Brooklyn Port Transformation Clears Task Force Over Local Objections

By Samantha Maldonado, The City

September 23, 2025

After months of false starts, a task force of elected officials and civic leaders on Monday voted to approve a vision plan to redevelop the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, 122 acres of industrial waterfront property envisioned as a site for new housing development.

The vote of 17 to 8 came after five previous postponements, as the city's Economic Development Corporation, which spearheaded the plan, struggled to get consensus among the members of the task force, which is chaired by Rep. Dan Goldman.

The $3.5 billion proposal seeks to transform the port area into a neighborhood of 6,000 apartments, new park space, retail, a hotel and a newly modernized shipping facility. The EDC gained enough support for the plan earlier this month, when two elected officials who had not yet committed to the plan secured concessions and then agreed to give it the green light.

“Today, we have taken a truly historic step forward in finally realizing a plan that will save, modernize and expand the port, create an industrial and commercial hub for the future, address climate change and spearhead the blue highway, connect our neighborhoods to the waterfront, and build thousands of affordable homes to tackle the housing crisis,” Goldman said in a statement.

EDC, a city-sponsored development authority, is handing off the plan to the state agency, Empire State Development, through a development process known as a General Project Plan, rather than go through the city’s lengthy and often contentious public land use review procedure. It will likely be several years before any construction begins.

In statements released after the vote, both Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams lauded the plan’s approval.

“We will turn a crumbling marine terminal into a modern maritime port while creating thousands of affordable homes and tens of thousands of good-paying jobs,” Adams said.

Three members of the 28-member task force did not vote, according to EDC.

The eight members of the task force who voted no — including its co-chair, local Councilmember Alexa Avilés — released a joint statement after the vote, criticizing the process and noting that key details remain uncertain as the project moves forward.

“The EDC’s current plan lacks meaningful solutions to serious issues — transportation impacts, water and sewer and infrastructure capacity, disruption to existing businesses, and the perils of building in a flood zone,” the statement read. “The proposal does not fulfill the salient goal of transforming the BMT into ‘a harbor of the future’ with manufacturing jobs and robust maritime opportunities. We believe in a future of a working waterfront that centers people, sustainability, and justice.”

One of the members who voted no, Assemblymember Jo Ann Simon (D-Brooklyn), told THE CITY ahead of the vote that she saw “fundamental flaws” in the plan.

“We don’t have any commitment for the infrastructure necessary for water and sewer and hygiene — you’re going to have a lot of toilets flushing here — no resolution on the traffic impacts,” she said. “Whatever housing you put here, even a small amount, the density is overwhelming the site, but that’s besides the point. Whether it’s affordable or not, people have impacts.”

Sen. Andrew Gournardes, the other task force co-chair, in a statement emphasized that the process to redevelop the Brooklyn Marine Terminal would continue.

“This is just the first step of an ongoing process,” he said. “The proposal moves into environmental review, when important details will be fleshed out and when neighbors will have more opportunities to make their voices heard.”

Before and during the vote, a few dozen locals protested against the plan in the Columbia Street bike lanes, just outside a locked fence. Just beind the fence, the vote took place inside a facility on the Brooklyn Marine Terminal site. Cheers among the protesters erupted at the news of a no vote for a Manhattan casino by a community advisory group. But otherwise, they yelled in disapproval at the vote occurring out of sight.

“Mockery of democracy!” they chanted to the beat of a drum. “Vote no!”

Red Hook community members protest ahead of a vote on the Brooklyn Marine Terminal redevelopment plan, Sept. 22, 2025. Credit: Samantha Maldonado/THE CITY

Holding a sign that read “Don’t disrespect our community,” Red Hook resident Charles Flickinger said it was “critical” to do something with the waterfront area, but took issue with the process by which the plan came about and the lack of details.

“It’s a great project: 122 acres, think of the possibilities,” he said, “[like] tons of gardens, low-income housing. But before any of that happens, it really needs to deal with the flooding.”

The land, just south of Brooklyn Bridge Park, is in a flood zone and lacks public transit access. It is currently the site of a derelict yet functional port, which brings in just under 2% of goods coming in and going out of the Port of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority last year agreed to trade the Brooklyn Marine Terminal for the city’s Howland Hook Marine Terminal in Staten Island.

Marilyn Grant, a retired school principal who owns a home in the Columbia Street Waterfront District, said she didn’t approve of the plan because she worried about overcrowding, especially in schools.

“We don’t want to look at high-rise buildings across the way. The area is very congested, so it’s more congested with families coming in,” Grant said.

Bek Markas, a 39-year-old actor who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment nearby, said he was skeptical the new housing would be affordable. (Under the plan, at least 2,400 apartments are slated to be income-restricted.)

“We have a nice quiet neighborhood here. We don’t need it to be Long Island City part two,” he said. “They just want to build every little square inch of New York City. It’s just getting ridiculous at this point.”

Markas added, “The residents here aren’t even going to be able to park their cars.”

This press release was produced by The City. The views expressed here are the author’s own.