Kathryn Krase

Longtime friends are coming to stay with us soon. They don’t have a lot of time to spare while in Brooklyn, but their 10-year-old daughter wants to fit in one of their favorite Brooklyn pastimes: visiting Prospect Park’s off leash hours for dogs.  If you haven’t had the chance to witness this spectacle, it’s amazing, terrifying, or a little bit of both, depending on your feelings about dogs, and people.

Every morning in Prospect Park before 9am you can find hundreds of dogs and their associated people gallivanting around the Long Meadow. Rain or shine, sleet or snow, no matter the weather, Brookynites bring their dogs to the park to let loose.

You can find all sorts of people and dogs there. There are those who walk up and down the Long Meadow. Sometimes they walk in small groups; sometimes it’s just one person with one dog; sometimes there are professional dog walkers with a few dogs or tons of dogs (you know who I’m talking about- Hi Linda!).  Some people and dogs choose to congregate in bunches throughout the Long Meadow. These bunches tend to be collections of people with similar interests similar dogs, or both.  

Whether a walker or part of a bunch, there are regulars who are there any day of the week. The regulars (people and their dogs) have routines. Some of the regulars have to leave the park earlier than others in order to get to work on time, or bring kids to school. Other regulars show up after sending kids off to school. Then there are the regulars with the flexible schedules, who meander in and out. Regulars recognize the dogs before recognizing the person attached to the dog. Regulars are more likely to know the dog’s name than the person’s name.

The weekenders and visitors don’t always adhere to the expectations and patterns of the regulars, and neither do their dogs. Many visiting dogs, for instance, have never been off leash in this kind of environment before.  They often lack experience with so many people and dogs. Visiting dogs might make a run for it. Off-leash hours in Prospect Park are different from your local neighborhood dog park with fences. Dogs can just keep running. That happened to a dog-visiting a friend a few years back. The dog seemed comfortable off leash, but all of the sudden they were gone. We couldn’t find them. While frantically searching for the dog across the Long Meadow, we got word that the dog had found its way back to the house it was visiting, crossing lanes of traffic to get there safely. It was a miracle. Though that dog still comes to visit, it will never enjoy freedom during off leash hours again.

Visiting dogs aren’t just more likely to run, they are also more likely to be confused by the doggie politics and complicated clique dynamics. Visiting dogs are most likely to get into a fight with other dogs. That’s what happened the other day to a friend; a dog visiting family from out of town was overwhelmed by the off leash scene, broke off their leash and randomly bit our dog friend. The person with the visiting dog was very apologetic, and likely won’t be back with that dog, or any other dog, in the future. Off leash hours are not for everyone, especially the non-dog people.

“Why would non-dog people come to off leash hours in Prospect Park?” Good question. These people are often seeking a shortcut from one side of the park to the other. On certain weekend mornings, the non-dog people in the Long Meadow include runners participating in 5ks and half-marathons, as well as their spectators. They are so focused on their own reasons for being in the park, they have no idea what they’re walking into. When non-dog people realize they have to get through a hoard of dogs to get where they’re going, they panic; and dogs can smell panic. Some dogs respond unkindly to that panic. My dog, MarVell, can be one of those dogs. 

I’ve been a regular in the park with our 6 year old mixed breed, MarVell, since September 2018. When MarVell was a puppy, we stayed on the fringes, and took dog socialization slowly. That’s how we met other puppy friends who now make up our crew of besties. 

You can find our crew most days of the week on the lawn between the Picnic House and “the pools” by dog beach. The people in our crew talk about the news, movies, our lives, and of course, our dogs. While the people jabber away, our dogs run around with each other, they chase balls, they harass people and dogs they don’t like, and also beg for snacks. 

The dogs in our crew, and most dog regulars, can quickly discern the people in the Long Meadow who have snacks. Some people always have snacks. Our dogs recognize those people from hundreds of yards away. These snack purveyors have silhouettes in the distance that change by the season, based on the clothing they are wearing according to the weather. Our dogs can recognize the regular snack sources by their gait, even before the dogs can hear their voices or smell the contents of their pockets. Our dogs express disappointment when they realize those people are not in the park on a given day.

Newcomers sometimes have snacks, and they often don’t know what they’re in for. These newcomers are usually there on the weekend with a new puppy. These newcomers have their own snacks because they are training their puppy to stay near them while off leash. MarVell can pick these people out from the crowd by the inflection of their voice. Just the way these people call their puppy’s name, MarVell can tell the person has snacks, and they’re usually good snacks. 

There were a lot of newcomers to the Prospect Park dog scene in 2020 and 2021. They came with their “pandemic puppies” while people shifted to work from home. Not everyone should have gotten a puppy during the pandemic. Not everyone should have a dog. And not everyone should interact with others, including people or dogs. While most of the people at off leash hours are perfectly fine and well-intentioned people, some can be concerningly unpredictable.

A friend had an interaction with such a person. This friend has a beautiful Goldendoodle who loves to chase a ball. We take turns throwing the ball using the Chuckit stick. One morning, this friend threw the ball pretty far. Their dog was chasing the ball but lost sight of it in the tall grass. The ball rolled near a man and woman who were walking with their own dog. My friend watched as the woman noticed the ball, bent down to pick up the ball, and promptly put it in her own coat pocket. She didn’t look around to see where the ball was coming from. She didn’t ask the people nearby if the ball was theirs. She just scooped it up, and took it. My friend was already walking in the direction of the ball to retrieve it, and eventually caught up with the couple. The friend politely got their attention and asked for the ball back. The woman turned and simply asked “what ball?” and walked away. My friend was so shocked at this response, that they just turned and walked away, too. My friend was not going to start a conflict with someone who is so unpredictable. 

Unpredictable things are bound to happen when hundreds of dogs and people are left to their own devices in the company of each other on a daily basis. That’s why there are rules.

The formal rules provided by Prospect Park are simple: 

-“Off leash hours are permitted from 6 am–9 am and 9 pm – 1 am at the Long Meadow (except ballfields), Nethermead and Peninsula Meadow (except woodlands). Dogs must be leashed at all other times and all other areas of the Park.

-To protect wildlife habitats, dogs must always be leashed and stay on paths in wooded areas.

-At Dog Beach, dogs must be leashed except during off leash hours. Caution: the water becomes deep very fast.

-Dogs are never allowed in playgrounds, on bridle paths, ballfields, or other designated sports areas.

-Dogs are allowed on paths surrounding the ballfields and at the Parade Ground, but must be leashed at all times.

-Owners must always be in control of their dogs and leashes must be six feet or shorter.

-Please dispose of dog waste properly.

-Do not allow dogs to dig; holes create trip hazards.”

The rules are simple and clear, but so many people don’t follow the rules. Sometimes it’s because they don’t know the rules. Sometimes it’s because they think the rule is stupid. Sometimes it’s because they think they’re above the rules. It’s hard to formally enforce the rules, especially with dwindling funding for our City Parks. So, we largely rely on systems of informal rule enforcement. 

If your dog poops on the Long Meadow during off leash hours and you don’t pick it up, there are many regulars happy to track you down while loudly shaming you. Next time, you’ll keep a closer eye on your dog. Through these informal enforcement methods, it is a rare occurrence for someone to step in a load of dog poop in the Long Meadow. 

If you choose to walk with your dog off leash on the internal paths off the Long Meadow you run the risk of not just being shamed by fellow park-goers, but you also can get ticketed. The Parks Department is sometimes lurking behind the bend. Your dog turns the corner first, free from leashed restraint. Then you come around, and bam. You’ve walked yourself into a ticket. The signs are clear: no dogs should be off leash in these areas. The reasons are important: dogs off leash are a danger to the birds and other wildlife in these areas. Recently, a call went out on local social media reminding dog owners to keep their dogs on the leash in these spaces because one of Prospect Park’s resident swans was ailing. Luckily, the swan was rescued and is receiving care offsite. Dogs have plenty of space and time in Prospect Park to enjoy off  leash. Stick to the rules. 

Which brings me to my biggest pet-peeve of off leash rule breaking: NO PETS ARE EVER ALLOWED ON THE PROSPECT PARK BALLFIELDS. 

The pet prohibition does not just apply to the obvious ball fields delineated by the dirt infields of the baseball and softball fields. The pet prohibition applies to the entire grassed area between the baseball/softball infields. For those in the know, these grassed areas are actually active ball fields. These areas are the outfields for baseball and softball players throughout the spring, summer and fall. These areas are the soccer pitches, and flag football gridirons that thousands of kids play on in the fall and where groups congregate to play ultimate frisbee throughout the year. 

These areas are off limits to dogs whether there are people playing on the fields or not. Every year during baseball, flag football, soccer, softball seasons, kids step into piles of poop that were missed by owners, or twist their ankles in holes that dogs dug up. When dogs pee on the grass, this kills the grass plant, causing the surrounding dirt to recede becoming dusty, and creating divots. In an effort to preserve the fields and give them a rest, they are fenced off between Thanksgiving and the first weekend of April, when youth baseball and softball return to Prospect Park. 

Even with the potential challenges of the experience, off leash in Prospect Park’s Long Meadow is my happy place. The days I don’t make it to the park with MarVell can be a real slog for both of us. Many of us need more happy places right now. Consider this an open invitation to join us any day of the week. Bring some good dog treats with you, and I’m (mostly) confident MarVell will not scare you away.

I’m not gonna lie: it’s been rough processing the results of the 2024 presidential election. I know I’m not alone. Many people are having all sorts of feelings and reactions. But I also know that I have it relatively easy since I’m rather insulated in my comfortable “bubble”. 

As an upper middle class, cis-gendered, straight, highly educated, non-religious Christian, White woman in Brownstone Brooklyn what consequences will I directly face due to the crap a Trump presidency is going to spew at America?

My taxes might go up or down, but I’ll be able to pay them. The goods that I consume on a regular basis will likely get more expensive, but I can afford it. I don’t face a threat of deportation. My marriage to a man is legally secure.  My kid is practically an adult, having received all of his appropriate immunizations while attending public schools where everyone else was required to have the same vaccinations. Nobody’s challenging my choice of which bathroom I feel comfortable peeing in. I can play a sport on a women’s team and nobody questions if I should be there. I’ll probably feel some of the accelerated damage to the environment that will be expected, but the truly devastating results will not be experienced by this world until I am gone from it.

Though I’m relatively protected, I’m still concerned. I am concerned for those who can’t afford higher taxes. I am concerned for those who will suffer the impact of tariffs as prices increase and American jobs are lost. I am concerned about those who are at risk of deportation, and for everyone who is safe from deportation but likely to experience racialized interrogations of their citizenship status. I am concerned for the kids who are likely to catch a debilitating disease and suffer the consequences because their parents took medical advice from a misinformed, conspiracy-theory-peddling, nepo baby. I am concerned for the mental and physical health of those who identify as LGBTQ+, but especially for anyone who identifies as trans. I am concerned for the generations after me that won’t have a bubble of privilege to protect them from what is coming. Ultimately, I am concerned for the fate of our democracy and our planet. 

While the election results surprised me, I wouldn’t say they shocked me. My strongest emotion is shame for my naivete. I feel like I should have seen it coming. I sensed that the presidential race was going to be close, and I was right. But the ultimate outcome felt like a punch to the gut. 

There are many theories to explain why Trump won this election. The theories you consider valid usually depend on your feelings about the result.  Misinformation confused voters: I find merit in this one. Harris didn’t have enough time to campaign: I’m not sure more time would have made a difference. Some people just wouldn’t vote for a Black woman (because of racism and sexism): I believe this one, though it is hard to support by evidence. The Democratic message fails to resonate with the majority of voters: that’s obvious. The Republican message fails to resonate with the majority of voters: that’s obvious, too.

American political polarization is not new. Since 1988, five candidates have been elected president without receiving the majority of votes (Clinton ‘92 43%, Clinton ‘96 49%, Bush ‘00 48%, Trump ‘16 46%, Trump ‘24 49%) and only four have received the majority of votes (Bush ‘04 51%, Obama ‘08 53%, Obama ‘12 51%, Biden ‘20 51%). As Trump won the presidency without securing a majority of the votes, again, it is clear that our society is more polarized than ever.

The 2000 book “Bowling Alone” by Robert Putnam offered pre-TikTok theories to explain polarization that I’ve found myself revisiting in my post-election contemplations. The premise of “Bowling Alone” is that there has been a significant decrease in all forms of in-person social interchange in America since the 1960s. We don’t attend religious services as much; we don’t participate in local community and civic groups like we used to. The title of the book relates to the fact that Americans don’t participate in bowling leagues like we used to; instead, we “bowl alone.” Research suggests these trends are largely due to increased time focused on employment including longer commutes, and the proliferation of entertainment technologies, like the television and internet. 

As a result of these significant shifts, American society has become less collective and more focused on individual interests. We have less that unites us, and much that drives us apart. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Americans’ feelings about Donald Trump. About a third of the American public think that Trump is god. About a third of the American public think that Trump is the devil. The other third of the American public really don’t really have the time or energy to care. They’re trying to get through the day, week, month, or year. 

Many Americans thought that the high level of voter turnout that elected Biden in 2020 was clear evidence of our country’s disdain for Trump. The Democrats seemed to be depending on that theory in their messaging during this election cycle. That theory was tragically wrong. A study published in the peer-reviewed journal, Political Behavior, in April 2024 provides a more plausible explanation for this year’s turnout. The researchers examined voter engagement surveys after the 2018 and 2020 elections. The research found that people generally don’t vote when they’re experiencing individual personal hardships. Those who lost their job recently were less likely to vote. Those who recently were divorced were less likely to vote. Those who had a close family member who was sick, dying, or recently had died were less likely to vote. But when an individual is impacted by a crisis that is highly politicized and shared by many others, they actually are more likely to vote. This theory explains why the 2020 COVID pandemic era turnout was the highest since 1968. People didn’t vote in droves in 2020 because they hated Trump. We voted in droves because we were collectively struggling, and we collectively wanted change.

I could spend pages spouting more theory and research to explain why Trump won. Such an exhaustive effort won’t change what’s coming next. What can I actually do to thwart the upcoming consequences of this election?  I know that my individual actions won’t be effective in preventing Trump’s antics, or turning out the 2026 and 2028 vote towards redemption. Engagement towards change has to be a collective experience. This change won’t come by focusing within my bubble.

Since young adulthood I have been more politically engaged than the average citizen. As a result of this particular election, I’m trying to get more involved in organized, progressive action groups. But I’m struggling. Ideologically, I share the values and concerns of most of those I share space with in these groups. However, I’m finding many people in these spaces touting our own conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric. There seems to be a lack of understanding that the desired outcomes progressives seek are NOT shared by the majority of Americans. If progressives want to get what we strongly feel is right and just, we need to convince others that we’re right. And clearly, we’re not there yet. 

More than half of American voters DID NOT want Trump to be President. But even fewer Americans wanted Harris to be President. Those who determined the outcome of this election fall into neither of those groups. Those who determined the outcome of this election were those who did not engage. Maybe they didn’t engage because they are racist and/or sexist. Maybe they didn’t engage because they are misinformed. Maybe they didn’t engage because they are facing a personal crisis.  

In order to turn the tide and hold that momentum, those of us who live in privileged bubbles need to seek and find common ground with those who are not protected. The economy of the past four years served my retirement fund and property value well. But many have seen their food prices double while their income has remained stagnant. Complaining about an uninformed electorate, insulting our neighbors, and debating in social media showdowns isn’t going to get the desired effect. 

I’m looking for better options. Maybe I’ll join a bowling league. Who’s with me?

Being called a NIMBY isn’t the worst thing someone can be called. I was part of a group of Gowanus residents called “NIMBY’s” because we challenged the 2021 Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan. 

We raised concerns that the massive rezoning of 82 blocks in Gowanus was not responsive to local needs, and instead was prioritizing profits for the real estate industry. I outline the context for these concerns in Part 1 of this story, which you can read in the Winter 2023 edition of the Park Slope Reader. 

In this part of the story, I will explore a more personal experience where my own personal NIMBYism was really brought to the surface. While I have been living in Gowanus for almost 20 years, the larger Gowanus rezoning plan I challenged didn’t actually impact my own block. However, more change in Gowanus was soon coming to my own neck of the woods. Even though I was disappointed in the outcome of the larger Gowanus rezoning plan, I was hopeful that the rezoning plan coming to my own block would be better tailored to the unique interests of my area of Gowanus. It’s never that simple, though.

Our block of 8th Street, and the entire swath of Gowanus on the south side of the canal, west of 3rd street, wasn’t included in the larger Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan. By the start of the recent Gowanus rezoning process, our area was no longer known for rats, sex workers and drugs. Our part of Gowanus was a vibrant community of manufacturers, commercial businesses, and creative spaces, with a handful of residents, like me. The City promised us that the future of our part of Gowanus would be addressed separately, through a process centering on more community engagement. 

The Gowanus Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) Vision Plan, released by NYC in 2021, was the start of that effort. The Gowanus IBZ Vision Plan outlined a plan for increased support for the thriving manufacturing, industrial and creative uses of Gowanus, allowing properties zoned for these uses to expand significantly to meet growing demand largely caused by displacement from Long Island City, Williamsburg, and now, the other side of Gowanus. The Vision Plan also provides for rezoning most of the currently “grandfathered” residential properties; homes like mine would eventually be determined as “conforming use” of the space. Such a change would allow for modest residential development in certain parts of the area, and a commitment to status quo in other parts. 

The promised zoning changes to support local businesses are barely in the infancy stages of development through the City’s bureaucracy. However, in late 2021, just a few months after the larger Gowanus rezoning plan passed the NYC Council, I heard that a neighbor was proposing to rezone 9th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues for residential use. That block of 9th Street is much like my block of 8th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, with some significant differences. Both blocks are currently zoned for manufacturing use. Both blocks have a dozen or so “grandfathered”, “non-conforming” houses, largely built over a hundred years ago, all before zoning became the law of NYC. Both blocks also have significant and longstanding industrial businesses in busy operation. Both blocks suffer from a rising water table, the threat of storm surges, and the realities of insufficient and archaic sewers. The main difference: our block is largely inhabited by the owners of 1 & 2 family houses, most 2-3 stories tall. That stretch of 9th Street, however, is largely inhabited by renters, many in multiple family buildings up to 4 stories tall. That block of 9th Street is one of the last strongholds of a diminishing local, multi-generational, Puerto Rican and Dominican community in Gowanus. Also, some of the buildings on 9th Street have residents long protected by rent stabilization laws. 

The plan to rezone 9th Street was prompted by the application of a single landowner: the estate of a long-time neighbor who passed away after a very long life. After the death of our dear neighbor, their estate owned 3 contiguous lots on 9th Street, covering 100+ feet of street frontage, used for the last 50+ years as a dirt and gravel parking lot for cars and trucks. The parking lot, literally, borders my backyard. The estate sought to change the zoning of the parking lot to allow for residential development. Such would make the property more valuable than its current zoning for manufacturing uses. However, the estate couldn’t apply to simply rezone their own lots; small rezoning applications, termed “spot zoning”, are frowned upon. 

“Spot zoning” involves rezoning a particular parcel of land for use different from the surrounding area, and usually benefits a single owner. Spot zoning is discouraged, especially in NYC. Instead, zoning changes are supposed to be well-considered and within a comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community. To avoid the “spot zoning” challenges to their rezoning application, the estate expanded their proposal to include all the properties on 9th Street currently used as “grandfathered” residential, “non-conforming use”. 

When I first heard of a plan to rezone 9th Street to residential use, I was fully on board. I welcome a change in zoning to allow long existing residential buildings to finally conform with their uses. I welcome development of more residential units on that block, especially in spaces currently not meeting community needs; I’m not interested in preserving a parking lot in my backyard. 

As the details of the plan were unveiled, my support wavered. The estate was seeking to rezone the entire block of 9th street to allow for “mixed use” manufacturing/commercial ground floor businesses, with 7 story residential developments added on top. This wasn’t a plan to address the “grandfathered” issues related to “non-conforming” uses; IMHO this was a plan to completely change the neighborhood in one fell swoop, and without community input, to maximize individual property value.

I had MANY concerns on the potential impact such development would have on the area, and I wasn’t alone. This proposal threatened the existing residents, largely renters, on 9th Street. This proposal threatened the thriving manufacturing, industrial and creative communities on the same block, and nearby. This proposal threatened to further strain our insufficient sewer and stormwater infrastructure. This proposal would exacerbate the rising water table issues for neighboring properties, like my own. Disappointed in what I see as an attempted “money grab” by my neighbor’s estate, I remained cautiously optimistic; I expected community concerns to be addressed in the bureaucracy of the approval process, and a better plan to be ultimately found.

The Community Board 6 Land Use Committee, sharing the concerns community members brought to their attention during the initial community hearing, overwhelmingly voted to oppose the 9th Street rezoning plan unless there were significant changes. The larger Community Board 6 shockingly ignored the vote of their own Land Use Committee, voting to support the plan with only minor suggested changes. 

The larger Community Board’s vote was centered on the hope that the rezoning plan would bring to market 13 “affordable” housing units, along with 30+ market rate units, under the City’s “Mandatory Inclusionary Housing” program (aka “MIH”). However, there was no acknowledgement that the rezoning proposal did not guarantee development of ANY affordable units. Through the public review process the estate presented a plan for the kind of building they could develop after the rezoning was finalized. The presentation was completely hypothetical. After the rezoning process is completed, the estate could build a completely different project, and easily avoid any MIH requirements. It was shocking to me that the Community Board members could be so naive. I had greater hope for the next phases of the process.

Next up was the Brooklyn Borough President’s hearing and determination. The spirited hearing brought out dozens of community members expressing concerns in opposition to the initial plan including concerns that long-time residents would be forced out, local business operations would be negatively impacted, and the changes would contribute to flooding and sewer problems. The testimony of those in support of the initial 9th Street rezoning plan largely came from those with limited experience, if any, with Gowanus. Such testimony often started with disclaimers like: “I don’t live or work in Gowanus, but I rode my bike on this block the other day” or “I never lived nearby, but I’d like to.” The Brooklyn Borough President’s eventual conditional approval of the plan recommended a reduction in the scope and scale of the proposal. Borough President Reynoso recommended that a number of lots most at risk of storm related flooding be completely removed from the plan. Borough President Reynoso’s plan also recommended that the resulting density in most other lots be reduced to match existing zoning regulations passed about a decade ago covering 9th Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues, with a max height of 5-6 stories; the estate’s parking lot, however, would still be allowed to build to the original plan of 9 stories. While the Borough President’s plan didn’t completely make sense to me, I valued how he showed policymakers can hear various constituent concerns and seek to find common ground that advances competing, yet compelling, interests. 

Next up was consideration from the NYC Department of City Planning (DCP). While awaiting an announcement of the scheduling of the public DCP hearing, community members looking to provide input at all stages of this process, like myself, found out the DCP hearing went forward without appropriate notice to the community or our Councilmember. Therefore, the DCP hearing proceeded without opposition testimony. The real estate developers, however, had inside knowledge of the hearing, and mobilized a handful of their operatives to testify in favor of the proposal. I helped organize the community opposition to provide written testimony to the DCP. Our written testimony included signatures from an online petition of 300 community members. Contrary to Borough President Reynoso’s conditional approval, nor the conditions recommended by the Community Board, the DCP approved the initial proposal, without ANY conditions. 

The NYC DCP was ready to allow the entire stretch of 9th Street to be rezoned to allow 9 story luxury residential development, with no real promise of affordable housing development; they were ready to ignore the environmental impacts of adding hundreds of new units to the overburdened, and under-resourced sewer system; they were ready to ignore the impact the potential displacement of my Puerto-Rican and Dominican neighbors; they were ready to ignore the impact of growing the residential population of a block 10 fold would have on the viability of the local industrial and creative communities. 

Luckily, the DCP is not the final word on rezoning decisions: the NY City Council is. On matters of local rezoning efforts, the City Council largely defers to the position of the City Councilmember from the impacted district. The local community had been working with City Councilmember Shahana Hanif to help her understand our complex concerns. At this point in the process, Councilmember Hanif brought the community members to the table with the rezoning applicant to discuss our concerns and proposed modifications. I was able to explain my concern that the enormous concrete foundation required to build a 9 story building next to my backyard would protect that new structure from the rising groundwater, but that their protection would divert groundwater onto my property threatening the integrity of my less protected stone foundation walls. My business neighbors were able to explain that longtime Gowanus businesses, like moving companies, building contractors, and commercial carting companies work loudly and at odd hours; if the neighborhood suddenly was populated by more residents than businesses, they feared being forced out of the area by complaints and restrictions. And, my other neighbors were able to explain their concern for displacement of local, long-time renters. The applicant was able to explain their interests in developing a long underutilized area property for the benefit of the community.

At the end of this process, Councilmember Hanif was able to successfully negotiate a modification to the original proposal. The final proposal, passed by the New York City Council in October 2022 allows for significant growth in residential development, but a scale less threatening to the environment, local businesses, and current residents. No one is getting everything they wanted, but all of us are satisfied by the outcome. Well, not “everyone”. Real estate developers are not happy; they were already busy buying up other properties on 9th Street, and surrounding blocks, in hopes that another big change in zoning would provide them a financial windfall.

As a result of not getting all they hoped for, the powerful NYC real estate developer community prompted negative news coverage, akin to a hissy fit, with headlines like: ”City Council Moves Forward With Gowanus Rezoning After Slashing Affordable Housing” and “Another Rezoning Gets through, but Housing is Shrunk”. The coverage largely hinges on the claims that the original rezoning proposal would have guaranteed development of affordable housing units under the NYC MIH program. What the coverage neglects to flesh out for the reader are the realities of MIH “requirements”. MIH requirements do not apply to new developments with fewer than 10 units. Under MIH requirements, developers of projects with 11-25 units can choose to pay into a fund, instead of building any “affordable” units. In other words, the original proposal to rezone 9th Street would not have guaranteed any new affordable units to the neighborhood, but would have likely displaced all existing community members, and been disastrous to local businesses and the environment. 

Trying to explain the complicated context of community concern while celebrating the modified plan’s successful passage through the NYC Council, I met with, and talked to, a number of journalists. They all were exposed to the information I share in this piece.The resulting news coverage, and responsive tweeting, paint a very different picture than reality. The coverage portrays me, personally, as a rich, White, NIMBY who doesn’t want affordable housing and/or big buildings in my backyard. Only one journalist, a CUNY student named Rachel Goldman, actually published a piece with integrity. 

Regardless of what the developer-funded papers say, or what their editors tweet about me under pseudonyms, the reality is that I welcome the development of real affordable housing in Gowanus, even in the lot behind my backyard. I also welcome community informed and environmentally responsible development. Bring it all! I’d be happy to be called a YIMBY for a change. 

In case you’re wondering what a “NIMBY” is: “NIMBY” stands for “Not In My Back Yard”. The characterization of a NIMBY is someone who opposes a proposed development in their local area, that they would likely support if built somewhere else. Calling someone a NIMBY is usually intended to be an insult; calling someone on their hypocrisy. That’s definitely how it’s been used against me on Twitter. You see, I was recently an active and vocal opponent of a rezoning application that, literally, impacted my own backyard. However, there is a lot more to NIMBYism than internet trolls have time or context to appreciate. It’s actually a long story, so this is the first of two parts. The second part will be in the next installment of Park Slope Reader in Spring 2023.

I’m a lifelong Brooklynite. I’ve been a homeowner in Gowanus since before it was trendy. The area has changed a lot in my lifetime. Change is inevitable, and often beneficial. But not all change is good. And, therefore, concern for change can be reasonable, even if characterized as NIMBYism.

When my Brooklyn-born/bred husband and I purchased our small Gowanus home in 2003, our Brooklyn-born/bred real estate attorney made sure we knew that a 11215 zip code on 8th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues was NOT Park Slope. We knew it wasn’t Park Slope; we couldn’t afford Park Slope. 

Many Brooklyn born/bred family members doubted our decision to buy in Gowanus, and for good reason. Gowanus was best known for its contaminated waterway, as well as rats, drugs and sex workers. Gowanus was not known for its quality housing. Gowanus is not flush with gorgeous Brownstones, coffee shops, or real estate offices. Our particular block in Gowanus has 12 understated houses, along with 50 lots involving significant manufacturing and business activity. Industry on our block includes a commercial carting company that does NOT smell good in the summer, a woodworking shop that is very noisy, and lots of truck traffic. 

Our block, and much of Gowanus, has been zoned for manufacturing purposes since the early 20th century. Our own house, built shortly after the Civil War, is the oldest structure on the block. Since our house was built before zoning rules even existed in NYC, it is considered “grandfathered” for “non-conforming use” as a residential property; the other 11 houses on the block are similarly characterized. While we are allowed to live in these existing structures as homes, we cannot add residential square footage on our properties. Living in houses built a long time ago, to meet different needs, can be difficult. As a result, many of us have considered building small extensions, or even taking down the structure that exists, and rebuilding a better home. We’re not allowed to do either. We are only allowed to expand, or rebuild, for manufacturing, or related non-residential, uses.

Our brick house was originally built 17 feet wide, 25 feet deep and 3 stories tall around 1866 without plumbing or electricity. When the local municipality built the first brick sewer in the middle of the street (still in use today), they couldn’t place the sewer underground, because Gowanus is topographically a swamp. So, in around 1880, the City built the sewer on top of the existing ground, and built the street on top of the sewer. As a result, the 3 story existing structure became a 2 story structure, with a full “English basement”. Around 1910, the owner built a wood-frame extension on the side of the house, literally leaning it on the wood-frame house recently built next door. The street-facing brick facade of the extension on our house makes it look like one contiguous, brick home, 25 feet wide; it is not. Three (3) of the homes on our block are built out of brick. The other 8 are wooden frame structures, some with a first floor framed in brick. Most, like ours, have old stone foundations.

Much of the rest of our block is made up of 1-4 story brick factory-type buildings. In 2003, the largest factory buildings on our block were operating, sometimes 7 days a week, making sweaters. Around 2005, a line of tractor trailers and large cranes brought enormous machines, some 30 feet long, out through deconstructed windows onto flatbed trucks. The machines were destined to continue their useful lifespan in Mexico. The machines and factory workers were largely replaced by artist studios and small businesses. In 2008, The Bell House bar and performance space opened up around the corner. Things were changing in Gowanus.

By 2010, nobody was doubting our real estate choices. Growth in local feral cat colonies largely diminished the localized rat population. More active streets at night pushed out the sex workers. Drugs remain a perennial issue, but not significantly impacting the local quality of life. And, after centuries of problematic industrial use, the Gowanus Canal is being “cleaned” up. Change can be great.

Smack dab in the middle of some of the most expensive residential neighborhoods in the country EVERYONE wished they could own a piece of Gowanus. Running out of space to build in Downtown Brooklyn, and limited by the landmarking restrictions of Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Park Slope, real estate developers drooled at the opportunity to buy and build along the banks of an EPA defined “Super Fund Site”. Add to the pressures NYC’s housing affordability crisis, and residential development in Gowanus seems like a win-win situation. But, there are many potential losers, including some outside of our control, like topography and the environment.

There is a VERY GOOD reason why Gowanus was never a residential stronghold: Gowanus, ecologically speaking, is not a good place for housing. It’s better suited for other uses.

The area was ideal for use by the early manufacturing industry since the Gowanus canal provides an easy route to move supplies and products to and from New York Harbor. The canal also provided the early manufacturing industry access to the water they needed to clean and cool their equipment. The canal and the area surrounding it were also deemed great places to dump dangerous industrial byproducts. After 150 years of industry in Gowanus, there is a lot of contaminated water and land. 

For the manufacturing industry, Gowanus was ideal. For housing, not so much. Gowanus is located at the bottom of two hills, only about 10 feet above sea level. Urban planners have long avoided locating housing in low-lying areas close to water. As NYC developed, the most valuable residential properties in Brooklyn, like those in Park Slope, Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, and Brooklyn Heights were high above the water; the names of these neighborhoods actually reflect their altitude. 

When the government finally chose to invest in affordable housing development, they found the cheapest land with the lowest demand, in Red Hook, Gowanus, the Lower East Side, and South Bronx. These areas are all close to the shore line, and prone to flooding like the devastation suffered 10 years ago in the aftermath of Super Storm Sandy. These areas are not just vulnerable to storm surge from the shoreline, but endangered by the rising water table, as well. 

The old Gowanus swamp exists as the current water table, fewer than 10 feet under the foundation of our 8th Street home. In the summer, when the water table is highest, some of our neighbors have water coming up through cracks in their basement floors. As the water table is expected to rise with continued impacts of climate change, there is little to be done to protect our properties from this threat. The old stone foundation of our own home is endangered from below. Storm surge and water tables aren’t our only issues, though; we also have to tackle sewer backflow and overflow.

Soon after we purchased our home in 2003, we learned from a NYC Department of Environmental Preservation (DEP) official that the brick sewer on our block was “really old”, and insufficient. Gowanus residents and businesses have long known these inadequacies. We have “check valves” on our sewer lines so that sewage doesn’t invade our basements when rain overwhelms our sewer system that combines household waste with stormwater. We also have submersible (aka sump) pumps that push out waste water when it penetrates our property even with our best efforts against it. We lend each other wet/dry vacuums as needed. The DEP official, way back when, told us we needed a new sewer… It’s been almost 20 years since that DEP visit, and still no new sewer.

Every year, at least one neighbor suffers catastrophic property loss due to sewer backflow after a storm. Last year, a new non-residential neighbor just completed renovation of a beautiful performance rehearsal space when the sewer overflow from Tropical Storm Ida ruined their efforts, and set them back months on their project. In big storms, like Sandy and Ida, sewer and utility manhole covers are known to fly up 20 feet in the air under pressure, as geysers of stormwater mixed with sewage flood the streets and sidewalks of Gowanus. For these reasons, many in the area know to avoid 9th Street and 2nd Avenue after storms. It can take hours before the street is passable to foot and car traffic.

Even with these concerns, I understand the need for change, and know Gowanus presents an opportunity. In 2013, I participated in a series of community forums called “Bridging Gowanus”. Through this Pratt Institute moderated initiative, residents and businesses came together with our elected officials, and envisioned a better Gowanus. We aimed for moderate residential development with a focus on affordable and accessible housing, thriving business and creative communities, and increased green space and playscapes. Most importantly, we held high hopes for long-overdue significant investment in infrastructure. We got very little of what we worked hard to envision. 

What we got was the “Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan”, passed by the New York City Council in 2021. This plan will bring 8200 new residential units to an 82 block stretch of the area. More than 5000 of these units will be luxury rentals and condos; not at all what the Bridging Gowanus initiative envisioned. About 3000 units will be “affordable”. Around 2000 of the “affordable” units will have rents ranging from $2000-4000 per month, for households making between $70,000-200,000 per year. Fewer than 1000 of the affordable units will be accessible to low-income families. The influx of luxury units will threaten existing affordable units in and around Gowanus, especially those in nearby rent stabilized buildings. As has happened in other areas of the City, private landlords often push out tenants paying below-market rent when the local average rents substantially increase.

NYC needs to meet the demands of our growing population by building more housing. We also need MORE than housing. The Gowanus rezoning plan lacks adequate investment in schools, green spaces, transportation, and other community services. Additionally, the plan completely ignores the fact that almost all of the 8200 housing units being added to Gowanus are being built in a floodplain, with a grim climate outlook, next to a toxic Superfund site.

I actively challenged the Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning Plan. I worked with, and supported, community groups that yearned for the rezoning process to heed their concerns. We were all called NIMBY’s. We were called the “greatest threat” to the project. But the negative media coverage we received rarely acknowledged our real concerns. We weren’t saying no to any and all development; we weren’t saying no to new housing; and we DEFINITELY weren’t saying no to affordable housing. We were saying “hold up”. We were saying “there are better options than what you’re proposing”. We were saying “there are people living and working here with little power, who are going to be impacted in really bad ways”. But, we were largely ignored, and the plan was passed. 

In May 2022, Gowanus community members raised concerns about the impact of pile driving at some local construction sites, as developers raced to start construction to take advantage of a sunsetting real estate tax abatement program. Neighbors brought attention to how the pile driving wasn’t just continuously loud throughout the day, but it was also shaking the ground for blocks. Even more concerning, the work was causing strange odors in the area. You see, the site once held a natural gas plant, and the land was known to be contaminated with coal tar, a carcinogenic, industrial waste. Even though many elected officials insisted on quick action to respond to community concerns, there was no assurance that the construction was adequately protecting the site, or the community, from dangerous contamination of toxic vapors.

Two months later, kids playing in a nearby playground, again, complained about a disgusting smell. At this point, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed that instrument readings at a particular site found volatile organic compounds exceeding acceptable levels. The work was temporarily halted, but later restarted. If it wasn’t for the complaints, would the community even know there was a problem?

Sometimes NIMBY’s are privileged people who don’t want change. But, I bet more times than not, NIMBY’s are people with important experience whose concerns should be heeded. In part 2 of this piece, available in the next edition of the Park Slope reader, I explore a more recent, and more personal, experience where my own NIMBYism was really brought to the surface.