In response to the recent newsletter from the Cobble Hill Association about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, by Gregory T. O’Connell

Dear Cobble Hill Association Board,

I hope you are well. I write in response to your June 24th newsletter regarding the Brooklyn Marine Terminal (BMT) Vision Plan vote. For over a year now, I have been closely engaged in the Brooklyn Marine Terminal process. After speaking with two of CHA’s former Presidents, I felt compelled to share my perspective with you.

As someone who was born at Long Island College Hospital, the very institution the CHA fought so valiantly to save, and whose family owns 100 properties comprising 2.25 million rentable square feet across neighborhoods adjacent to the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, I must respectfully challenge several key assertions in your communication.

My mother worked as a nurse at LICH for over a decade. I finger painted Cobble Hill Nursery School Playground, attended P.S. 29, and now raise my twin boys in the same Warren Street home where I grew up. Three generations of O’Connells have called this neighborhood home. We are technically not in the Cobble Hill Historic District, but I’d be willing to wager that my lived experience in the neighborhood over the past 40 years and my home’s 100’ proximity to it at least grants me the courtesy of your acknowledging my viewpoint.

Why My Perspective Matters
Through our family business, the O’Connell Organization, which redevelops, owns, and manages real estate, has invested here for over five decades. We own 50 mixed-use retail and multifamily buildings, primarily located in Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and the Columbia Waterfront, which house 450 residents, many of whom are rent-stabilized. Our retail tenants, most of whom have served this community for over a decade, pay below-market rents because we prioritize long-term community stability over profit maximization.

While the BMT development would significantly increase our property values, I cannot support a plan without comprehensive studies that ensure the well-being of our community.

Addressing Your Newsletter’s Key Claims

Claim 1: “This is not a vote between the Vision Plan and
the status quo.”
You argue we must accept this plan because “any future proposal will likely also impact Cobble Hill.” This assertion presents a false choice strikingly similar to what our community faced with LICH: accept closure and lose essential services or risk SUNY’s financial ruin. As we learned then, the real agenda was selling valuable property for development while pressuring the public to accept limited options. The CHA courageously exposed that false choice. Now, we face another: accept this plan or risk something worse. Just as you proved with LICH, rejecting false choices and demanding better alternatives works.

Claim 2: “The Task Force structure is not guaranteed in a future GPP.”
A Task Force without the power to modify plans based on comprehensive studies is merely decorative. It is better to fight for a new process with genuine community oversight than to preserve a powerless structure. If the Task Force is so valuable, why not make its continuation with expanded powers a condition of approval?

Claim 3: “This is only the first stage…The EIS will analyze impacts.”
This is perhaps the most troubling assertion. By the time an EIS is conducted, fundamental decisions about density (3,800 units), height, and site layout are locked in. The EIS becomes an exercise in damage control rather than planning. We need studies to DRIVE the plan, not chase after it. Your newsletter acknowledges that “there is no objectively easy answer” regarding the impacts on traffic. That is precisely why we need a Transportation Impact Study BEFORE voting, not after.

Claim 4: “Community input was incorporated into the Vision Plan.”
Yes, advocacy achieved improvements, proving that resistance works. However, celebrating partial victories should not deter us from demanding what is truly necessary: comprehensive studies before approval. The improvements came from saying “no” and demanding better, not from premature acceptance.

Critical Studies Still Missing
Before any vote, we need:

Transportation Impact Study: 
How will 3,800 units affect our already congested streets? 

School Capacity Analysis: 
Will P.S. 29 be overwhelmed before the promised new school opens? 

Displacement Risk Assessment: 
How do we protect our residential tenants and longtime businesses? 

Infrastructure Evaluation: Can our aging systems handle this level of density? 
The notion that everything developed on BMT is isolated to BMT is preposterous.

Cumulative Impact Analysis: 
What happens when this combines with BQE renovation and other projects?

The Real Stakes
Your newsletter notes the recent removal of the UPS site (1,700 units) due to “strong concerns from Red Hook residents.” This demonstrates that community opposition can significantly impact plans, even when introduced late in the process. Why should Cobble Hill settle for less vigilance than Red Hook showed?

Having transformed Red Hook’s Civil War-era warehouses through genuine community engagement, we know the difference between development that enhances communities and development that displaces them. The recent 30-year history of NYC rezonings reveals clear patterns: without upfront planning and safeguards, longtime residents are often pushed out. Neighborhoods like ours risk becoming mere shadows of the vibrant communities they once were, losing their distinct essence and the diverse cultures that made them uniquely New York.

Clear Path Forward

• Vote NO on the current plan
• Demand comprehensive studies be completed first
• Use those findings to create a plan that addresses the impacts

Then, and only then, consider approval

My Plea 
The CHA’s heroic fight to save LICH taught us that false choices, where accepting bad options is framed as the only “reasonable” path, must be rejected. You proved then that communities deserve real alternatives, not manufactured urgency. Your newsletter asks us to separate “what is settled from what remains uncertain.” But it is precisely the uncertainties (traffic, schools, displacement, infrastructure) that matter most. Once we approve this framework, our leverage evaporates. Our communities become unrepresented.

For over fifty years, my family has invested not just money but our lives in these neighborhoods. We’ve weathered the hard times when others fled, restored buildings others abandoned, and built trust with tenants and retailers who make this neighborhood home. Our tenants depend on us to be responsible stewards, just as we rely on them to keep our community vibrant and diverse.

The CHA’s courage in saving LICH proved that when we reject false choices and demand real answers, we protect what matters. That same courage is needed now. Before we approve any plan that will reshape our neighborhoods for generations, we owe it to every longtime resident, every small business owner, and every child growing up here to insist on facts, not promises. The homework must come first.

We are counting on you.
Thank you for your continued service to our community.

Sincerely,
GREGORY T. O’CONNELL
CEO, O’CONNELL ORGANIZATION