Unions wade into Brooklyn Botanic Garden dispute

A union representing staff at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden has announced its opposition to a proposed development on Franklin Avenue in Crown Heights that its opponents say would cast a harmful shadow over the 100-year old gardens. 

District Council 37 represents dozens of workers at the Crown Heights institution and stands in opposition to the project even as several construction unions support it.  

“As New York City’s largest labor union, we know all too well the importance of building housing for working class New Yorkers and their families, but not at the expense of the very jobs that keep those families whole,” a union spokesperson, Thea Setterbo, said in a statement last week. “While the rezoning at 962 Franklin Avenue holds immense potential, the current proposal will have a detrimental impact on the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and its collections, as well as on the livelihood of our members who are employed there.”

The union argued that the owner of the proposed development, Continuum Company, has “refused to make good faith efforts” to mitigate shadows that their project would cast on the garden. “A compromise is well within reach, and we stand ready to support a project that delivers much-needed affordable housing while protecting the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and the hardworking New Yorkers it employs,” the statement continued. 

‘A win-win'

Last month, the Department of City Planning gave the proposed project slated for 962-972 Franklin Ave. the green light after shrinking Continuum Company’s proposal down to a 10-story 355-unit structure from an original 14-story, 475-unit tower. But that compromise frustrated the developer who, just after DCP approved the plans, threatened to scrap the proposal altogether. (When first unveiled by Continuum in 2019, the plan envisioned a pair of 34-story towers with over 1,500 units.)

“As we told the commission, these changes significantly impact our ability to deliver on the promises we’ve made to the community — including the creation of much-needed affordable housing units and hundreds of good-paying union jobs,” David J. Rosenberg, a lawyer representing Continuum Company, told The Real Deal. “Today’s vote makes that financially unworkable.”

Despite that argument, Rosenberg attended a City Council land use hearing on Oct. 16 to defend the compromise proposal and lobby the Council to rezone the area and allow the development to move forward. Joining Rosenberg at the hearing to support the project were officials from several different construction trade unions including the District Council of Carpenters, Laborers Local 1010 and Laborers Local 79.

Rosenberg clarified at the hearing that Continuum Company had not given up on the project and he and his labor allies repeatedly pointed out that the project would be built and operated with union labor, would be financed by the AFL-CIO's Housing Investment Trust, and would include 106 units set aside as “workforce housing” catering to middle-income earners. 

Rosenberg argued that the development is a “win-win for New Yorkers” that would “set a new standard for responsible housing development in this city.”

Kevin Elkins, the District Council of Carpenters’ political director, said at the hearing that the development “stands apart for the right reasons.”

Elkins added in a Monday interview that he didn't think the issue of increased shadow would cost DC 37 members' their jobs. “Lack of construction on this project is going to cost construction workers their jobs as well as housing for a lot of needy New Yorkers," he said. "I do think a reasonable compromise is possible where all stakeholders walk away happy.” 

Needs Council member's support 

At last week's hearing, the development’s supporters were trying to convince Council Member Crystal Hudson, who represents the area where the development would be built, of the project's viability and usefulness for the neighborhood.  

Hudson said at the hearing’s outset that she continued to have concerns about Continuum Company’s proposal. "We must ensure that unique open spaces and cultural assets like the Brooklyn Botanic Garden are not unduly harmed by shadows from development,” she said. "The shadows we speak of would impact the light required for the Brooklyn Botanic Garden to quite literally provide the very plants for a garden that not only Brooklynites enjoy but for one that is treasured by the entire city." 

Her concern was shared by representatives from the 52-acre garden, which was designed by the Olmsted Brothers company, who advocated for the project to be circumscribed even further to decrease the size of shadows. "While the project has evolved in a positive direction, the would still cause significant loss of sunlight to the garden particularly in the winter when the sun is lowest in the horizon,” the garden’s chief of public affairs, Kathryn Glass, said last week.

The project will need Hudson’s support to move forward. At the hearing’s conclusion, it appeared she was taking into consideration the opinion of the union representing workers at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden as well.  

“I do want to just state for the record that there are union jobs at the garden too,” she told a panel of union workers and officials who are advocating for the proposal.