[MUSIC]

Tiffany Hansen: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Tiffany Hansen, filling in for Brian today. A $3.5 billion proposal to redevelop the Brooklyn Marine Terminal has been in limbo for much of the past year. Supporters say it would bring housing, green space, and manufacturing jobs to a severely underutilized stretch of industrial waterfront along the New York Harbor. It's been in limbo because a key vote to move the project forward keeps being delayed to prevent the proposal from failing. It's been delayed five times now.

Another vote on the proposal is scheduled for this coming Monday. Now, normally, this might sound like déjà vu all over again. This time, the math appears to be different. Two crucial holdouts, New York City Council Member Shahana Hanif and our guest today, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, now support the plan. The Brooklyn Borough president joining us now to talk about the proposal and why he's changed his mind. Welcome back.

Antonio Reynoso: Thank you so much, Tiffany. Happy to be here.

Tiffany Hansen: All right, so let's just talk. For folks who really aren't familiar with the project, can you just start by outlining for us where things stand right now?

Antonio Reynoso: Now, it seems like there are enough votes to start moving forward with support of a plan. It's a port, obviously, that has been working outside of its capacity for quite some time. It's pretty much been neglected or abandoned, I would say, by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority. EDC, or the agency EDC, is now going to take over the site and look to redevelop it not only for housing and manufacturing, but is also adding some other amenities, I guess.

Obviously, there's a lot of tension inside the working group or the task force because there are many different interests looking to align themselves in one goal. I don't necessarily know if EDC or the leadership of the task force have done a good job here, but I think how the sausage is made in this one instance is not as important as what we got at the end here.

Tiffany Hansen: Well, to be fair, this isn't just a-- as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, this proposal includes keeping the port operational. You mentioned all of these other things, green space, things like that, housing, but it's a co-development, right? The port, which, as I understand it, is the only working port on this east side of New York. It's in disrepair, no doubt there, but it would keep that operational. In fact, it would buffet those operations while also doing these things, right?

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, to a certain degree. The city of New York believes that manufacturing or port operation on the East River is not a viable venture. For a long time, it's been in disrepair. You can only imagine 42nd Street not having street repair, not having sidewalk repair, or having trash everywhere. No one would call 42nd Street a viable tourist location because it would be abandoned. It's what the state did to this site. Yes, we are keeping a small portion of 60 acres out of the 122-acre site, still manufacturing, but there are some of us, like me, that actually think that this port has more opportunity than just 60 acres.

The reason I switched my vote is because we now have an RFEI, or request for information, that is going to help us inform this process and see if there are port operators out in the world that would be willing to take a risk here. They might need more than 60 acres. They might need 70. They might need 80. They might need 100. RFEI is going to give us an opportunity to inform the plan before it's over. Remember, this is a vision plan. It's a draft. It's guidelines. The actual plan would be turned into a GPP and run by the state closer to the end of this process.

Tiffany Hansen: Explain for folks what that is. You said a GPT?

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, so the GPP would be the agreement set forth by the state and the city that this site will be obligated to uphold.

Tiffany Hansen: I see.

Antonio Reynoso: GPPs that are famous are like Atlantic Yards, where there was a GPP to build affordable housing and housing in the Barclays Center. We know that that one hasn't been successful, but is one of the only models that we have as city and state agencies or government has to hold people accountable because it's a binding agreement in a way that the city's ULURP isn't. The GPP is going to outline exactly what's going to be on this site. The vision plan is a goal, but it isn't what it's going to look like at the end. For that, we have a board that's going to commence. It's a process that continues through this.

Tiffany Hansen: I want to just talk about what has changed here because there are elements that we've now outlined the current proposal. I'm curious if you can tell us what has changed from the previous proposals to this one and why those changes made it possible for you to change your mind.

Antonio Reynoso: It's the RFEI. The city of New York and many people in New York don't believe that manufacturing has a viable existence or opportunity to exist here in the city of New York. They just don't get it from the outside looking in. Manufacturing thrives in New York City. We see it in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. We've seen it in North Brooklyn. We have countless jobs that exist specifically to assist people with lower education and high skills to join the middle class.

What the RFEI is doing is giving us an opportunity to showcase to the city and to EDC and the administration that there are viable alternatives to a 60-acre port. There can be a port operator that comes in and can use more of this site for manufacturing operation, for port operation. The RFEI allows us to look into that before we finalize this agreement, before we finalize what the vision plan sets forth. It gives me an opportunity to make the case to the BMT board. There's a board after this that's going to exist. I can make the case that a larger port is more viable and a better public use of this site than just housing and parks, and so forth.

Tiffany Hansen: We are talking about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, that underutilized stretch of industrial waterfront along the New York Harbor. We're speaking with Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso about the plan and his change to now support the plan for the redevelopment of Brooklyn Marine Terminal. Listeners, if you have questions, 212-433-9692. Let's head to Sophia in Red Hook. Good morning, Sophia. You have a question.

Sophia: Hi there, and thanks, Borough President, for speaking with us today. I'm a Red Hook resident and small business owner who's been following the process from the beginning. It felt really opaque. I felt like we're fighting against a really ambiguous system. I just want to know what has changed that has convinced you to agree to something that the community vehemently opposes. We just do not see the feasibility for tripling the population in a neighborhood that's already so underserved.

Tiffany Hansen: Thanks for the question, Sophia. I'm wondering if Sophia might be hitting on the fact here that perhaps just saying that it's the REFI that changed your mind isn't enough. What in the details was it that caused you to change your mind? How did you come around when you had been so opposed to it previously?

Antonio Reynoso: It's always been about manufacturing, and it is the RFEI. I want to say, outside of the RFEI, the plan itself, we added more affordable housing. We added deeper affordable housing. We gave opportunities to NYCHA residents to be able to move into the site should the housing be built there. We gave hundreds of millions of dollars to NYCHA for repairs for their site.

There's a 63 Tiffany Place, which is a building that has been pretty much abandoned or has been taken advantage of by its landlord. It's now going to be given to a not-for-profit manager. We have transportation expansions to bus lines. There are a lot of things that exist in this plan that were improved upon through the process, so it isn't the original plan. I'm never really against what the vision plan said. What I was against is this idea that we could only have a 60-acre port. I believe we could have a larger port. I think we could do more port manufacturing or port operations here. The RFEI allows me to do that.

This idea that the community is vehemently against it, I would just point to the fact that the task force itself is built of 26 members, which are mostly community-based organizations and members, including members of NYCHA, both tenant association presidents that support this plan, SBIDC, which is the South Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, which supports this plan. We have elements of the community in this that are supportive of the plan. I just want to be careful about this idea that it's like a consensus against this project. It's complicated. Also, I would just say the vision plan is a guide. It's not where we're going to end up. An environmental impact study needs to be done.

Tiffany Hansen: Yes, plan is a little misleading, right? "Proposal" is maybe a better word than "plan," right?

Antonio Reynoso: Exactly, yes. We need an-- Go ahead.

Tiffany Hansen: No, go ahead.

Antonio Reynoso: We need an EIS, which is an environmental impact study. We have a transportation study that needs to be done, a drainage study for sewage that needs to be done. There's so much work that starts now that the vision plan is set forth. What the vision plan truly did was outline where we want to go, but also allows us to unlock the funding from the federal government. I have a lot of work to do on this BMT board to make sure that I do the best to move this project to a place that I am satisfied with, but this idea that the vision plan is the nail or the last straw for what we're going to see here is just not how I see it.

Tiffany Hansen: You've said here, you have some complaints with how the EDC process was going. That echoes complaints that you've had over the summer as well. I think what I'm looking for is addressing Sophia's concerns that maybe community members who feel like this isn't right for them, that their voices aren't being heard. I'm wondering what you would say about that.

Antonio Reynoso: Like I said, the task force, you could look at the membership of the task force, the subcommittees. Everyone and anyone that's involved in Red Hook is a part of this task force to some degree. The representation of who the community is is hard to really nail down here, and that Sophia would be a representative of the community versus the task force makeup, I just don't think is necessarily a right thing to say per se. I agree with her 100% that this process has been terrible.

I don't know if EDC or the Economic Development Corporation has ever put together a community-based process that is meaningful and has input and has people feel like their voices are being heard, but the task force members are hearing from the communities and are responding to those. Whether it's small business, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's park space, whether it's housing, transportation, there's an expert from the community in each one of those categories. We're all fighting to try to build a plan under some level of consensus.

That is very hard to do when you have very different interests throughout the task force to try to accomplish a goal. This is not easy. Again, it's a proposal. We'll keep fighting to make it better, but there are some people that don't think we have enough housing. There are some people that want to get rid of the port operation completely. There are some people that want to make the whole thing a park. Just bringing this stuff together and trying to get a consensus from the community has been difficult. EDC doesn't help with their terrible community-based process that they have.

Tiffany Hansen: You mentioned this 60 acres that would be dedicated to port operations, basically. For folks who aren't familiar with this area, just outline for us, where is the port? Where's the bridge? Where are these other proposed green areas, residential areas that are being talked about?

Antonio Reynoso: South of Atlantic Avenue or south of the Brooklyn Bridge, quite a bit at the tail end of Brooklyn Bridge Park, is where the BMT is for the folks that don't know where it is. They're trying to build a park right off of the Atlantic Avenue entrance into the BQE to be a part of a Brooklyn Bridge Park expansion. Then they're trying to build housing on the outskirts of the BMT port, so closer to the street.

The rest of the port, the 60-acre port, would be closer to the terminal or the cruise terminal that people are familiar with, or where the ferry is, is where they're trying to build the port. Then they have this space that they're saying is not necessary for manufacturing or port operation that they want to build more housing on. I want to be clear. The feasibility of how much housing we can build here is not complete. We can get back in the EIS that this site doesn't sustain 6,000 units and would have to cut back on the amount of housing we built.

Tiffany Hansen: Well, it started at 9,000 or something, right?

Antonio Reynoso: Exactly. It started at 30 acres, the port. Yes, go ahead.

Tiffany Hansen: I want to talk a little bit more about housing, and I also want to bring a caller into the conversation with us here. Maria, welcome. Good morning.

Maria: Good morning. I just have some reminders for BP Reynoso. First of all, this is public land. Giving public land over to developers of primarily market housing in the city of New York, it's just preposterous. More to the point that I want to make, that land sits literally a foot above sea level. We are an archipelago in the city of New York. We are making the same mistake that we continue to make, totally ignoring the realities of the climate crisis, not just in New York City, but in all port cities around the world.

There's no way that anyone should live that close to water, knowing what we know today. Whether it's affordable, you can make it 100% affordable at 30% of people earning-- the 30% of AMI. People should not be living there. We also have the Gowanus fiasco. All that land use and all those tens of thousands of units being built there, the sewage lines from all that extra housing are going to place a burden. Where does that sewage go? Straight through to the water right where this additional housing is being proposed.

Tiffany Hansen: Maria, I really want to have the borough president jump in here because you mentioned a couple of things that I want to get to. First of all is the ratio here between market housing and affordable housing. Maria also mentioned this issue about-- we would potentially have a lot of housing in an area where there isn't necessarily the infrastructure. I'm not talking transportation. Like she mentioned, sewage lines, and then the flooding issue. If you could maybe take each of those.

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, the first one is on the housing. The manufacturing part is, at this point, a $1 billion endeavor to make functional. It provides jobs and is an important part of building this new blue highway that we want to in the city of New York. The billion dollars, we need to figure out where we can get that. EDC did not do a good job at showing us financial models where there are alternatives outside of housing. Through this process of the BMT board and the EIS, we will be able to see if these financial models actually work.

Without market rehousing, we wouldn't be able to build out the new construction and the sustainability of the port long-term. It's 40% affordable housing at deeper affordable housing with an opportunity for NYCHA to get in it. Then the 60% market rate is supposed to capture value like the Brooklyn Bridge Park to be able to pay for the development and sustainability of the port. That's why the housing needs to be put there. The fact that it's on a floodplain, it's going to go to an EIS. The EIS is going to dictate what measures the city of New York would need to take on to make it so that this housing is safe from flooding.

Tiffany Hansen: Just going to say, EIS is the environmental impact study.

Antonio Reynoso: Exactly. The environmental Impact study is going to force the city and the state to have to take on responses to its findings. If the findings say we can't build here because it is a floodplain, they either need to solve for it, or they wouldn't be able to build on it. The EIS dictates that. We have to go through this process to find out what the transportation looks like. She talked about the sewage and where it's going to go. Those are all studies that need to happen after the vision plan.

I think that people are just clearly-- I'm not a big fan of the vision plan that was set forth by EDC without the RFEI, that is going to allow for more manufacturing and less housing, because I agree with some of those points that Maria is making related to flooding and the amount of housing we have here. We need to move the plan forward to be able to unlock this almost $400 million that we get from the federal, city, and state to help build this port out, or it will be relegated to its non-usefulness that we've seen for decades now.

Tiffany Hansen: I want to ask you about manufacturing. We've got a text here. This was also, in my mind, what type of manufacturing you're alluding to. It is a very vague description. Are you talking about manufacturing jobs that are manufacturing-- I don't know. Name a thing. Name the widget that we're talking about.

Antonio Reynoso: No, no, no.

Tiffany Hansen: No, we're not talking about that?

Antonio Reynoso: No, not at all.

Tiffany Hansen: Okay, so what are we talking about?

Antonio Reynoso: We wouldn't necessarily be making stuff on this port. It would be port operation. We're talking about the movement of goods, and we're also talking about a blue highway. What the city is trying to do is see if we can remove trucks from the BQE and move goods in freight through our waterfront. We would be able to connect from here to the ports in the Bronx, for example, and move fruits, vegetables, and those goods that don't need to move through truck anymore in the city of New York.

What we would see here in the port operation and in the manufacturing would be things that support that movement, so refrigerated sites to make sure that we can keep fruits and vegetables fresh longer, being able to move the equipment to get barges and goods in and out of barges and those types. It would be mostly port operation with ancillary space that supports port operation. It's not only the port. It's also spaces that support port operation.

Tiffany Hansen: Let's talk about that port operation because, as we said at the beginning of our conversation, things are looking pretty dire there right now in terms of just the infrastructure. You mentioned, when you talked about the housing, that the housing couldn't be built without the percentage, 60-40, 40% affordable housing that you need the other housing in order to be able to build that. Isn't the reality that this housing, the money from that, that will be generated from this is going to build up this port infrastructure, or is that not true? In other words, what I'm asking is, isn't the reality actually that the housing is there to support all of this port activity?

Antonio Reynoso: To a certain degree, and we need to get more information. Yes, that's the principle of it. The market-rate housing is supposed to support the development and sustainability of the port and the work that's happening there. They need to build out this port, fix cranes. We have four cranes, and only one is operational at the moment. We can only move goods through one crane out of the four that exist right now. Then the piers themselves are falling apart. They're very dangerous. Some barges can't even move through the site because it's not stable. Yes, the housing is supposed to pay for the port. I want to be clear. I don't necessarily know if it's 6,000 units that we need to pay for the port.

It can be 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000. The city of New York has yet to give us that information. We have to wait for the process after the vision plan for financial plans that clearly dictate how much money we would be making off of the market rate that would help build and sustain the port, which is why I really want to emphasize to people that this is more of a proposal than it is an actual plan, and that we are going to have a board moving forward that's going to use the EIS, the transportation study, the financial models, and so forth, to make sure that they build a plan that is viable to put into the GPP, which is the binding document that is the real plan versus this vision plan.

Tiffany Hansen: I'm Tiffany Hansen, in for Brian Lehrer this morning, and we are talking with Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal and the proposals for redevelopment. We've been talking a lot here about housing. I want to get back to a little bit of what Maria was talking about in terms of supporting this housing. I think it's worthwhile also to get back to the fact that you and I mentioned, which is we didn't start at 6,000 apartments proposed for this. We started somewhere, what, right around 9,000? Talk to us. Walk us through how all of this kept going down, down, down here.

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, so just want to be clear. EDC is very good at making things up to get their goals set. Originally, there were even numbers talking about 14,000 units of housing in here because there was another site, UPS site, that they wanted to convert into housing as well. The city just does a terrible job. They told us it would be 30 acres of port operation and almost 100 acres of housing. It was absolutely ridiculous.

The city makes this stuff up after just some pushback by the community, which is what I'm talking about how the community helped shape this plan. They were able to double the amount of port operation and have the amount of housing that was built on this site. We went from 14,000 initially to 9,000. Now, we're at 6,000. The port operation went from 30 to 60. Now, we have an RFEI that will give us more. Again, it's why I keep trying to emphasize here that, one, I want to be clear that the vision plan has flaws.

It's not perfect. Well, it's far from perfect, but I believe that the systems and the processes that we're going to have moving forward are going to allow us to fine-tune this plan so it actually solves for the problems that Maria and other folks are talking about here with us today. I also want to be careful because I think a big problem that we have, and I want to say this as Democrats here, is that we don't know how to do big things well. We can't get big things over the finish line.

We're a party that puts itself in a position where we process things to death, and we don't affect meaningful changes in people's lives. Then what the frustration is that there's incrementalism or very little progress being made on important things here. Now, look, do I want all this housing if it's necessary to keep the port operation? Absolutely. Am I against housing here? Absolutely not. We have a housing crisis as well that we have to pay attention to. People are paying rents up the wazoo in a neighborhood.

Tiffany Hansen: Well, to that end, actually, how can you assure folks-- we've been saying, "This is a proposal." How can you assure folks that number for affordable housing units isn't going to just keep going down?

Antonio Reynoso: That would have to be the work of the BMT board. We have a job now, moving forward from moving the task force into a board that makes decisions on behalf of the city related to this board has to maintain its commitments that it's made to the community. Once it's in the GPP, if it says 40% of the housing has to be affordable, there's no changing that. The vision plan right now can be modified.

There are commitments made by the city that the board now has an obligation to uphold and insert into the GPP. There are also other things that people might not want or are concerned about that we need to modify and change before it gets to the GPP. All these commitments is why this is a proposal. We have to be very careful about having people feel that what they see in the vision plan is what's going to be executed in the next 10 years, because it's not. It's going to be modified.

Tiffany Hansen: All right, I'd like to bring a caller into the conversation with us again. We have Jonathan. Good morning, Jonathan.

Jonathan: Good morning. A couple of questions. First of all, I'm a Cobble Hill resident for 50 years. I have seen, during my time here, traffic increase to the point where it's a big problem now. Then the BQE project came and made traffic much worse. If this project is going to go ahead, it's going to really have a significant impact on additional traffic problems here.

That's a big concern of myself and many, many of my neighbors. The second quick point I'd like to make out is I think you've got the cart before the horse here. Why go ahead with this vision plan without first doing the environmental impact study? It's clear that there are so many concerns and so many problems with infrastructure. I don't understand why this isn't the first thing you do. Thanks, and I'll listen to your response.

Tiffany Hansen: Thank you, Jonathan. All right, yes.

Antonio Reynoso: The first thing--

Tiffany Hansen: Go ahead.

Antonio Reynoso: I agree with him on the cart before the horse, which is how plans usually happen in the city of New York is an unusual way we did this work. I am not a fan of it. I want to be clear that I know the issues of the process have been terrible. I don't want to be the person that's supporting it. It's a money issue. The federal government has put forth about $150 million to $200 million that is getting matched by the city and state. That would unlock about $400 million here to be able to do the port.

In order for us to get that money from the federal government, we have to show some levels of action towards a plan to build out the port and do this operation. Should we not do that, the money goes away. If we lose, let's say, $350 million or $400 million, then it makes it that much more difficult for us to move forward with a port operation, housing, whatever it is we want to do. We relegate the BMT to where it's been over the last decades. We needed to see some change. There were some tough decisions that needed to be made, but it's a vision plan. Now, if I would have moved the GPP forward without the EIS, that would be something that we would be more concerned about.

Tiffany Hansen: Okay, okay, I'm going to just stop you for one second because we got a lot of acronyms here. I'm not the only person who's getting lost in acronyms.

Antonio Reynoso: Oh, sorry about that.

Tiffany Hansen: BMT, Brooklyn Marine Terminal. [chuckles]

Antonio Reynoso: I won't use acronyms.

Tiffany Hansen: Yes, it's hard for folks who aren't as involved in this process as you are to understand what we're talking about here. First, let's go back here. Clarify. GPP is?

Antonio Reynoso: The GPP is the final--

Tiffany Hansen: What does it stand for? GPP.

Antonio Reynoso: The general proposed plan, or something like that. I don't have it with me, but it's a plan. It's the binding plan. It's the final plan that is binding and that we have to follow through on.

Tiffany Hansen: Okay.

Antonio Reynoso: That one is non-negotiable once we get there.

Tiffany Hansen: Okay, great.

Antonio Reynoso: Right now, we're waiting for an EIS. That is an environmental impact study.

Tiffany Hansen: Right.

Antonio Reynoso: The environmental impact study is going to inform us about what the impacts on the environment is going to be should we do the vision plan. Should we complete the vision plan, this is the impact that would have on this community. This much traffic, this much sewage, this much floodplain problems. It does all of it. From that, we build safeguards to be able to complete the plan or modify the plan to meet the requirements set forth by the environmental impact study. What the caller was talking about is, why not do that first? The reason we couldn't do that first here, even though it is the better way to do it, is that we would lose, or we wouldn't be able to unlock over $300 million from the federal, state, and city to be able to build out this port.

Tiffany Hansen: The other thing that our caller, Jonathan, was asking you about is all of the traffic woes associated with building in this area, et cetera, et cetera. That is a real concern. Not only that, but this area is not well-served by public transportation. Now, we have potentially 6,000 apartments filled with people who need to get places. I think that addressing the concerns of that, even in a GPP, which is that general plan, would maybe answer some of these questions. Do we have any answers in regards to transportation in the plan right now?

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, so two things I want to say there. The caller mentioned that he was from Cobble Hill. I believe the amount of housing that Cobble Hill has built since 1968 is negligible. It's one of the areas in the city of New York that has built almost no housing. What happens in these type of neighborhoods that I get concerned with when they talk about these traffic studies and these other studies that are important, but they don't use it as a way, "Hey, let's solve for the traffic problem so we could build more housing," it's more, "To keep the housing away, let's keep talking about the traffic problems."

Another thing is that the reason there's a lot of traffic in and around this neighborhood is because of the movement of goods. It's like a shortcut through the BQE to enter through Atlantic Avenue. The proposal is supposed to open up a blue highway. The blue highway is supposed to help move trucks off the streets and into barges on the river. If we remove just 1% or 2% of that truck traffic, it should lower the amount of traffic that happens in and around this neighborhood.

Also, the over-reliance of single-occupancy vehicles that exist in and around this area is too high, and we need to start continuing-- not "start," we need to continue to encourage people to take public transportation to move around to the buses that are going to be expanded on this site through train, cycling, and walking. This idea that the traffic, which is going to get worse, and that we can't do anything, would make it so that it would stunt the development of any project in the city of New York, because an increase of one apartment would automatically trigger an increase in vehicle traffic and so forth.

The idea that the way to solve for the transportation is to continue to move towards building up our public transportation system and making those viable options so that new residents could come into the city of New York and not need to buy cars and be able to move through to the city. That's a personal take that I have, but there will be a transportation study. The city would have to answer to that, but we don't have that yet. We don't know what the impact is going to be and how we can solve for it.

Tiffany Hansen: We have this vote coming up, potentially succeeding on Monday. All signs are pointing toward yes, that it will. Why do you think the pressure is such now that it will succeed? There is pressure for federal funding. There's a deadline, right?

Antonio Reynoso: Yes, so the deadline set to us by Dan Goldman, the congressman, is by September 30th, we need to be able to move forward with the project. Not only does the city's final capital plan modification-- so the city has a plan that was put forth on July 1st to their fiscal year. There's a modification that happened in September. It's where the money is locked in right now. If the mayor wanted to, he could move this money to another project because he doesn't think this one is moving forward, and so forth.

We needed to get done before September 30th for the city. For the federal government, the federal government had to see some level of action by the city and the state related to this port for them to unlock their money as well. September 30th is the deadline by which we have to get all this done. The vote happening on the 22nd, the ability to move, we're building out the BMT or the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Board, and the vote shows progress from the city and state to continue to have the money that they're supposed to put forth, that the federal government is supposed to put forth, to still be there after September 30th.

Tiffany Hansen: I'm curious. You have mentioned that folks can still talk to people who are on the task force, but this is not the end of residents and concerned folks. It's not the end of their opportunity to sound off about this, correct?

Antonio Reynoso: Right. Exactly. Now, within a month, the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Board will be built. The Brooklyn Marine Terminal Board will now review EISs, review studies, review RFEIs. I'm sorry, environmental impact studies, request for information. They're going to review all those things and solidify or modify the plan to solve for all these issues that are brought forth by the studies and by the EIS and by the RFEI, and then put forth a GPP through that process. That's going to take a long time. The community still has access to us, and it's still going to be able to push us to fix or remove or modify things that they think shouldn't be on or things that should be on. There's still time to continue to influence this process.

Tiffany Hansen: You think the vote will actually happen on Monday?

Antonio Reynoso: [chuckles] I think that it's the end. If Dan Goldman and the city are being honest about September 30th being the deadline, they have no choice. They have to put the vote forward. If the vote passes, congratulations. If it doesn't, there shouldn't be any opportunities for a new vote. If this is truly the deadline, the city of New York and the state have to have it on Monday.

I'm going to say yes, it's going to happen. Is it going to be upvote? I believe so, but I can't say for certain. Nothing is necessary. We don't know if another member saw something that they didn't see before, or a member asked for something that they didn't see in the vision plan. They might be changing their vote from a yes to a no. I'm not going to guarantee that it's going to be an upvote, but I feel very comfortable that it will be a vote.

Tiffany Hansen: Last question before I let you go. While we have you here, I want to ask just about the mayoral race. There are two Brooklyn Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who are yet to weigh in on the race. You think that's going to happen?

Antonio Reynoso: I don't know. I don't know what's going to happen, but we're sitting here in New York City. What Zohran Mamdani has done to not only energize a young group of people and align the left, remember, there's a lot more moderates and centrists that voted for Zohran to get him over the 50% mark in the primary. The fact that he's building a positive, joyful alternative to establishment Democratic politics and that it's working, and we have leaders in Brooklyn but in our country that are not there yet, is frustrating.

It's part of why I talked about the need to find Democrats that can do the work, that can excite people, that can do the hard things even when unpopular. I feel like Zohran is going to do that. I hope that our two leaders from Brooklyn come around and support this amazing candidate that is really changing the narrative on what it is we can do in response to Trump as a Democratic Party.

Tiffany Hansen: We've been talking with Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, mostly about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal, a little bit about the election. We're going to have to leave it there. Borough President, thanks so much for coming in on the show.

Antonio Reynoso: Thank you so much for having me. Take care.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.