MOHAMED FARGHALY

mfarghaly@queensledger.com

In a bold move to challenge New York City’s ambitious zoning reform, the City Council’s Common Sense Caucus, joined by over 100 elected officials, civic organizations, and concerned residents, has filed a lawsuit to overturn the controversial “City of Yes” zoning overhaul. The lawsuit, filed last week in the New York Supreme Court in Richmond County, argues that the city violated fundamental environmental laws during the passage of the sweeping rezoning plan.

The lawsuit targets the city’s failure to comply with both the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), specifically accusing the administration of neglecting necessary environmental assessments. According to the suit, the city’s adoption of the new zoning rules disregarded established procedures meant to ensure the protection of New Yorkers and their neighborhoods.

“Respondents violated their environmental obligations in at least three critical ways: first, by failing to take a ‘hard look’ at significant areas of environmental concern without providing a rational basis or reasoned elaboration for this failure; second, by segmenting City of Yes (‘Rezoning’) into three distinct stages as if each stage were independent, this violation of law served to avoid assessing the cumulative impacts of each phase of the Rezoning; and finally, Respondents overhauled New York City Zoning without proposing any mitigation or any rational explanation for failing to propose reasonable alternatives that offered mitigation,” the lawsuit alleges.

Opponents of the “City of Yes” have been vocal in their criticism of the plan, which they argue prioritizes development over the needs of local communities during the announcement at city hall on March 26.

Minority Leader Joann Ariola, who has been a leading voice in opposition, asserted that the rezoning effort was not about addressing the city’s housing crisis, but about making way for large-scale developers to push through projects with little regard for environmental or social consequences.

“The City of Yes was never really about solving an economic or housing ‘crisis’ – it was about clearing the decks for big development in our communities, then trying to deceive the public into believing it would have no negative environmental consequences or impact on our quality of life,” Ariola said. “The lawsuit we filed today makes it clear that not only did the city lie to us all, it broke the law in the process. It is the culmination of a diverse, citywide grassroots movement of residents who refuse to have their neighborhoods destroyed or their rights trampled.”

The “City of Yes” initiative, which aims to address the city’s housing shortage, was divided into three phases: Zoning for Carbon Neutrality (approved in December 2023), Zoning for Economic Opportunity (approved in June 2024), and Zoning for Housing Opportunity (approved in December 2024). Despite the plan’s goal to create more housing options, it faced strong opposition, especially the final phase, which was rejected by 38 of the city’s 59 community boards and nearly half of the New York City Council Members.

Each of the plan’s three phases was subject to its own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which controversially concluded that the expected influx of new development and density would have “no significant” negative effects on surrounding communities. Critics have disputed these findings, pointing out the strain on infrastructure, public services, and the environmental challenges faced by many already-overburdened neighborhoods.

“The Rezoning represented a wholesale departure from longstanding public policy that respects open space, air and light, stress on infrastructure and the neighborhood character of vast areas of New York City’s low-density communities,” the lawsuit concludes. “To have undertaken this Rezoning contrary to the requirements of basic environmental law must result in a nullification of Respondents’ unlawful behavior.”

The backlash has been broad and includes Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa, who praised the Common Sense Caucus and the civic groups for taking legal action against the Adams administration’s rezoning plan. Sliwa, a vocal critic of the “City of Yes,” warned that the zoning changes were a “top-down scheme” that ignored public input.

Courtesy Office of Council Member Robert Holden

“This lawsuit is a wake-up call to City Hall that New Yorkers will not be steamrolled,” said Sliwa. “The City of Yes is nothing more than a land grab for developers at the expense of the working and middle-class New Yorkers who built this city.”

Sliwa has also raised concerns about the potential risks posed by a specific aspect of the plan—its provision for lithium-ion battery storage facilities. These sites would be placed across the city, including residential and low-density areas, which Sliwa deems a safety hazard.

“New Yorkers should not have to live next to ticking time bombs,” Sliwa said. “The City of Yes put profit over public safety, and as mayor, I’ll fight to reverse that.”

City Council Member Robert Holden, another outspoken critic of the plan, has joined the lawsuit as a citizen plaintiff. Holden has called for the city to abandon the “reckless” rezoning initiative, emphasizing that local communities should not be undermined in favor of developers.

“I’m proud to be a citizen plaintiff alongside civic advocates Tony Nunziato, Alicia Vaichunas, and Phil Wong to say NO to the City of Yes,” Holden said. “This community rejects giving a blank check to developers—we will fight tooth and nail against this reckless plan.”

Council Member Robert Holden echoed Curtis Sliwa’s concerns, specifically criticizing the proposal to build a lithium-ion battery storage facility in Middle Village, directly across from PS/IS 128 and near an animal hospital and daycare centers. Holden called the plan “dangerous” and emphasized that such facilities do not belong in residential areas, vowing to fight the project “every step of the way.”

The “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” initiative was designed to address New York City’s housing shortage by relaxing long-standing zoning rules. The plan aimed to provide more housing options across the city without overburdening any one neighborhood. The proposed rezoning changes are expected to enable the creation of 82,000 new homes over the next 15 years.

While proponents argue that the plan is necessary to tackle the city’s housing crisis and bring down costs, opponents remain steadfast in their belief that it could have far-reaching and negative consequences for local neighborhoods, their residents, and the city’s infrastructure.

Courtesy Ferrara Manufacturing

MOHAMED FARGHALY

mfarghaly@queensledger.com

As the cost of living continues to rise in New York City, particularly in the borough of Queens, Governor Kathy Hochul is pushing a key tax incentive aimed at spurring business growth and job creation. The Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) is designed to help businesses move to areas like Queens, providing crucial support at a time when small businesses are struggling with inflation, high rent, and competition from neighboring states.

Since its inception, REAP has successfully attracted businesses to Queens by offering tax credits for relocating jobs from outside the city or Manhattan below 96th Street to designated areas in the city’s outer boroughs. The program has been particularly beneficial for small businesses, which make up the backbone of Queens’ economy. With a growing need for affordable and sustainable business opportunities, local leaders and economic development advocates are urging for the program’s extension beyond its current expiration in 2025.

Tom Grech, President of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, explained the significance of the program. “The most important part about all of this is that the rest of the world is not waiting for New York to figure out how to be efficient and affordable,” Grech said. “This program helps level the playing field, especially for small businesses, and allows them to compete in a city that’s becoming increasingly expensive.”

The REAP program offers businesses a $3,000 tax credit per eligible employee for up to twelve years if they relocate to qualifying locations in Queens or other outer boroughs. These designated areas are typically revitalization zones in the city’s industrial and commercial districts. In areas outside these zones, businesses can still receive a $1,000 annual credit for each qualifying employee. With benefits like these, REAP has become an attractive option for businesses seeking to expand or relocate to Queens.

Queens is home to roughly 57,000 small businesses, many of which are struggling to survive amid rising operational costs. “90% of those businesses have 10 or fewer employees,” Grech said, emphasizing the challenges of sustaining these enterprises. “This effort has been on the books for years, helping ensure that small businesses can stay open in places like Queens.”

Despite its success, REAP faces an uncertain future. Coalition members from the Five Borough Jobs Campaign, a coalition of local economic development corporations, business improvement districts, and businesses, are advocating for the program’s continued support. The coalition, which is focused on bringing new jobs to New York’s communities, believes REAP is vital to addressing the affordability crisis and ensuring that small businesses have access to the resources they need to thrive.

The program’s extension is currently under consideration in this year’s state budget, with advocates urging state lawmakers to reaffirm its importance. Grech stressed that as New York recovers from the economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting small businesses through programs like REAP is more crucial than ever.

“I think it’s really, really important to extend this program, especially as we look to rebuild in the post-COVID era,” Grech said. “This is about reaffirming our commitment to small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our community.”

Queens residents and business owners alike are hopeful that the state will continue to support the REAP program, ensuring that local businesses can prosper in the face of growing economic challenges. While the program’s future remains uncertain, advocates remain committed to fighting for the job creation and economic sustainability that businesses in Queens need to succeed.

The REAP program, which is slated to expire in June 2025, will play a key role in the future of business development in the outer boroughs. As local leaders push for an extension, the focus remains on securing a more affordable and equitable environment for businesses and workers across New York City.

For more information about the Five Borough Jobs Campaign, visit fiveboroughjobs.com, for more information about the the REAP program, visit tinyurl.com/reapnyc.

Courtesy Robert Holden’s Office

MOHAMED FARGHALY

mfarghaly@queensledger.com

 

A long-standing dispute over a large RV parked in a residential neighborhood on Starr Street finally reached a conclusion last week when the vehicle, nicknamed the “spaceship bus” by local residents, was towed away after months of complaints from the community. The operation, however, did not proceed without incident. The removal, has sparked a wave of controversy, with both local lawmakers and the RV’s owner offering differing perspectives on the situation.

 

The RV, which had been parked on the residential street since January, drew growing frustration from nearby residents. The vehicle was described as a “monstrosity” by some, with its colorful, spaceship-like design drawing the ire of those living nearby. What started as a seemingly temporary parking spot for the vehicle, once part of the Brooklyn Club Silo’s outdoor seating arrangement, escalated into a neighborhood controversy. Owner of the vehicle, Robin Russel-French, argues he never intended to leave the RV there permanently and that an illness made it nearly impossible for him to address the situation sooner.

 

After multiple complaints from residents the RV was removed by private tow company VMA Towing.

 

Council Member Holden applauded the swift action taken, calling the removal a necessary step to address the growing issue of commercial vehicles and RVs cluttering the streets of the neighborhood. “The issue of RVs and commercial vehicles parked throughout our district and beyond has grown bigger than ever. When constituents rightfully complain, my office takes swift action.” Holden thanked local agencies and staff members for taking action.

 

Crashes Into Overpass

Courtesy Tarik Simsek, (Seniorsix on Instagram) 

But the towing operation did not go as smoothly as some had hoped. The RV’s size—standing nearly 20 feet tall—was flagged as a concern by multiple parties involved in the operation. Allegedly, city departments were warned about the risk of damaging overpasses and other infrastructure due to the RV’s height, but the towing proceeded anyway. During the process, the RV collided with a low-hanging bridge at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Fresh Pond Road resulting in severe damage to the roof of the vehicle and to the structure of the overpass. 

During a virtual COMET (Communities of Maspeth & Elmhurst Together) Zoom meeting last month, Captain Chowdhury of the 104th precinct, responding to complaints about the RV’s presence, issued a warning regarding the risks of towing the large vehicle, a warning that fell on deaf ears. “Our heavy duty towing team told us that they can’t really tow that because it is too tall for them, and they’d hit overpasses and stuff like that. We’ve reached out to sanitation, we’re working with them because they need more information, if this thing has plates then sanitation will be able to tow it, but we’re trying and calling our legal department to see what is the recourse with this,” Chowdrey said during the meeting. 

 

Russel-French, has since accused city officials of negligence, claiming that the towing operation was not only poorly executed but was also politically motivated. Russel-French, who suffers from a debilitating condition known as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), insists that he was unable to address the situation due to his medical condition. Diagnosed with CRPS over a year ago, Russel-French explained that the disease has left him bedridden and in constant, excruciating pain, making it nearly impossible for him to take care of the bus as planned.

 

Russel-French, sees things differently than the local officials and residents. In an exclusive interview, he explained that his RV had been parked on Starr Street out of necessity, not neglect. “I had to move it there under duress,” he said, noting that he was unable to drive it due to its size and the ongoing financial and physical challenges presented by his illness. 

 

“I never wanted the bus to stay on Starr Street,” Russel-French said in the interview. “But I’m bedridden and without income. I couldn’t do anything. It was just too painful.” Russel-French described his condition as one of the most painful chronic pain conditions known to medicine, further emphasizing the challenges he faces in managing his affairs.

 

According to Russel-French, the RV had been registered and legally parked when it was moved to Starr Street, though he acknowledged the vehicle was unoccupied for much of the time.

 

The 1967 Leyland Atlantean bus, which had been used as a cultural space for private events and performances, was not in use during the winter months as Russel-French struggled to manage his condition. He claims that he had every intention of moving the RV but was unable to do so due to a lack of funds and mobility. “It took everything for me to get it there,” he said, explaining how the move to Starr Street was temporary while he figured out his next steps.

 

Russel-French also suggested that there were ulterior political motives behind the push to remove the RV, alleging that local officials had orchestrated the vehicle’s destruction. French alleges that the wheels of the RV were deliberately popped, suggesting that it was a coordinated effort to make the vehicle appear unfit for the street and force it to be towed, thereby escalating the situation and making it eligible for impoundment under the city’s public safety guidelines.

 

He claimed the city was complicit in damaging the vehicle when it was towed under a low bridge, causing significant structural damage to the bus. “They purposely drove it under a low bridge so that it would destroy the top level,” he said, hinting at a deliberate attempt to make the vehicle unfit for use.

 

Robin Russel-French operated the RV as a private venue for exclusive parties and events, catering to a select group of guests. He hosted renowned DJs, including Fred Again, who has performed on the bus, making it a unique cultural space within New York’s nightlife scene. The events were not open to the public, with entry restricted to a vetted, invite-only crowd. While guests could make voluntary donations, the gatherings were designed to foster a sense of community rather than profit, blending music, art, and social gatherings in an unconventional setting.

 

The RV, Russel-French argues, was not just an ordinary vehicle. He describes it as a historical relic — a 1967 Leyland Atlantean that once served as part of London’s public transportation system. The vehicle, he says, was registered as a historical vehicle, which granted it certain protections. The fact that the vehicle was destroyed in the towing process has led Russel-French to consult with lawyers, planning to sue the city for what he views as mishandling and unnecessary destruction of his property.

 

Other RV Busses on the Street

 

While he acknowledges that residents had complaints about the bus being parked on the street, Russel-French maintains that he was not the only one causing an issue in the area. “There are two makeshift buses and an RV that have been parked on that block for years,” he said, referring to other vehicles in the vicinity that were also subject to complaints but not removed as swiftly as his own.

 

“I think the way this whole situation unfolded is unfortunate, the goal was never to outright destroy someone’s property, but rather, address the quality-of-life concerns of nearby residents. I would have never posted online about this issue if I knew this was going to happen,” Candidate for City Council, Paul Pogozelski said. “Unfortunately, the whole situation turned into a race to see who could take credit for removing the camper, and that’s when it looks like common sense went out the window.”

 

For many in the neighborhood, the RV’s presence was a constant source of frustration. Neighbors reported that it was an eyesore, detracting from the neighborhood’s aesthetics and causing concerns over potential safety hazards. Some residents also complained that the area became a magnet for garbage and litter, further exacerbating the problems created by the vehicle’s extended stay.

 

While Russel-French’s supporters view him as a victim of political maneuvering and medical hardship, for others, the removal of the RV marked a welcome end to what they saw as a persistent nuisance. The city’s swift action is seen by many as a demonstration of effective leadership, albeit at the expense of one individual’s livelihood.

 

As Russel-French prepares to challenge the city’s actions in court, the case highlights the ongoing tension between personal property rights, public safety, and the need for neighborhood upkeep. 

Courtesy Robin Russel-French