CHA BMT Update: June 24, 2025: Vision Plan & Objective Considerations

Posted on by Cobble Hill Association

Below is the contents of an email the CHA sent to the community on June 24, 2025. Please note – the version of the Vision Plan linked in this email is no longer the most recent one. The most recent Vision Plan is available here, and the vote is scheduled for July 17, 2025.

Dear Cobble Hill Community,

We know it’s been a while since our last update—but there’s a reason for that. Over the past few weeks, the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Vision Plan has continued to evolve in response to intense community feedback and Task Force advocacy. While frustrating at times, this level of back-and-forth is typical in large-scale land use decisions, whether through ULURP or a General Project Plan (GPP).  This kind of give-and-take is exactly how large, multi-stakeholder plans evolve, and why we’ve been holding off on pushing out a newsletter. But the vote is coming up on Friday, and even with more changes likely on the horizon, it’s important to get this out. This newsletter includes Objective Considerations for the BMT Vision Plan Vote and the most recent Vision Plan/Summary of Recent Changes. It’s long, so please use the jump links. 

Objective Considerations for BMT Vision Plan Vote

We want to begin by thanking all of you for your patience. We know the community is awaiting an official position from the CHA, but we are still deliberating. That process includes carefully reviewing the comments and emails that continue to come in. Many raise important concerns. Some contain understandable confusion, and others are based on assumptions that may not reflect the facts. Below, we attempt to clarify several of these common themes. Reasonable people can and do disagree on how to weigh the potential benefits and harms, how much confidence to place in future commitments, what risks are acceptable, and which scenarios are most likely to play out. Our goal in sharing these clarifications is not to advocate for a particular outcome, but to ensure that everyone is working from a shared understanding of the facts.

1. This is not a vote between the Vision Plan and the status quo.
The Brooklyn Marine Terminal (BMT) site will be redeveloped. The question is not whether development will occur, but what shape that development will take and how it will affect surrounding communities. Any future proposal will likely also impact Cobble Hill in some way. Whether it is worse or better is subjective, but whether it will happen is not.

2. A “no” vote does not result in a new process under the City’s ULURP, but rather will go through the GPP process
For purposes of the CHA’s decision, we are proceeding on the assumption—based on available facts—that any future version of this project would continue under the State’s GPP process. The City’s ULURP process cannot legally apply unless the Port Authority transfers the land to the City, which is extremely rare and would require State-level approval. While not technically impossible, the likelihood is low enough that it would be imprudent to base our vote on that possibility.

3. The Task Force structure is not guaranteed in a future GPP.
The Task Force was created specifically for this iteration of the process. It is not a required component of GPP and therefore may not be replicated if the process restarts. This does not mean that a future process will not incorporate community input, but is a relevant consideration.

4. This is only the first stage of a multi-stage process.
The Vision Plan is only the first stage of the GPP process. It sets the land use framework but does not finalize infrastructure investments. Those are studied and decided in the next phase, through a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is required by state law. The EIS will analyze impacts on schools, transportation, water and sewer systems, open space, emergency services, and more. Based on those findings, the City and State are required to identify mitigation measures before the final GPP is approved.
 
5. The CHA represents one voice in a multi-stakeholder process.
Cobble Hill is one of several adjacent communities with interests in this redevelopment. Other stakeholders include, for example, the maritime industry, industrial development corporations, business associations, city agencies, state authorities, elected officials, and other neighborhoods. CHA’s responsibility is to advocate for Cobble Hill, but we cannot assume this community’s preferences will always carry the day. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the risks of moving forward versus starting over. But it’s important to assess those risks based on what’s likely—not just what we want—from a future GPP.

6. Community input was incorporated into the Vision Plan
While there may be different views on whether enough input was reflected, it is objectively true that community advocacy changed the content of the plan. A non-exhaustive list of changes includes:

  • Governance:
    • Creation of both an Advisory Task Force and an Oversight Task Force.
    • BMTDC board must include at least 3 Mayoral and 1 Gubernatorial appointee who live or work in adjacent neighborhoods, plus a seat for CB6.
    • BMTDC granted contract approval and enforcement power.
    • Commitment to legal review of BMTDC documents and partial independence from EDC.
    • Defined percentage of surplus from ground revenues reserved for a trust fund for neighborhood and infrastructure needs of the adjacent communities.
  • Transportation & Street Design:
    • Measures to reduce reliance on vehicles including, but not limited to, public transit plans, shuttle commitments, ferry commitments, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, developer requirements, and parking maximums
    • Expanded geographic scope of site circulation analysis to include surrounding neighborhoods.
    • $2M secured for BQE decking or pedestrian crossing feasibility study.
  • Public Realm & Open Space:
    • Pier 7 open space restored after initial 2/3rds reduction ($200 million value).
    • Specific school site and community-serving retail commitments added.
    • Commitment to all open space in BMT North being fully public.
    • Commitment to working with the community on design and open space programming.
  • Housing:
    • Density in BMT North reduced by ~500 units.
    • Density caps and height caps
    • 40% of units now permanently affordable at an average of 60% AMI, capped at 100% AMI.
    • Minimum 25% of all units (including affordable) will be family-sized.
    • $330M total in City commitments to create/preserve affordable housing, including:
      • $50M for 450 off-site affordable units in CB6.
      • $80M in HPD funding for 450 new and preserved affordable units.
      • $200M for NYCHA capital repairs affecting 575 units.

These are just some of the examples. Whether these commitments are sufficient to justify support is up for debate, and it’s okay for reasonable people to disagree. But as you weigh your own view, and consider what to include in your public comments, we hope this helps separate what is settled from what remains uncertain.

Finally, we acknowledge that the above does not address the big question of the traffic implications of the proposed housing. That’s because there is no objectively easy answer. It requires, among other things, consideration of future stages of this process and the probability of agencies and elected officials making good on commitments, which also needs to be balanced against future alternatives. This is a complicated analysis that will certainly play a large part in the CHA’s ultimate decision. 

This decision will consider the informed views of the CHA Board, the CHA Waterfront & Infrastructure Committee, its chair and Task Force Proxy Amy Breedlove, CHA President Amanda Nichols as Task Force representative, and of course the feedback we receive from the community. We encourage everyone to continue sharing their views, pro, con, or even indifferent/deferential by emailing cha@cobblehill.nyc. The board has access to this account and will be able to see your emails.

Vision Plan/Summary of Recent Changes

The most recent version of the Vision Plan is available here.

It’s long. If you are interested in seeing its evolution over the last few weeks, you can find examples here: June 3, 2025 Redline Version, June 13, 2025 Redline Version. This summary document from Task Force meeting 19 provides some insight into how this revision process worked.

The most significant recent change came last week: the removal of the UPS site from the project (1,700 housing units, 7 acres of open space, 1,000 linear feet of waterfront access, 50,000 sf of industrial space, 30,000 sf of community and cultural facility space, 32,000 sf of commercial space). That parcel was never part of the Brooklyn Marine Terminal proper, nor was it financially tied to the plan’s implementation. It had been added due to its potential to support resiliency, open space, workforce development, and housing in Red Hook. But there were no guarantees—UPS could have changed its terms at any point—and strong concerns from Red Hook residents and the industrial working waterfront community ultimately shifted the balance.

In addition to the removal of the UPS site, other major changes have been made across the project—many of them the direct result of sustained advocacy by the community. Nowhere is this clearer than in the governance structure, which has been fundamentally reshaped to respond to community concerns. Changes include:

  • The Advisory Task Force and Oversight Task Force have been clearly differentiated: one to provide input as the GPP advances, the other to oversee long-term compliance with the Points of Agreement and work alongside the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Development Corporation (BMTDC).
  • The BMTDC Board must include at least three Mayoral appointees and one Gubernatorial appointee who live or work in the adjacent neighborhoods of Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Street Waterfront District and Cobble Hill, plus a new seat for Community Board 6.
  • The BMTDC will have contract approval and enforcement power, and commitments to ensure it remains independent from EDC.
  • EDC has agreed to fund third-party legal review of BMTDC formation documents and has committed that a percentage of future ground lease revenue surplus will go to a community trust fund to support neighborhood improvements in Red Hook, Columbia Street, Carroll Gardens, and Cobble Hill.

On transportation, in addition to a formal MTA commitment letter and endorsement by The Regional Plan Association, among other groups, there is now $2 million in funding to update studies on decking the BQE trench or creating pedestrian crossings, an essential first step to building the technical case for real change.

On housing, the most recent updates include:

  • Total units in BMT North are capped at 3,800, with no more than 2,800 units between Degraw and Congress Streets. A maximum of 1000 units will be located on Pier 7.
  • 40% of on-site units will be permanently affordable, with income caps averaging 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) and not exceeding 100% of AMI—a lower threshold than Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Option 1 (which allows up to 130% AMI).
  • With new City funding for additional affordable housing creation or preservation in Red Hook and other CB6 neighborhoods, the total share of affordable housing linked to this project now reaches 53%.
  • At least 25% of all units—including affordable ones—will be family-sized.

Finally, in addition to space for a new public school, the City has committed to community input in the RFPs for ground-floor uses, helping ensure that new commercial spaces actually meet the needs of existing residents—such as including a grocery store or other essential services.