BMT Works4NYBMT & BQE
COMMUNITY ACTION CENTER

Concerns & alternatives

Protect our port.
Protect our neighborhoods.
Ask for a better plan.

Understand the concerns behind our requests, explore alternatives, and find evidence you can use in a comment or a message to public officials.

Current Action Steps →
The working waterfront

A port that works for New York.

Why all-port? Water in, water out. We want a modern electric port that moves suitable goods through the city by water, with cleaner local deliveries and less truck dependence. The Blue Highway is a reason to preserve room for the port’s future.

See how it works, watch the video, and explore the evidence →

The vision sets aside only 60 acres for port uses within the 122-acre terminal, alongside 6,000 homes—mostly luxury homes. We oppose limiting the port’s future this way. Working waterfronts offer careers, not just jobs. Ask what preserving the full working waterfront could deliver: good-paying union careers, workforce training, freight and food distribution, climate resiliency, and emergency readiness.
Official project description · Assemblymember Simon’s concerns

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

What would each alternative mean for long-term port operations, good-paying union careers, local businesses, freight movement, and resiliency?

Read the City Club Blue Highway plan ↗Turn your concern into a comment →
Construction sequence & port protection

All-port is our goal. Port-first is the minimum.

BMT already has a working port. If maritime land is converted before a replacement works, the community risks losing an existing public asset.

What the City’s published vision says

The September 2025 vision proposes simultaneous construction starts for the marginal pier, the Pier 11 industrial building, and BMT North housing. Its phasing table groups pier design, permitting, and construction with housing starts beginning in 2029; it places the operational port in a later phase. These are planning assumptions, not guaranteed dates.

The vision also promises to maintain a functioning container terminal throughout redevelopment. Residents should ask for the binding terms that make that promise enforceable if the replacement pier cannot proceed. The phasing chart alone does not establish what future permits and contracts will allow.

Vision commitments · printed p. 14 · Phasing table · printed p. 50

Why the permit concern deserves serious scrutiny

Tom Fox’s City Club plan offers an alternative to new water coverage. Its February 2026 report argues that an all-maritime approach avoids the need to permit and finance roughly 11 acres of new coverage in Buttermilk Channel. In his March 16 public scoping testimony, Fox said the alternative eliminates the proposed 11.17 acres of landfill and its impacts.

The rules protect uses that need the waterfront. New York’s coastal policies prioritize water-dependent uses and port activity. Where a project discharges dredged or fill material, Clean Water Act Section 404 review examines feasible alternatives with less harm to the aquatic environment. The exact requirements depend on the proposed work.

Ask regulators: is the new platform necessary for maritime operations, or is it needed primarily to free existing port land for housing? Could an all-maritime alternative meet port needs with less impact on the water? Require a documented answer before committing port land to another use.

These are substantial questions, not a finding that approval is impossible. Federal guidance allows some non-water-dependent activities to be authorized if all applicable requirements are met. Agencies must decide on the actual design and record.

City Club plan and Tom Fox’s public testimony · NYS coastal policies 2 & 3 · EPA’s Section 404 explanation · 2026 federal guidance

Our minimum safeguard

No housing construction until the replacement port is operating.

Require all permits, committed funding, completed construction, and independent verification of working cargo capacity. Protect existing port operations and land until those conditions are met. Apply this condition to housing construction, port-land conversion, and demolition that reduces working port capacity.

We support an all-port future for all 122 acres. At a minimum, require port-first: deliver the replacement port before housing begins. That minimum does not mean we support shrinking the port.

Put it in your email →

Make the protection enforceable

  • Define a working port. Verify usable berths, cargo-handling equipment, storage, truck and barge access, an operator, and demonstrated capacity—not just a completed structure.
  • Put the condition in binding documents. Require it in project approvals, land-transfer terms, leases, financing commitments, and development agreements, with a named enforcer and consequences for noncompliance.
  • Publish a fallback. Explain how the existing port and its land will be protected if permits are denied or overturned, the pier is redesigned, or funding and construction fall behind. Show how port delivery will be financed without requiring housing to proceed first.
What Westway teaches us about waterfront approvals

Westway was a proposed highway and redevelopment project along Manhattan’s Hudson River waterfront. In 1985, a federal appeals court upheld the finding that its environmental analysis was inadequate in a dispute involving landfill and striped-bass habitat. The court reversed a permanent injunction and sent the matter back to the agencies.

The lesson is that environmental review can unsettle major waterfront approvals. Westway had different facts and laws at issue; it does not predict the outcome of BMT’s permit applications.

Read the 1985 appellate decision ↗

Ask officials to make it binding →Use this issue in a BMT comment →

Army Corps permit review · BMT environmental review · Pier 10’s separate permit notice

Hold them to the commitment

Cold storage must stay in Brooklyn.

Refrigerated storage helps the port handle perishable food. Governor Kathy Hochul committed $15 million for a cold-storage facility at BMT in 2024 and reaffirmed that commitment when the vision passed in September 2025.

NYCEDC has discussed moving the facility and its funding to Hunts Point at BMT Advisory Task Force and BMTDC meetings. Moving this investment out of Brooklyn would weaken a commitment made to this community and take away a capability the port needs.

We need to hold officials to their word. Cutting the maritime footprint while taking away cold storage would limit the port’s ability to grow and serve New York.

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

Keep the promised cold-storage facility and its funding at Brooklyn Marine Terminal. Hold Governor Hochul and NYCEDC to their commitment. Secure a written guarantee, a delivery schedule, and public reporting so our community can track what happens.

Write to your local representatives →Ask for board accountability →

Governor Hochul’s commitment · BMTDC meeting records · Advisory Task Force meetings

A board accountable to the community

A public board needs a way to hear the public.

The Brooklyn Marine Terminal Development Corporation (BMTDC), chaired by Michelle de la Uz, makes board decisions about the project. Its mission promises “transparency, accountability, and enforceable delivery of community commitments.”

As of September 30, we found no published direct board contact or public-comment procedure on BMTDC’s official page. Meeting recordings and documents are available, but residents also need a clear way to raise concerns and receive answers.

Ask BMTDC to publish a direct contact, a public-comment process, and a commitment tracker. Meanwhile, send concerns to NYCEDC’s project inbox and ask your elected officials or Community Board 6 to bring them to the board. The project inbox is not a dedicated board contact.

Port delivery is part of BMTDC’s adopted mission. Ask who is responsible for design, permits, funding, and construction—and what decisions would be left to a future operator. There is already a working terminal: make the responsibilities clear →

The working port also needs stability now. NYCEDC’s consultant identified short lease terms as a barrier to investment. Ask for a long-term lease and investment pathway →

Board records · BMTDC mission

Who sits on the board, and how does it vote?

The bylaws provide for 23 directors. Generally, action requires a majority of the entire board—12 votes. Capital-project budgets and appointment or removal of the executive director also require that majority to include at least four mayoral or ex-officio directors and three directors appointed on the Governor’s recommendation.

Read the board’s bylaws · See the current directors and meeting materials

Who is accountable for delivering the port?

BMTDC’s adopted mission includes investment in a modern maritime port. Its June 30, 2026 draft minutes describe a board role in planning the selection of a port operator. Residents should hold the board and NYCEDC to a clear port-delivery responsibility.

There is already an operator: Red Hook Container Terminal, led by President and CEO Michael “Mike” Stamatis. The City’s proposal for a future operator covering the combined port is a separate procurement. It does not mean today’s port is empty or has no operator.

Ask BMTDC and NYCEDC to publish who is responsible for port design, permits, funding, construction, and delivery; what they are deciding now; what would be left to a future operator; and how existing operators, workers, and maritime users are involved.

Housing decisions should not lock in the port’s footprint before its capacity, feasibility, and delivery protections are established. A future operator should help shape a workable port—not become a reason to leave its future unresolved.

BMTDC mission · June 30 draft minutes · pp. 7–8 · NYCEDC’s operator and engagement materials · Stamatis and current terminal operations

Give the working port the lease stability it needs

NYCEDC’s own consultant identified the problem. Moffatt & Nichol’s January 24, 2025 memo says the inherited Red Hook Container Terminal lease discourages investment because its terms are relatively short. It also identifies a 30-year minimum lease as necessary to attract an operator.

In his June 12, 2025 City Council testimony, then-NYCEDC President Andrew Kimball linked short-term leases to limited private investment. The September 2025 vision proposes a minimum 30-year lease for a future operator. A future offer does not establish what lease security today’s operator has.

Why this matters: operators need time to recover investment in cranes, equipment, and facilities. Lease uncertainty can make it harder to finance improvements and commit to long-term business. The port’s potential should be evaluated with the investment and operating stability it needs to succeed.

Ask NYCEDC and BMTDC to publish the current lease term and renewal options, and secure a credible long-term lease and investment pathway—including for today’s operator. Explain how operations, workers, and customers will be protected while future arrangements are decided.

Moffatt & Nichol memo · pp. 2, 4 & 6 · Kimball’s Council testimony · p. 2 · Future operator lease · printed p. 13

Permit notices & public participation

Pier 10: why we must stay alert.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) handles applicable state permits and water-quality approvals; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews certain work in navigable waters; and the New York State Department of State (DOS) reviews consistency with coastal policies. These reviews can have separate comment windows.

DEC published a permit notice for Pier 10 crane-rail work on July 15, 2026. Written comments were due July 30—just 15 days later. That comment window has closed.

This notice covered crane-rail work at Pier 10; it was not an approval for the replacement marginal pier. See why the replacement port needs its own safeguards →

Our experience: as we shared at the September 28 BMT Community Forum, we did not receive an alert from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) about this window.

Decisions can move quickly between public meetings. Check official notices, read our newsletters, and help neighbors respond before deadlines. You don’t have to keep track of everything alone.

Get our newsletter →Read the official Pier 10 notice ↗
Traffic, access & everyday trips

Make the neighborhood visible in the analysis.

Bring the experience of Columbia, Hicks, Clinton, Van Brunt, Atlantic Avenue, and your own daily routes into the record. Include people who rely on cars, buses, walking, or accessible transportation.

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

How will construction and changed traffic patterns affect local streets, crossings, deliveries, caregivers, and emergency access? How many truck trips could be avoided by moving freight and construction materials by water?

See the Blue Highway case for cleaner, safer streets →

Read DOT’s proposal and FAQ ↗Turn your concern into a comment →
Air quality, noise & construction

Ask for protections people can check.

Name homes, schools, senior buildings, workplaces, and other sensitive locations. Describe truck queues, noise, or access concerns without needing to prove a technical conclusion yourself.

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

What will be measured, where and when? What protections, monitoring, and public reporting will apply during construction?

Follow the BMT environmental study ↗Turn your concern into a comment →
Overlapping BMT & BQE work

One neighborhood. Combined effects.

Ask agencies to show how their assumptions fit together. A shared concern belongs in both records.

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

What happens when BMT and BQE work overlap? Publish the combined traffic assumptions, construction scenarios, and neighborhood protections.

See DOT’s coordination explanation ↗Turn your concern into a comment →
Funding & accountability

Turn promises into obligations.

The Task Force endorsed a vision, which ESD calls a high-level planning framework. A vision is not a fully financed delivery plan. Ask for evidence that port operations, housing, infrastructure, and neighborhood protections are financially workable—not just promised. Track board decisions and financing approvals.
ESD’s description of the framework

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

What funding is committed? What gaps remain? Where are the responsible party, deadline, enforcement mechanism, and public reporting requirement?

Follow BMTDC board records ↗Turn your concern into a comment →
Resilience & public space

Plan for the shoreline and the neighborhood.

Ask how port operations, flooding, emergency access, parks, shoreline access, and nearby projects will work together over time.

A QUESTION TO BRING FORWARD

Which flood and sea-level assumptions are being used, and how will resilience measures and public access be maintained and funded?

A working waterfront can also provide backup routes for food and essential supplies and public access alongside maritime activity. Ask for both in the plan.

Read the state project overview ↗Turn your concern into a comment →

A maritime alternative for study

A Blue Highway hub
at Brooklyn Marine Terminal.

The City Club of New York’s Creating a Blue Highway Hub at Brooklyn Marine Terminal, prepared and led by Tom Fox, offers an all-maritime alternative that preserves the full 122-acre terminal for maritime uses.

Ask for a fair comparison in the environmental review: port capacity, freight movement, neighborhood effects, resilience, costs, and long-term public benefits.

Explore the City Club plan

Build on the strongest ideas.

BMT Works for New York is exploring a positive working-waterfront future: lasting careers, food distribution, modular housing production, and citywide Blue Highway connections.

The community should be able to examine proposals, raise questions, and help shape the work as it develops.

Explore the Blue Highway case →

We move forward together

Have a question? Have something to offer?

Bring your concerns, your ideas, and your skills. There is a place for you in this work.

Ask a question or get involved