125th St. Rezoning Prompts Legal Action
Press Release
125th St. Rezoning Prompts Legal Action
By Daniel Amzallag
While the 125th Street rezoning proposal passed almost unanimously at New York City Council Wednesday, the advocacy group Voices of the Everyday People has vowed to continue its legal battle against the proposal.
After filing a lawsuit against the city on Tuesday, VOTE People attorney Michael Hiller called on the New York State Supreme Court Wednesday morning either to stop the council vote or to stay the effect of the vote. Hiller argued that the city failed to provide adequate notice to property holders about the rezoning and relevant meetings, but neither the State Supreme Court nor the state's First Appellate Department granted relief to the protesters.
City Council passed the proposal Wednesday by a vote of 47-2 after drastic modifications to it by Council Member Inez Dickens (D-Harlem and Morningside Heights). The plan will allow denser commercial development and taller buildings on 125th Street between Broadway and Second Avenue, aiming to draw shoppers and tourists to the street. Protesters have argued that the proposal would mean widespread gentrification and soaring housing costs. But council members have hailed it as one of the most impressive plans for affordable housing the city has ever seen.
"They can start breaking ground tomorrow, and people will lose their businesses. It's a question of balancing equations," Hiller said in his oral argument, arguing that community boards did not provide notice of their meetings about the rezoning, as is required under the New York City Charter.
"When I was out on the street trying to get signatures, most people had no idea what was going on," Samantha Lewis, a representative for VOTE People, said. "You don't really see the effects of rezoning until the buildings go up and shadows are cast and people are getting displaced."
But Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, senior counsel for the New York City Corporation Counsel, pointed to the numerous public hearings and community meetings that have taken place as indication of public notice. "To enjoin the effect of the vote is not really legally arguable," she said, citing numerous community meetings, public scoping meetings, and public hearings by the City Council and the City Planning Commission. "There was extensive public outreach that was required."
Presiding judge Nicholas Figueroa questioned what he characterized as the "tardiness" of commencing the lawsuit a day before the council vote was scheduled.
"It's very difficult for communities to galvanize support and legal support. It is inherent in the process," Hiller explained.
Despite the blows of the rezoning approval and denial of immediate judicial intervention, VOTE People executive director Craig Schley reported that the group will continue pursuing legal avenues. "Either way we have much to fight about and for," he said. "I hope you see that we're not at all prepared to give up."
"We put together an appeal, we went through a procedure to get there, and we were accepted in the appeals courtwhich says a lot," Schley added. "If you don't have merit, they don't hear you."
The State Supreme Court scheduled the matter for full briefing and argument on May 22. The Appellate Division set Monday as a deadline for written submissions as to whether a stay of the plan will be granted for the duration of litigation.
"It's not surprising it had to get to this point," Schley said. "We can start the fight because through the process ... people can really be heard, and all these things will come to pass."
Source