{"id":177811,"date":"2026-03-27T23:08:09","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T23:08:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/177811\/"},"modified":"2026-03-27T23:08:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T23:08:09","slug":"public-needs-more-time-to-evaluate-maritime-uses-for-bmt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/177811\/","title":{"rendered":"Public needs more time to evaluate maritime uses for BMT"},"content":{"rendered":"

COLUMBIA STREET WATERFRONT DISTRICT \u2014 The New York City Economic Development Corporation on Tuesday and Wednesday presented an overview of 25 responses to its \u201cRequest for Expressions of Interest\u201d to solicit ideas for how the Brooklyn Marine Terminal<\/a> could be better used for maritime\/industrial uses.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The 122-acre BMT site stretches from Atlantic Avenue to Red Hook on the East River, and includes a container port, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, and other maritime and industrial tenants.<\/p>\n

Elected officials and stakeholders, however, say the release of the RFEI responses is too little, too late \u2014 coming just days before the Tuesday, March 31 deadline to submit written testimony on the $3.4 billion BMT Vision Plan\u2019s Draft Scope of Work \u2014 and are asking for an extension.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An RFEI is typically used to gauge interest and gather innovative ideas from vendors before a project is fully defined (unlike a Request for Proposals, which invites formal bids).\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"BoroughBorough President Antonio Reynoso holds a hearing about the Brooklyn Marine Terminal Project. Photo: Mary Frost\/Brooklyn Eagle<\/p>\n

In this case, however, EDC issued the RFEI in December 2025 \u2014 after the agency had already gained approval<\/a> in September 2025 for its controversial plan. The approved plan, heavily favored by EDC, includes 6,000 majority market-rate housing units on more than half of the acreage, leaving just 60 acres for maritime uses.<\/p>\n

The vote had been postponed five times amid controversies over the loss of scarce maritime acreage, the lack of a plan to handle already-congested streets, and the potential effects of roughly 18,000 new residents in an area with failing infrastructure in a flood plain, among other issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in September 2025 had dropped his original opposition to the EDC\u2019s plan, however, after the agency agreed to issue the RFEI.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the logic of issuing an RFEI after a full plan was already approved seemed convoluted, \u201cWhat the RFEI is doing is giving us an opportunity to showcase to the city, to EDC and the administration, there are viable alternatives to a 60-acre port,\u201d Reynoso said at the time.<\/p>\n

The responses to the RFEI were meant to allow the maritime ideas to be considered and incorporated into the Vision Plan\u2019s \u201cDraft Scope of Work\u201d<\/a> before it enters environmental review. (A DSOW is used to develop a project\u2019s Environmental Impact Statement.) The responses could theoretically be used to form the basis for alternate uses of the entire BMT site.<\/p>\n

Given that the 25 maritime-centered responses were shared by EDC just this week, and only in cursory form, however, local elected officials say that\u2019s not nearly enough time for the public to examine and evaluate them before the deadline.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Residents and stakeholders have been attending online seminars and nighttime cram sessions \u2014 like one in Carroll Gardens on Nov. 17 attended by 200 people<\/a> \u2014 on how to craft their testimony.\u00a0This last-minute data drop on possible alternatives may require wholesale revisions of their testimony before Tuesday.<\/p>\n

\"TheThe 122-acre Brooklyn Marine Terminal site stretches along the East River from Atlantic Avenue to Red Hook.\u00a0Photo: NYCEDC
\nBrooklyn officials: Extend deadline, convene watchdog groups<\/p>\n

Assemblymembers Jo Anne Simon and Marcela Mitaynes, and Councilmembers Alexia Avil\u00e9s and Shahana Hanif on Monday sent a letter to Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su and the EDC requesting that the city extend the public comment period by 30 days to allow the community time to review the RFEIs, Simon\u2019s office told the Brooklyn Eagle.<\/p>\n

In their letter<\/a>, the officials, who had all served on the EDC\u2019s original BMT Task Force, urged the agency to host two in-person public meetings on the RFEI submissions. The officials said they are \u201cconcerned about a lack of communication\u201d on the submissions, which EDC has had since December.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposals were supposed to inform the basis of possible adjustments to the Draft Scope of Work before the BMT Vision Plan moves into the meat of the environmental review. It was further understood that RFEI submissions might form the basis of additional uses of the BMT site as alternatives to be assessed in the Draft Environmental Review Statement,\u201d the officials wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Apart from EDC sharing \u201ccursory information as to the number and broad categories of the submissions,\u201d no further communication has been shared, officials noted. They pointed to port-centered plans submitted by PortSide New York<\/a> and The City Club\u2019s<\/a> Tom Fox as examples of alternate ideas needing to be fully studied in the environmental review.<\/p>\n

\"CranesCranes at Atlantic Basin within the Brooklyn Marine Terminal site. Photo: Mary Frost\/Brooklyn Eagle
\nAdvisory bodies not meeting<\/p>\n

The approved Vision Plan not only required the issuance of the RFEI, but also included an agreement to form a BMT Development Corporation and BMT Advisory Task Force. These two bodies were meant to \u201cguide and advise the BMT project, ensuring it remained on track, and to inform the local elected officials, government agencies, and the impacted communities about the project\u2019s status,\u201d the elected officials wrote.<\/p>\n

However, the two groups held only \u201cpro-forma\u201d initial set-up meetings, and the second Advisory Task Force meeting, scheduled for January, was skipped altogether. \u201cThere has been little communication provided from the EDC or the consultants about the delayed timelines, upcoming meetings, and next steps,\u201d officials said.<\/p>\n

EDC says, however, that new ideas from the RFEI responses or other sources can still be incorporated into the plan, even past the scoping deadline.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe primary goal of the RFEI was to test the market and hear from port operators, developers, and maritime businesses on what\u2019s possible at Brooklyn Marine Terminal \u2014 and we\u2019re glad to have received strong interest,\u201d an EDC spokesperson told the Eagle on Friday. \u201cThe closure of the public comment period for scoping does not prevent us, or the BMTDC, from reviewing or incorporating new ideas from the RFEI responses or other reasonable alternatives as we move forward. <\/p>\n

\u201cEDC committed to continuing its robust public engagement on this project, and ensuring that the community will have meaningful opportunities to engage throughout the summer and well into the environmental review.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"SchematicSchematic overview of the 122-acre Brooklyn Marine Terminal site. Diagram: NYCEDC
\nEDC presentation sketches broad overview but short on details<\/p>\n

In its presentation<\/a>, EDC representatives said 254 professionals had accessed the RFEI; 220 companies evaluated the opportunity; more than 80 attended an October 2025 information session; and 25 formally responded. Responses came in from domestic and international port operators, developers and maritime industrial businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Among these were port operators Carrix (SSA Marine), Ports America, RHCT and Seaboard Marine, Prologis, RealTerm Transportation and Cintra (Ferrovial SE), plus current tenants, cruise operators and service providers.<\/p>\n

Proposers could decide to use all of the current 122 acres for maritime and industrial purposes, or fit the marine infrastructure within the 60-acre footprint favored by the EDC.<\/p>\n

The majority of the final proposals kept within that 60-acre footprint, and \u201cdensified\u201d the marine infrastructure. They also agreed with EDC\u2019s decision to eliminate the \u201cfinger piers,\u201d which jut out into Buttermilk Channel, and replace them with a \u201cmarginal\u201d pier, which runs along the edge of the waterfront.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While an overview was presented for each proposal, details were not provided.<\/p>\n

\"SlideSlide from the NYCEDC\u2019s presentation on responses to its \u201cRequest for Expressions of Interest\u201d to solicit ideas for how the Brooklyn Marine Terminal could be better used for maritime\/industrial uses. Graphic: NYCEDC<\/p>\n

EDC also listed Fox\u2019s all-maritime proposal in the presentation, though he did not respond to the RFEI. Fox, co-founder of New York Water Taxi, the precursor to NYC Ferry Service, and trustee of The City Club of New York, told the Eagle that it was natural that the majority of responders to the RFEI (with the exception of Prologis) would work within the parameters preset by the BMT Vision Plan as more or less a done deal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fox feels that several of these decisions, such as removing the finger piers and filling in 11 acres of Buttermilk Channel, were driven by real-estate considerations rather than maritime necessities, and said they were likely to face delays by numerous federal and state environmental and regulatory agencies.<\/p>\n

\u201cWharfage around the finger piers is critical\u201d for the city\u2019s maritime needs, he said, while a marginal pier, with room for just \u201cone big container ship,\u201d would change the hydrology of Buttermilk Channel and create a bottleneck. \u201cBut they\u2019re basing their whole plan on filling in Buttermilk Channel.\u201d<\/p>\n

The RFEI should have gone out before the Task Force voted on the BMT Vision plan, Fox concluded. \u201cIf they sent the RFEI out two years ago, it would have informed the entire planning process,\u201d he said. \u201cThey made a decision first, and then they went to the market, instead of going to the market first and getting an idea of what was viable, and planning around that.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"COLUMBIA STREET WATERFRONT DISTRICT \u2014 The New York City Economic Development Corporation on Tuesday and Wednesday presented an…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":177812,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[98,100,5317,99,5319,5324,9,24,9354,5325,63],"class_list":["post-177811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-brooklyn","tag-brooklyn","tag-brooklyn-headlines","tag-brooklyn-marine-terminal-bmt","tag-brooklyn-news","tag-columbia-street-waterfront-district","tag-mary-frost","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-new-york-city-economic-development-corporation-nycedc","tag-no-paywall","tag-nyc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177811\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/177812"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}