Court Rules Against Boardwalk Community Garden, Victim of a 2013 Taking

In the early morning hours of Dec. 28, 2013, a construction crew sent by the City of New York and NYSE-listed developer iStar Financial bulldozed a decades-old community garden. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of nearly fifty local West Coney Island community members, gardeners, and community activists. It sought to prevent the development of a locally unwanted $61 million amphitheater and to return over an acre of parkland and gardening space back to the local community.

West Coney Island is one of the poorest areas of the city. Most residents reside in public housing, and unemployment is high. The neighborhood itself suffers from its location with little economic activity of its own, crumbling infrastructure, and frequent flooding. Many of its community gardens were closed and sold off to developers during the Giuliani Administration—with an exception being the Boardwalk Community Garden, which in 1997 was transferred to the Parks Department in order to create, to quote one of the then-Directors at the Parks Department, “a permanent community garden.” For years, that garden thrived as a place to grow food and hold events and to gather. Yet in the mid-2000s, the City began to regret its decision to make permanent this park located adjacent to the boardwalk. In 2004 and 2007, plans to construct a parking lot on the garden fell through, and the community continued to improve the land.

In 2013 the City rushed through its insufficient environmental review of the proposed project, excessively downplaying such important issues as runoff, destruction of natural resources, and flooding; approved the project on the final day of the legislative sessions; and then bulldozed and fenced off the park/garden later that week. The Petitioners challenged the project on both environmental and Public Trust grounds and sought a halt to the development pending further environmental review. Throughout the case the City and the developers continued construction and our request for a temporary injunction was denied. The amphitheater opened for business in June 2016.

As of April 26, 2016 the case has been dismissed on the merits and all requests for preliminary or permanent injunctive relief have been denied. This result took over two years and three judges to decide. First, the initial judge recused himself just as a ruling was expected. Then, the new judge asked for a rehearing in December, followed by supplemental briefing. That Judge then recused himself.

We intend to take the appeal this decision to the First Appellate Division.

 

Case: Coney Island Boardwalk Community Garden et al. v The City of New York et al., Index number 6033/2014, New York Supreme Court (County of Kings)

 

Case Description

The case was filed in New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Index No. 6033/2104, as a hybrid Declatory/ Article 78 challenge, primarily seeking:

- An annulment of the development project EIS for several violations of SEQRA and CEQR, the New York State and City environmental review acts, including the project’s:

  • expedited environmental review, which had to be completed to ensure the project’s approval before the end of the Bloomberg Administration.
  • reliance on 2009 flood maps, despite the fact that Hurricane Sandy has since forced the City, State, and federal government to alter floodplain maps and flooding assessments
  • failure to describe reasonable flooding- and runoff-prevention methods
  • failure to acknowledge the environmental importance of the acre-plus park and community garden, including drainage as required by SEQRA
  • bad faith in preparing the environmental review, including relying only on pictures of the parkland taken in the middle of the winter

- The immediate cessation of the project for relying on a faulty and legally insufficient environmental review as demanded by SEQRA and CEQR.

- A declaration that one of the parcels in the development zone—Brooklyn Block 7071, Lot 142—is in fact parkland protected by the State Public Trust Doctrine, thus requiring State legislative approval before it could be alienated.

- A reopening of the park to the community.

 

Share