rezoning of 82 blocks in Gowanus was not responsive to local needs, and instead was prioritizing profits for the real estate industry. I outline the context for these concerns in Part 1 of this story, which you can read in the Winter 2023 edition of the Park Slope Reader. 

In this part of the story, I will explore a more personal experience where my own personal NIMBYism was really brought to the surface. While I have been living in Gowanus for almost 20 years, the larger Gowanus rezoning plan I challenged didn’t actually impact my own block. However, more change in Gowanus was soon coming to my own neck of the woods. Even though I was disappointed in the outcome of the larger Gowanus rezoning plan, I was hopeful that the rezoning plan coming to my own block would be better tailored to the unique interests of my area of Gowanus. It’s never that simple, though.

Our block of 8th Street, and the entire swath of Gowanus on the south side of the canal, west of 3rd street, wasn’t included in the larger Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan. By the start of the recent Gowanus rezoning process, our area was no longer known for rats, sex workers and drugs. Our part of Gowanus was a vibrant community of manufacturers, commercial businesses, and creative spaces, with a handful of residents, like me. The City promised us that the future of our part of Gowanus would be addressed separately, through a process centering on more community engagement. 

The Gowanus Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) Vision Plan, released by NYC in 2021, was the start of that effort. The Gowanus IBZ Vision Plan outlined a plan for increased support for the thriving manufacturing, industrial and creative uses of Gowanus, allowing properties zoned for these uses to expand significantly to meet growing demand largely caused by displacement from Long Island City, Williamsburg, and now, the other side of Gowanus. The Vision Plan also provides for rezoning most of the currently “grandfathered” residential properties; homes like mine would eventually be determined as “conforming use” of the space. Such a change would allow for modest residential development in certain parts of the area, and a commitment to status quo in other parts. 

The promised zoning changes to support local businesses are barely in the infancy stages of development through the City’s bureaucracy. However, in late 2021, just a few months after the larger Gowanus rezoning plan passed the NYC Council, I heard that a neighbor was proposing to rezone 9th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues for residential use. That block of 9th Street is much like my block of 8th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, with some significant differences. Both blocks are currently zoned for manufacturing use. Both blocks have a dozen or so “grandfathered”, “non-conforming” houses, largely built over a hundred years ago, all before zoning became the law of NYC. Both blocks also have significant and longstanding industrial businesses in busy operation. Both blocks suffer from a rising water table, the threat of storm surges, and the realities of insufficient and archaic sewers. The main difference: our block is largely inhabited by the owners of 1 & 2 family houses, most 2-3 stories tall. That stretch of 9th Street, however, is largely inhabited by renters, many in multiple family buildings up to 4 stories tall. That block of 9th Street is one of the last strongholds of a diminishing local, multi-generational, Puerto Rican and Dominican community in Gowanus. Also, some of the buildings on 9th Street have residents long protected by rent stabilization laws. 

The plan to rezone 9th Street was prompted by the application of a single landowner: the estate of a long-time neighbor who passed away after a very long life. After the death of our dear neighbor, their estate owned 3 contiguous lots on 9th Street, covering 100+ feet of street frontage, used for the last 50+ years as a dirt and gravel parking lot for cars and trucks. The parking lot, literally, borders my backyard. The estate sought to change the zoning of the parking lot to allow for residential development. Such would make the property more valuable than its current zoning for manufacturing uses. However, the estate couldn’t apply to simply rezone their own lots; small rezoning applications, termed “spot zoning”, are frowned upon. 

“Spot zoning” involves rezoning a particular parcel of land for use different from the surrounding area, and usually benefits a single owner. Spot zoning is discouraged, especially in NYC. Instead, zoning changes are supposed to be well-considered and within a comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community. To avoid the “spot zoning” challenges to their rezoning application, the estate expanded their proposal to include all the properties on 9th Street currently used as “grandfathered” residential, “non-conforming use”. 

When I first heard of a plan to rezone 9th Street to residential use, I was fully on board. I welcome a change in zoning to allow long existing residential buildings to finally conform with their uses. I welcome development of more residential units on that block, especially in spaces currently not meeting community needs; I’m not interested in preserving a parking lot in my backyard. 

As the details of the plan were unveiled, my support wavered. The estate was seeking to rezone the entire block of 9th street to allow for “mixed use” manufacturing/commercial ground floor businesses, with 7 story residential developments added on top. This wasn’t a plan to address the “grandfathered” issues related to “non-conforming” uses; IMHO this was a plan to completely change the neighborhood in one fell swoop, and without community input, to maximize individual property value.

I had MANY concerns on the potential impact such development would have on the area, and I wasn’t alone. This proposal threatened the existing residents, largely renters, on 9th Street. This proposal threatened the thriving manufacturing, industrial and creative communities on the same block, and nearby. This proposal threatened to further strain our insufficient sewer and stormwater infrastructure. This proposal would exacerbate the rising water table issues for neighboring properties, like my own. Disappointed in what I see as an attempted “money grab” by my neighbor’s estate, I remained cautiously optimistic; I expected community concerns to be addressed in the bureaucracy of the approval process, and a better plan to be ultimately found.

The Community Board 6 Land Use Committee, sharing the concerns community members brought to their attention during the initial community hearing, overwhelmingly voted to oppose the 9th Street rezoning plan unless there were significant changes. The larger Community Board 6 shockingly ignored the vote of their own Land Use Committee, voting to support the plan with only minor suggested changes. 

The larger Community Board’s vote was centered on the hope that the rezoning plan would bring to market 13 “affordable” housing units, along with 30+ market rate units, under the City’s “Mandatory Inclusionary Housing” program (aka “MIH”). However, there was no acknowledgement that the rezoning proposal did not guarantee development of ANY affordable units. Through the public review process the estate presented a plan for the kind of building they could develop after the rezoning was finalized. The presentation was completely hypothetical. After the rezoning process is completed, the estate could build a completely different project, and easily avoid any MIH requirements. It was shocking to me that the Community Board members could be so naive. I had greater hope for the next phases of the process.

Next up was the Brooklyn Borough President’s hearing and determination. The spirited hearing brought out dozens of community members expressing concerns in opposition to the initial plan including concerns that long-time residents would be forced out, local business operations would be negatively impacted, and the changes would contribute to flooding and sewer problems. The testimony of those in support of the initial 9th Street rezoning plan largely came from those with limited experience, if any, with Gowanus. Such testimony often started with disclaimers like: “I don’t live or work in Gowanus, but I rode my bike on this block the other day” or “I never lived nearby, but I’d like to.” The Brooklyn Borough President’s eventual conditional approval of the plan recommended a reduction in the scope and scale of the proposal. Borough President Reynoso recommended that a number of lots most at risk of storm related flooding be completely removed from the plan. Borough President Reynoso’s plan also recommended that the resulting density in most other lots be reduced to match existing zoning regulations passed about a decade ago covering 9th Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues, with a max height of 5-6 stories; the estate’s parking lot, however, would still be allowed to build to the original plan of 9 stories. While the Borough President’s plan didn’t completely make sense to me, I valued how he showed policymakers can hear various constituent concerns and seek to find common ground that advances competing, yet compelling, interests. 

Next up was consideration from the NYC Department of City Planning (DCP). While awaiting an announcement of the scheduling of the public DCP hearing, community members looking to provide input at all stages of this process, like myself, found out the DCP hearing went forward without appropriate notice to the community or our Councilmember. Therefore, the DCP hearing proceeded without opposition testimony. The real estate developers, however, had inside knowledge of the hearing, and mobilized a handful of their operatives to testify in favor of the proposal. I helped organize the community opposition to provide written testimony to the DCP. Our written testimony included signatures from an online petition of 300 community members. Contrary to Borough President Reynoso’s conditional approval, nor the conditions recommended by the Community Board, the DCP approved the initial proposal, without ANY conditions. 

The NYC DCP was ready to allow the entire stretch of 9th Street to be rezoned to allow 9 story luxury residential development, with no real promise of affordable housing development; they were ready to ignore the environmental impacts of adding hundreds of new units to the overburdened, and under-resourced sewer system; they were ready to ignore the impact the potential displacement of my Puerto-Rican and Dominican neighbors; they were ready to ignore the impact of growing the residential population of a block 10 fold would have on the viability of the local industrial and creative communities. 

Luckily, the DCP is not the final word on rezoning decisions: the NY City Council is. On matters of local rezoning efforts, the City Council largely defers to the position of the City Councilmember from the impacted district. The local community had been working with City Councilmember Shahana Hanif to help her understand our complex concerns. At this point in the process, Councilmember Hanif brought the community members to the table with the rezoning applicant to discuss our concerns and proposed modifications. I was able to explain my concern that the enormous concrete foundation required to build a 9 story building next to my backyard would protect that new structure from the rising groundwater, but that their protection would divert groundwater onto my property threatening the integrity of my less protected stone foundation walls. My business neighbors were able to explain that longtime Gowanus businesses, like moving companies, building contractors, and commercial carting companies work loudly and at odd hours; if the neighborhood suddenly was populated by more residents than businesses, they feared being forced out of the area by complaints and restrictions. And, my other neighbors were able to explain their concern for displacement of local, long-time renters. The applicant was able to explain their interests in developing a long underutilized area property for the benefit of the community.

At the end of this process, Councilmember Hanif was able to successfully negotiate a modification to the original proposal. The final proposal, passed by the New York City Council in October 2022 allows for significant growth in residential development, but a scale less threatening to the environment, local businesses, and current residents. No one is getting everything they wanted, but all of us are satisfied by the outcome. Well, not “everyone”. Real estate developers are not happy; they were already busy buying up other properties on 9th Street, and surrounding blocks, in hopes that another big change in zoning would provide them a financial windfall.

As a result of not getting all they hoped for, the powerful NYC real estate developer community prompted negative news coverage, akin to a hissy fit, with headlines like: ”City Council Moves Forward With Gowanus Rezoning After Slashing Affordable Housing” and “Another Rezoning Gets through, but Housing is Shrunk”. The coverage largely hinges on the claims that the original rezoning proposal would have guaranteed development of affordable housing units under the NYC MIH program. What the coverage neglects to flesh out for the reader are the realities of MIH “requirements”. MIH requirements do not apply to new developments with fewer than 10 units. Under MIH requirements, developers of projects with 11-25 units can choose to pay into a fund, instead of building any “affordable” units. In other words, the original proposal to rezone 9th Street would not have guaranteed any new affordable units to the neighborhood, but would have likely displaced all existing community members, and been disastrous to local businesses and the environment. 

Trying to explain the complicated context of community concern while celebrating the modified plan’s successful passage through the NYC Council, I met with, and talked to, a number of journalists. They all were exposed to the information I share in this piece.The resulting news coverage, and responsive tweeting, paint a very different picture than reality. The coverage portrays me, personally, as a rich, White, NIMBY who doesn’t want affordable housing and/or big buildings in my backyard. Only one journalist, a CUNY student named Rachel Goldman, actually published a piece with integrity. 

Regardless of what the developer-funded papers say, or what their editors tweet about me under pseudonyms, the reality is that I welcome the development of real affordable housing in Gowanus, even in the lot behind my backyard. I also welcome community informed and environmentally responsible development. Bring it all! I’d be happy to be called a YIMBY for a change.