Brooklyn A’s Challenge to Broadway Triangle Plan Moves Forward

UPDATE: In a June 14th Hearing, Supreme Court Judge Emily Jane Goodman ordered
the City of New York to provide all the
demographic and socioeconomic data necessary to determine whether the city’s
plan to rezone for affordable housing a rundown patch of land on the border of Williamsburg and Bedford
Stuyvesant would foster segregation.

Previously: 

May 22, 2010– Supreme Court Judge Emily Jane Goodman has scheduled a hearing next month to determine
whether the city’s plan to develop public housing in a rundown patch of
Williamsburg, Brooklyn, would essentially foster segregation. In a 22-page decision issued on May 20, 2010, Judge Goodman indicated that there might be some merit in
Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A's claims that the city’s plan to construct public housing in what is
known as the Broadway Triangle could have a discriminatory effect. 

“The court cannot discount the circumstantial evidence which may allow
reasonable people to infer a purposefulness in the manner in which the
entire enterprise has proceeded,” Justice Goodman wrote.

A Coalition of 40 community groups opposed to the plan is being represented by Brooklyn A Project Director Martin S. Needleman and Deferred Associate Fellow Shekar Krishnan.

From the May 24th New York Law Journal:

A state judge is seeking additional information before ruling on a
six-month-old challenge to a controversial development proposal that
opponents say was rushed through by New York City officials as a
political favor to the powerful Hasidic community in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn.

A coalition of 40 community groups requested an injunction in
December to block the rezoning to residential from manufacturing of 18
acres in the blighted Broadway Triangle urban renewal area. The city
says the project will accommodate up to 1,851 units of housing, with
800 units set aside for low- and moderate-income families.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman
held arguments in March in response to the request of a coalition of 40
community groups for a preliminary injunction. The rezoning of the
city-owned land has been stayed since December, shortly after the
council approved the proposal.

On Friday, Justice Goodman said that a hearing "is required on the
issue of whether the City has violated the Fair Housing Act, and the
Human Rights Laws, as to the application of the community preference,
inter alia, and for greater exploration of the facts surrounding the
allegation of discriminatory impact, including statistics supporting
Plaintiffs' claim that only Hasidic families want or need larger
apartments and other probative statistics supporting the claim of
disparate impact," Justice Goodman concluded in Broadway Triangle Community Coalition v. Bloomberg, 112799/09.

The supplemental hearing will be held on June 14.

"We hope that the matter is resolved as soon as possible, so that
the construction of much-needed affordable housing can proceed," Louise
Moed, senior counsel of the city Law Department's administrative law
division, said in a statement.

In a no-bid process, the city selected a Hasidic entity, the United
Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg Inc., and the allied Ridgewood
Bushwick Senior Council Inc., to develop the land. The plaintiffs, who
are primarily black and Hispanic families and organizations but include
some Hasidic families, allege the project is discriminatory and will
have a disparate impact on them and the neighborhood.

The projects' opponents complain that the development's large
apartments, with multiple bedrooms, in six- and seven-story buildings
are tailored for typically large Hasidic families who do not use
elevators on the Sabbath. They advocate for taller buildings with
variously sized apartments.

The city counters that it moved quickly to select the developers and
followed the proper procedures during the two-year rezoning process. It
contends that higher buildings would not be in keeping with the
character of the area. And it says there is no statistical evidence
that only Hasidic families would seek the apartments.

Observing that the plaintiffs' argument was that the city, "via the
developers' plans, have given a political accommodation to benefit the
Hasidic community," Justice Goodman said that "the Court will not
become entangled in the unfamiliar and dangerous waters of politics."

However, the judge, who indicated she had visited the site along
with the lawyers and planning experts of the two parties, expressed
skepticism about the city's position. For example, she commented that
an existing project of the developer's cited favorably by the city "is
not a shining example of diversity."

Further, she suggested that there was "negligible demand for large
apartments as compared to smaller ones" in the city and she questioned
"why in such a daunting housing crisis, there is…so powerful a
commitment, with funds, to construct only large, and, therefore, fewer
apartments."

Also, she said additional evidence of allegedly discriminatory
impacts is needed in light of years of federal litigation that revealed
over-representation of Hasidic families in several Willamsburg public
housing developments.

Read the rest of the article at the New York Law Journal's website (subscription required).

More coverage:

New York Observer, May 27. "In Brooklyn, an Anti-Development Lawsuit Actually Advances"

Brooklyn Paper, May 25, 2010.  "Judge Lets Bway Triangle Suit Move Forward"  

New York Times, May 21. "Judge Agrees to Consider Bias Claims in Brooklyn Zoning Suit" 

Earlier: Brooklyn A Wins Injunction Blocking Broadway Triangle Rezoning  

BONUS Coverage!  Read Attorney Shekar Krishnan's reflections on his work challenging the Broadway Triangle as a 2009-2010 Weil Gotshal & Manges Deferred Associate Fellow at Brooklyn A.