In a Staten Island courtroom, the city has begun its defense of the controversial housing initiative, the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, aimed at addressing New York City’s ongoing housing crisis.
Attorneys representing the city faced off against a coalition of civic groups and elected officials who filed a lawsuit in March challenging the large-scale zoning changes proposed in the plan.
The plaintiffs include Queens Councilmembers Joann Ariola, Bob Holden, and Vickie Paladino, along with Queens GOP Chair Anthony Nunziato and various civic organizations under the Queens Civic Congress.
Their argument centers on an assertion that the city, through the Department of City Planning and its other governing bodies, violated environmental laws by failing to perform a thorough review of the plan’s potential environmental impacts.
In contrast, the city’s legal team contended that it had met the necessary legal requirements when drafting the environmental impact study for the City of Yes.
This study outlined several potential adverse effects on various aspects of city life, including open space, school capacity, transportation, and building shadows.
Jack Lester, the attorney representing the civic groups, contended that the city was obligated to propose mitigation strategies for these identified issues, but failed to do so adequately.
He claimed, “There is no mitigation,” suggesting that the city’s approach defied rational expectations.
Arguing for the city’s position, Assistant Corporation Counsel Tess Dernbach remarked that the city had conducted an appropriate review, asserting, “Just because they disagree does not make our review irrational.”
Dernbach pointed out that while the city did not prescribe specific mitigation measures, it was not necessary due to the broad nature of the rezoning plan, which lacks precise development sites.
According to the environmental impact statement, the non-site-specific aspect of the proposed plan means that the city cannot enforce mitigation at individual sites, as future developments will occur as-of-right.
Furthermore, Dernbach highlighted that when the City Council adapted the City of Yes into the “City for All” plan last December, it allocated $5 billion towards potential infrastructure improvements as a form of mitigation.
Lester countered this argument by asserting that the City Council’s role was not substantial enough to introduce valid mitigation measures since it was not the governing agency on the project.
Dernbach contested this, labeling Lester’s argument as a new claim not included in previous briefs and suggested that it should be disregarded by the court.
Lester’s discourse extended to the broader framework of Mayor Eric Adams’ three-pronged City of Yes initiative, which includes the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, and City of Yes for Economic Opportunity.
He suggested that the segmentation of these initiatives was unnecessary, arguing that a ruling against the lawsuit would potentially dismantle the entire plan.
In defense, Dernbach differentiated the three plans as fundamentally separate, asserting their shared title was primarily for marketing and they were all interconnected through zoning.
Contention over battery storage sites, or battery farms, also featured prominently in the discussions. Opponents contended that the City of Yes facilitated a risky expansion of these facilities into residential areas, citing planned sites such as one on Linden Boulevard in Queens.
Dernbach dismissed these concerns as “scare tactics,” arguing that the development of these battery storage sites would have proceeded regardless of the City of Yes and stressing that they are stringently regulated by the FDNY.
She described the raised issues as a transparent effort to conflate concerns with the City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, which the city emphasized was not part of the lawsuit.
Richmond County Judge Lizette Colon indicated that she would review the documentation presented by both sides and would deliver her ruling in due time.
Outside the courtroom, Lester and several elected officials from Staten Island and Queens expressed their worries regarding the City of Yes initiative.
Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella criticized the city’s environmental review processes, stating, “Staten Island and other parts of the city will suffer because the city didn’t do enough, not only did it not review but also ignored a lot of our concerns.”
Fossella pointed out that this is only the third instance in New York City’s history wherein rezoning has occurred, emphasizing the importance of protecting the environment.
Paul Graziano, a city planner from Queens and vocal opponent of the City of Yes, characterized the city’s arguments as “circular” and self-serving.
He challenged the city’s stance, stating, “You can’t say, ‘We can’t do anything, it’s not going to have any effect on anything, it’s going to be spread out all over, but by the way, we don’t know where anything is going to be.'”
As the proceedings continue, the outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, with both sides of the argument firmly entrenched in their positions.
image source from：queenseagle
