Opponents of Plan to Develop Elizabeth Street Garden as Affordable Housing Dealt a Setback
The State’s highest court has dealt a blow to the hopes of community activists who want to preserve the Elizabeth Street Garden. The site (a publicly owned lot that connects Elizabeth and Mott Streets at mid-block between Spring Street and Prince Street) has been the focus of a decade of controversy, since the 2014 announcement by the City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) that it planned to create permanently affordable housing for low-income seniors there.
Since 1991, the half-acre parcel has been maintained and improved as a de facto park by local residents, who have come to regard it as a treasured amenity. Critics of the plan were unappeased by a compromise vision that included both affordable housing for seniors and a smaller public garden that would shrink from approximately 20,000 square feet to roughly 6,700 square feet.
After the plan to create a senior housing complex, to be known as Haven Green, was made public, local residents who wished to preserve the garden mobilized and eventually filed several lawsuits to halt the project.
Opponents of the plan, who proposed to locate a comparable affordable housing project on another City-owned lot nearby, argued that the HPD had been “arbitrary and capricious” in its finding that the project would not have negative impact on community’s environment. (This determination expedited the development process, because it meant that a full environmental review was not legally required.) In November 2022, a State Supreme Court ruling handed the plaintiffs a victory, finding, “the reduction in open space ratios is sufficient to indicate the presence of a significant adverse impact.”
The following June, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department reversed this win, ruling that HPD appropriately “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination.”
The plaintiffs then took their case to the Court of Appeals, which on Tuesday upheld the First Judicial Department’s ruling, with six of the seven judges finding that “HPD identified appropriate areas of concern and rationally determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment…. HPD rationally determined that the deficiency caused by the project would be ameliorated by several factors—including the quality of the remaining open space, the project’s addition of a 0.15-acre open space resource for public use, and the proximity of Washington Square Park.”
The lone dissenter in Tuesday’s decision, Court of Appeals judge Jenny Rivera, took issue with “the majority’s overly deferential approach that allows for less than rigorous environmental assessment.” In an opinion largely focused on the hazards of climate change, she continued, “green space is essential for ‘ensuring access to nature, improving stormwater management, and combatting extreme heat.’” Judge Rivera concluded that HPD failed to consider “the significant effects on the environment due to the diminution in open space and how the project advances or frustrates the City’s climate change agenda.”
The Elizabeth Street Garden coalition responded, “this decision is not only a loss for our community but for environmental review and open space across the City and State. However, our effort to protect and preserve Elizabeth Street Garden is not over and our legal team is considering all remaining options. We intend to see this through to the very end.”
Meanwhile, the City received approval from a different court to evict the Elizabeth Street Garden from its space in September.
The proposed design for Haven Green calls for 123 units of affordable senior housing, along with publicly accessible open space. The apartments will be set aside for low-income and extremely low-income seniors, including 30 percent for formerly homeless seniors.